Blowing Up Russia (39 page)
Authors: Alexander Litvinenko
Tags: #History, #Europe, #Russia & the Former Soviet Union, #Political Science, #General, #Intelligence & Espionage, #Terrorism, #World, #Russian & Former Soviet Union, #Social Science, #Violence in Society, #True Crime, #Espionage, #Murder
Yushenkov: Thank you. Leonid Mikhailovich Batkin.
Batkin: Hello. Here is my question.
Gochiyaev s testimony is very specific and in this respect it inspires trust, seems sincere.
Except for one point, which is, moreover, a crucial point in my view, and which greatly puzzled me. I quote: A certain man came to my firm, whom I ve known very well ever since my school years& and so on. This certain man instructed Gochiyaev to rent the spaces in the buildings that were blown up or that were later indicated by Gochiyaev as the sites of possible future bombings. Gochiyaev himself asserts that he knows this man very well - since his school years. This whole story is connected specifically to him, and he appears as the actual organizer (on the middle level, as you put it) of the bombings in Moscow. But why is he not named? Why is nothing concrete said about him? Who is he? Why is he always a certain man, although he is the crux of the problem? What does Gochiyaev have to hide? And why didn t you ask him this question?
Litvinenko: I understand your question. First, I d like to correct you slightly. This person didn t instruct Gochiyaev to rent the spaces, but suggested that he do so. In other words, Gochiyaev was not taking orders from him.
214
215
Second, Gochiyaev indicates certain facts about this person. He indicates that he s been acquainted with him since school. In other words, this person is a countryman of his. But for this reason, he doesn t give his name.
We asked the intermediary this question: Why doesn t Gochiyaev give this person s name? The intermediary pointed to his final statement: This is a brief description of everything that happened, we will talk about [& ] later. I understood this to mean that this was the first installment of Gochiyaev s testimony. Gochiyaev doesn t know us, he doesn t completely trust us. After his sister was tortured, after orders were issued not to take him alive, he s naturally afraid to name this important witness.
But I will tell you as an agent why I think he s afraid to give the name& We asked the intermediary, the intermediary says: he s afraid to give the name. I believe that Gochiyaev is being foolish in this respect, but I can t force him, can I?
Even with the information we have, it s not difficult to find this person. Question the people who worked with Gochiyaev at his firm during this period. Identify all of his countrymen who approached him and whom he supplied with mineral water. In other words, it s not a problem.
And if we take the phone call records - these phone calls can be used to find this person, who, as it says here, called him on the 9th at five in the morning. You see, yes? It looks like Gochiyaev isn t giving us his name, looks like he s trying to protect the witness, but by doing so he has completely exposed him to us. Any agent will tell you that. To identify this person and to track him down - well, I ll tell you, for a good operative it s a two- or three-day job.
Yushenkov: Yuri Vladimirovich Samodurov. And then - Gennadiy Zhavoronkov.
Samodurov: Alexander, Gochiyaev s declaration, which you sent us, contains the following sentence: Now I am almost convinced that this man, with whom I worked, is an agent of the FSB. I will provide all the information about him later. These are Gochiyaev s words. If Gochiyaev gets in touch with you, can you ask him to provide the Public Commission with information about this man? He himself can decide how he wants to present this information - publicly or privately.
Litvinenko: I will try to get it contact with Gochiyaev, after our [your?] meeting, and to ask him a series of question. Why didn t I do so this before this meeting? I wanted Gochiyaev to become convinced personally, through the media, that we didn t hide his declaration, didn t stamp it confidential, as this is done by certain individuals in the Russian Federation, didn t start using this declaration behind the scenes, didn t sell it to someone. Because there are people who are trying to buy and sell this information - you understand, right? There are many different kinds of crooks. I want Gochiyaev to see that our investigation took place in the open. And I still hope that& Even right here on this TV bridge - I think that he will see this - I would turn to him and tell him that all the materials he sends us will be given to your Commission. Publicly and openly.
215
216
Understand me correctly. I m not trying to accuse or acquit Gochiyaev himself. I can t confirm that Gochiyaev is innocent. I can only say one thing: that this declaration was sent by Gochiyaev, that it contains statements that deserve the most serious attention, and that they must be carefully and objectively examined and publicized.
I will do what you ask and, if we have further contact with Gochiyaev, I will ask him to name this person who, in his opinion, is an FSB agent. But I think that Trepashkin and other lawyers& If the law enforcement agencies provide complete and objective replies to all their inquiries and don t interfere with them, they can find this person sooner, establish his identity sooner, than Gochiyaev himself will tell us about him.
In other words, there s the question of whether the law enforcement agencies will or won t interfere with us. Will they or won t they exert pressure on the witnesses. That s the question.
And here I d like to put a little question before the Commission. A question that is extremely serious and extremely important.
We have direct proof of the FSB s involvement in the bombing of the building in Ryazan. (That was no training exercise, it was the bombing of a building, and we have direct proof of this. I just don t want to say much about it now, because I think that we ll present this proof at our next meeting.) I would like the Commission to present the Director of the FSB Patrushev with an official request to declassify the Ryazan file and to make it available for our next meeting. So we can objectively and openly check the materials that are in this file, and compare them with the materials that we possess.
That s my question.
Zhavoronkov: Alexander, what makes you so convinced - what is your conviction based on - that Gochiyaev s messenger is not an FSB agent? The Cheka has played all sorts of games in the past. It s not for me to tell you about the case of Savinkov, who was lured to Russia and then thrown down a stairwell.
Litvinenko: I haven t said anything anywhere about the messenger being or not being an FSB agent. I haven t said anything about this anywhere. I m just saying one thing: We received a written handwritten document that says that it was written by Gochiyaev, and we received photographs of him. Whatever I could check in London, I checked. I consulted experts, the experts concluded that the photographs were in fact photographs of Gochiyaev. In other words, the official website has a picture of him in the Wanted section. In other words, this is that man. But the rest - verifying Gochiyaev s handwriting - is up to the lawyers, who are in Moscow.
And as for this messenger, I can t characterize him in any way. You see what I mean, yes? If this is, let s suppose, a plot by the FSB, some special operation& Listen, but why would the FSB need all this? I mean, if this comes out, then it will just confirm once again that the FSB, instead of trying to establish the truth, is, excuse me, wasting the
216
217
taxpayers means and resources in order to keep up some kind of petty intrigue around me, which they ve been doing now for the past five years. This is what we re talking about.
Tkachenko: Alexander, hello. This is Alexander Tkachenko. My question to you is this.
You said that Gochiyaev personally warned about possible future bombings in Kapotnya and on Borisovskie Prudy, yes? Do you think that there are records, police records, EMS records, showing that it was really he who gave the warning?
Litvinenko: First of all, you have to establish the unit that came out to Borisovskie Prudy, to establish the head of this unit, and to establish the origin of the signal. But if they start talking about agents, secrets - at this late stage, that kind of thing no longer works.
Next. If I were a director and an officer conducting a search for a criminal responsible for terrorist attacks, what are the first measures I would take? I would send an official request to the Ministry of Internal Affairs - to all of those agencies, emergency services - - requesting that they save the tapes for that day and for that whole period in general, put them in envelopes, and hand them over to the investigation. And I d study all these documents, these records, very meticulously. I d identify the people making these phone calls, and I d question all these people as witnesses. Not just on this day, not just on the 13th, but during the whole time when this situation was going on, all of September. If the law enforcement agencies haven t done this, then we have to find out why they haven t done this: either this is lack of professionalism, or it s deliberate. And if they have done this, then I think they will give you these tape recordings.
In addition, if, let s suppose, Gochiyaev isn t on these tapes, then you have to look at the mobile phone - was there a call made from the mobile phone? And this is also an important question. It can be checked.
Yushenkov: The members of the Commission, I believe, have no further questions? Or do you have one, Leonid Mikhailovich?
Batkin: Yes, I have one more question of a completely different nature. The FSB s statement mentions certain Wahhabis. I must say, in general, that this whole new FSB account completely contradicts their assertions about a Chechen trail, which, in spite of the complete lack of evidence, carried a certain weight for two-and-a-half years. Now we re forced to talk about a Dagestani trail. That means we must explain the motives and circumstances which could have somehow compelled people from Dagestan to decide to blow up buildings in Moscow. Apart from the mention of Khattab (the Arab trail, so to speak) on the basis of a false photograph, no evidence exists. But where are these Wahhabis? The city where Gochiyaev was born - Karachayevsk - are there Wahhabis there now? Were there any then? Who was their leader? Can we find out anything about this group, which the bombers in Moscow supposedly came from?
217
218
And one last thing. Going back to this mysterious certain man, I want to say, to warn, that I personally don t believe that he ll be found. Because this is a central figure. If Gochiyaev told the truth, and we have certain grounds for believing that he did, then this man must either be safely hidden, isolated - or else he is dead, or else he is long gone.
Because he s the connecting link between all the threads in this picture (if, I repeat, Gochiyaev has told the truth). And it s impossible to refute what Gochiyaev said, because there s certainly a great many documents and facts connected with his firm and his business. He can t lie about that.
Litvinenko: In answer to your question, I want to say the following. Concerning the motive. I wouldn t want to be accused again of& Unfortunately& I sometimes give interviews, try to explain something, and there are cases when, for instance, some phrase is taken out of context and given a completely different meaning from what was said.
Therefore, I now want to give a [relatively simple] explanation. Concerning the motive.
I m not defending anyone. We re being told that Khattab placed an order with Gochiyaev, and that Khattab s motive was revenge for their defeat in Dagestan. (This was a declaration made by Lieutenant General Mironov, director of the operational investigation agency which conducts searches, a department in the FSB.) In other words, the motive is the defeat in Dagestan. That s it, completely straightforward.
Now let s take a closer look. If a person has a motive& Let s take person X. If person X has a motive to commit a crime as revenge for being defeated somewhere, and if he was defeated in August, then he will plan this crime only after August. Right? First he was defeated, then he had a motive, and then he starts planning it. But if person X was defeated at the end of August, on August 26 - from the 7th to the 26th of August is when they defeated him - then he can t start planning his crime in July. You see how absurd that is?
Premeditated crimes cannot be without a motive. A crime can t be planned before a motive exists. Any lawyer will tell you that - go ahead and ask them, you have respected lawyers there, and they will explain to you that a crime cannot be planned before there is a motive. Everyone understands this. You have to establish the motive. If we re accusing a person of committing a crime, the first thing we must do is to establish a motive: why did he do it? And only then do we start sorting out what he did in order to realize his intentions.
About the Wahhabis. I m not a specialist in the Koran, in Islam. I didn t serve in the units that deal with fighting dissent, political parties, various religious movements. I served in a unit that dealt with fighting terrorism and organized crime. By the way, my last position was director of a sub-unit that searched for people who were on the international wanted list. So I can t answer this question in detail. But if you re interested, I can study the documents connected with Wahhabism, and at our next meeting I can give you more& Or to invite specialists who understand what Wahhabism is as a religion, what this religion is, what it s founded on, and what motivates the people who join one or another religious group, and these people will inform us.
218
219
Moskalenko: Hello. I have a question - or rather a recommendation. It s possible (you assume that it s possible) that Gochiyaev will want to collaborate with the Commission.
In that case, I would like to provide him with our recommendations - if, of course, he can hear us now.
One of our colleagues has just now told us that it s impossible to refute Gochiyaev s statements. For the moment, I d like to say that it s just as impossible to refute them as it is to corroborate them. If he has any, I would call them, permanent traces - in other words, facts that cannot be erased and are easy to identify, easy to establish - he must tell us about these facts, and we ll be able to check them, up to a point. That is the recommendation I would make.
Otherwise, we will study your documents, materials, and probably the members of the Commission will have other questions for you.
Litvinenko: Fine, I will certainly convey your request. But I d like to say that the materials that Gochiyaev sent contain his address, his place of residence at the time, his autobiographical data, which can be checked. Also, people who saw him at different times can be questioned. The same location is where, according to the official account, he went through preparations in terrorist camps of some kind in Chechen territory. By looking at the times, you can determine where and how long he stayed.
Batkin: Hello. Here is my question.
Gochiyaev s testimony is very specific and in this respect it inspires trust, seems sincere.
Except for one point, which is, moreover, a crucial point in my view, and which greatly puzzled me. I quote: A certain man came to my firm, whom I ve known very well ever since my school years& and so on. This certain man instructed Gochiyaev to rent the spaces in the buildings that were blown up or that were later indicated by Gochiyaev as the sites of possible future bombings. Gochiyaev himself asserts that he knows this man very well - since his school years. This whole story is connected specifically to him, and he appears as the actual organizer (on the middle level, as you put it) of the bombings in Moscow. But why is he not named? Why is nothing concrete said about him? Who is he? Why is he always a certain man, although he is the crux of the problem? What does Gochiyaev have to hide? And why didn t you ask him this question?
Litvinenko: I understand your question. First, I d like to correct you slightly. This person didn t instruct Gochiyaev to rent the spaces, but suggested that he do so. In other words, Gochiyaev was not taking orders from him.
214
215
Second, Gochiyaev indicates certain facts about this person. He indicates that he s been acquainted with him since school. In other words, this person is a countryman of his. But for this reason, he doesn t give his name.
We asked the intermediary this question: Why doesn t Gochiyaev give this person s name? The intermediary pointed to his final statement: This is a brief description of everything that happened, we will talk about [& ] later. I understood this to mean that this was the first installment of Gochiyaev s testimony. Gochiyaev doesn t know us, he doesn t completely trust us. After his sister was tortured, after orders were issued not to take him alive, he s naturally afraid to name this important witness.
But I will tell you as an agent why I think he s afraid to give the name& We asked the intermediary, the intermediary says: he s afraid to give the name. I believe that Gochiyaev is being foolish in this respect, but I can t force him, can I?
Even with the information we have, it s not difficult to find this person. Question the people who worked with Gochiyaev at his firm during this period. Identify all of his countrymen who approached him and whom he supplied with mineral water. In other words, it s not a problem.
And if we take the phone call records - these phone calls can be used to find this person, who, as it says here, called him on the 9th at five in the morning. You see, yes? It looks like Gochiyaev isn t giving us his name, looks like he s trying to protect the witness, but by doing so he has completely exposed him to us. Any agent will tell you that. To identify this person and to track him down - well, I ll tell you, for a good operative it s a two- or three-day job.
Yushenkov: Yuri Vladimirovich Samodurov. And then - Gennadiy Zhavoronkov.
Samodurov: Alexander, Gochiyaev s declaration, which you sent us, contains the following sentence: Now I am almost convinced that this man, with whom I worked, is an agent of the FSB. I will provide all the information about him later. These are Gochiyaev s words. If Gochiyaev gets in touch with you, can you ask him to provide the Public Commission with information about this man? He himself can decide how he wants to present this information - publicly or privately.
Litvinenko: I will try to get it contact with Gochiyaev, after our [your?] meeting, and to ask him a series of question. Why didn t I do so this before this meeting? I wanted Gochiyaev to become convinced personally, through the media, that we didn t hide his declaration, didn t stamp it confidential, as this is done by certain individuals in the Russian Federation, didn t start using this declaration behind the scenes, didn t sell it to someone. Because there are people who are trying to buy and sell this information - you understand, right? There are many different kinds of crooks. I want Gochiyaev to see that our investigation took place in the open. And I still hope that& Even right here on this TV bridge - I think that he will see this - I would turn to him and tell him that all the materials he sends us will be given to your Commission. Publicly and openly.
215
216
Understand me correctly. I m not trying to accuse or acquit Gochiyaev himself. I can t confirm that Gochiyaev is innocent. I can only say one thing: that this declaration was sent by Gochiyaev, that it contains statements that deserve the most serious attention, and that they must be carefully and objectively examined and publicized.
I will do what you ask and, if we have further contact with Gochiyaev, I will ask him to name this person who, in his opinion, is an FSB agent. But I think that Trepashkin and other lawyers& If the law enforcement agencies provide complete and objective replies to all their inquiries and don t interfere with them, they can find this person sooner, establish his identity sooner, than Gochiyaev himself will tell us about him.
In other words, there s the question of whether the law enforcement agencies will or won t interfere with us. Will they or won t they exert pressure on the witnesses. That s the question.
And here I d like to put a little question before the Commission. A question that is extremely serious and extremely important.
We have direct proof of the FSB s involvement in the bombing of the building in Ryazan. (That was no training exercise, it was the bombing of a building, and we have direct proof of this. I just don t want to say much about it now, because I think that we ll present this proof at our next meeting.) I would like the Commission to present the Director of the FSB Patrushev with an official request to declassify the Ryazan file and to make it available for our next meeting. So we can objectively and openly check the materials that are in this file, and compare them with the materials that we possess.
That s my question.
Zhavoronkov: Alexander, what makes you so convinced - what is your conviction based on - that Gochiyaev s messenger is not an FSB agent? The Cheka has played all sorts of games in the past. It s not for me to tell you about the case of Savinkov, who was lured to Russia and then thrown down a stairwell.
Litvinenko: I haven t said anything anywhere about the messenger being or not being an FSB agent. I haven t said anything about this anywhere. I m just saying one thing: We received a written handwritten document that says that it was written by Gochiyaev, and we received photographs of him. Whatever I could check in London, I checked. I consulted experts, the experts concluded that the photographs were in fact photographs of Gochiyaev. In other words, the official website has a picture of him in the Wanted section. In other words, this is that man. But the rest - verifying Gochiyaev s handwriting - is up to the lawyers, who are in Moscow.
And as for this messenger, I can t characterize him in any way. You see what I mean, yes? If this is, let s suppose, a plot by the FSB, some special operation& Listen, but why would the FSB need all this? I mean, if this comes out, then it will just confirm once again that the FSB, instead of trying to establish the truth, is, excuse me, wasting the
216
217
taxpayers means and resources in order to keep up some kind of petty intrigue around me, which they ve been doing now for the past five years. This is what we re talking about.
Tkachenko: Alexander, hello. This is Alexander Tkachenko. My question to you is this.
You said that Gochiyaev personally warned about possible future bombings in Kapotnya and on Borisovskie Prudy, yes? Do you think that there are records, police records, EMS records, showing that it was really he who gave the warning?
Litvinenko: First of all, you have to establish the unit that came out to Borisovskie Prudy, to establish the head of this unit, and to establish the origin of the signal. But if they start talking about agents, secrets - at this late stage, that kind of thing no longer works.
Next. If I were a director and an officer conducting a search for a criminal responsible for terrorist attacks, what are the first measures I would take? I would send an official request to the Ministry of Internal Affairs - to all of those agencies, emergency services - - requesting that they save the tapes for that day and for that whole period in general, put them in envelopes, and hand them over to the investigation. And I d study all these documents, these records, very meticulously. I d identify the people making these phone calls, and I d question all these people as witnesses. Not just on this day, not just on the 13th, but during the whole time when this situation was going on, all of September. If the law enforcement agencies haven t done this, then we have to find out why they haven t done this: either this is lack of professionalism, or it s deliberate. And if they have done this, then I think they will give you these tape recordings.
In addition, if, let s suppose, Gochiyaev isn t on these tapes, then you have to look at the mobile phone - was there a call made from the mobile phone? And this is also an important question. It can be checked.
Yushenkov: The members of the Commission, I believe, have no further questions? Or do you have one, Leonid Mikhailovich?
Batkin: Yes, I have one more question of a completely different nature. The FSB s statement mentions certain Wahhabis. I must say, in general, that this whole new FSB account completely contradicts their assertions about a Chechen trail, which, in spite of the complete lack of evidence, carried a certain weight for two-and-a-half years. Now we re forced to talk about a Dagestani trail. That means we must explain the motives and circumstances which could have somehow compelled people from Dagestan to decide to blow up buildings in Moscow. Apart from the mention of Khattab (the Arab trail, so to speak) on the basis of a false photograph, no evidence exists. But where are these Wahhabis? The city where Gochiyaev was born - Karachayevsk - are there Wahhabis there now? Were there any then? Who was their leader? Can we find out anything about this group, which the bombers in Moscow supposedly came from?
217
218
And one last thing. Going back to this mysterious certain man, I want to say, to warn, that I personally don t believe that he ll be found. Because this is a central figure. If Gochiyaev told the truth, and we have certain grounds for believing that he did, then this man must either be safely hidden, isolated - or else he is dead, or else he is long gone.
Because he s the connecting link between all the threads in this picture (if, I repeat, Gochiyaev has told the truth). And it s impossible to refute what Gochiyaev said, because there s certainly a great many documents and facts connected with his firm and his business. He can t lie about that.
Litvinenko: In answer to your question, I want to say the following. Concerning the motive. I wouldn t want to be accused again of& Unfortunately& I sometimes give interviews, try to explain something, and there are cases when, for instance, some phrase is taken out of context and given a completely different meaning from what was said.
Therefore, I now want to give a [relatively simple] explanation. Concerning the motive.
I m not defending anyone. We re being told that Khattab placed an order with Gochiyaev, and that Khattab s motive was revenge for their defeat in Dagestan. (This was a declaration made by Lieutenant General Mironov, director of the operational investigation agency which conducts searches, a department in the FSB.) In other words, the motive is the defeat in Dagestan. That s it, completely straightforward.
Now let s take a closer look. If a person has a motive& Let s take person X. If person X has a motive to commit a crime as revenge for being defeated somewhere, and if he was defeated in August, then he will plan this crime only after August. Right? First he was defeated, then he had a motive, and then he starts planning it. But if person X was defeated at the end of August, on August 26 - from the 7th to the 26th of August is when they defeated him - then he can t start planning his crime in July. You see how absurd that is?
Premeditated crimes cannot be without a motive. A crime can t be planned before a motive exists. Any lawyer will tell you that - go ahead and ask them, you have respected lawyers there, and they will explain to you that a crime cannot be planned before there is a motive. Everyone understands this. You have to establish the motive. If we re accusing a person of committing a crime, the first thing we must do is to establish a motive: why did he do it? And only then do we start sorting out what he did in order to realize his intentions.
About the Wahhabis. I m not a specialist in the Koran, in Islam. I didn t serve in the units that deal with fighting dissent, political parties, various religious movements. I served in a unit that dealt with fighting terrorism and organized crime. By the way, my last position was director of a sub-unit that searched for people who were on the international wanted list. So I can t answer this question in detail. But if you re interested, I can study the documents connected with Wahhabism, and at our next meeting I can give you more& Or to invite specialists who understand what Wahhabism is as a religion, what this religion is, what it s founded on, and what motivates the people who join one or another religious group, and these people will inform us.
218
219
Moskalenko: Hello. I have a question - or rather a recommendation. It s possible (you assume that it s possible) that Gochiyaev will want to collaborate with the Commission.
In that case, I would like to provide him with our recommendations - if, of course, he can hear us now.
One of our colleagues has just now told us that it s impossible to refute Gochiyaev s statements. For the moment, I d like to say that it s just as impossible to refute them as it is to corroborate them. If he has any, I would call them, permanent traces - in other words, facts that cannot be erased and are easy to identify, easy to establish - he must tell us about these facts, and we ll be able to check them, up to a point. That is the recommendation I would make.
Otherwise, we will study your documents, materials, and probably the members of the Commission will have other questions for you.
Litvinenko: Fine, I will certainly convey your request. But I d like to say that the materials that Gochiyaev sent contain his address, his place of residence at the time, his autobiographical data, which can be checked. Also, people who saw him at different times can be questioned. The same location is where, according to the official account, he went through preparations in terrorist camps of some kind in Chechen territory. By looking at the times, you can determine where and how long he stayed.
Other books
The House We Grew Up In by Lisa Jewell
The Nassau Secret (The Lang Reilly Series Book 8) by Gregg Loomis
Southern Charm by Stuart Jaffe
The Darkest Hour by Erin Hunter
Reflected Pleasures by Linda Conrad
The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate by James Rosen
A Change of Heart by Frederick, Nancy
Bonereapers by Jeanne Matthews
City of the Lost by Will Adams