Savchenko Case – October 7 (Supplement)

The town of Metallist is not to be confused with the football club Metallist, of Kharkov.

Material about the Savchenko case is getting harder to find, as Russian press (even the kreakl press) seems to be losing interest.

And the material that is out there, is now running one day late.  For example, I found this material today in ROSBALT, but it’s all about yesterday’s (=October 7) session.

The lede in the above story is the questioning of a witness named Dmitry Oslovsky.  Oslovsky is the Separatist militiaman who detained Nadia Savchenko near the town of Metallist, Luhansk Province.

According to Oslovsky, when he encountered Savchenko, she was wearing camo without any badges or defining insignia.  He also said that she was studying a map of the village, which showed militia placements.

Oslovsky [who suddenly, in this paragraph, is renamed to Osmolovsky] testified, that Savchenko told him, she was normally a helicopter pilot but was currently engaged in correcting fire.

Oslovsky was a secret witness.  Journalists were shooed out of the courtroom when he testified.

Oslovsky’s testimony actually corroborates the Defense assertion that Savchenko was captured and brought across the border from Ukraine to Russia.  If the judges believe this version, then they would find her not guilty of the charge of illegally crossing the border.  But that is the least of her problems:  She is also charged with a double murder.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Breaking News, True Crime and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Savchenko Case – October 7 (Supplement)

  1. bolasete says:

    so, has russian press come to mimic us press, as in ‘if it bleeds, it leads’? murder, yay! legalities, change the channel.
    all of everything ties into russian national identity and putin’s goals, and one of the articles i read today called putin an 18th century leader in his approach to int’l relations. not sure what that means except to treat other countries as black boxes, not knowing how they’re constructed, only caring about finding the ol’ modus vivendi. so will he throw donbass under the bus or take over all of that country? he will do what benefits russia. the only thing i can’t see him doing is surrendering. capable of bold, dangerous moves but not because they meet cassad’s wishes.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Ooooo a catty little dig at Cassad – I like that!

      Like

      • bolasete says:

        i think what i really liked about stalin, and putin, and which critics on the left/commie side can’t stand, is that they aren’t/weren’t (bad locution!) hemmed in by ideology. the world is real and ya gotta adapt to circumstances.

        Like

        • yalensis says:

          There is something to say for that.

          Like

          • bolasete says:

            yeah…b*llsh*t

            Like

            • yalensis says:

              But the thing is – EVERYBODY has an ideology, whether they know it or not.
              Even the lack of an ideology is still an ideology, because it means that one simply believes and internalizes what one has been raised to believe.

              I guess the point is, that once a person becomes a political leader, then they need to become more pragmatic and not mistake tactics for strategy.
              For example, Lenin was a highly pragmatic man too, just as much as Stalin. He was no crazy fanatic. He authorized the NEP (=”New Economic Policy”) which he clearly saw as a retreat back towards capitalism; and he made no bones that it was a retreat and went against the core Bolshevik ideology. But he did it as a pragmatic necessity.
              So, that’s the difference, I think: Knowing what you believe in, and what your core values are, and knowing clear-eyed when you are violating them, or crossing a certain line.

              As for Putin, he doesn’t seem to be highly ideological, that’s true. If he has an ideology, it would probably be characterized as pro-capitalist and anti-communist. But he doesn’t shove it in peoples faces, which is why he is a “consensus” type of politician. A uniter, not a divider, I would say. Not unlike Bonaparte, in his time, who was liked by both ex-Jacobins and royalists alike.

              Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s