Wednesday, 3 December

“As unreliable as any eye-witness”. That was the phrase that came to mind when I read the headlines in the press: “Politkovskaya never told her colleagues about the threats she received” (RIA Novosti); “Politkovskaya’s colleagues knew nothing of the threats against her” (Lenta.ru).

The reference is to the testimony I gave in court and so I consider it my duty to clarify matters. As a rule, a witness is replying to questions. I was asked, “Were threats made against Politkovskaya in her last months or days even?” I was also asked whether I had heard anything about such threats. That was the question to which I answered, “No.” But it would be silly to say my colleague did not receive threats : for a certain length of time she was even accompanied by bodyguards because she had been threatened ... Words taken out of context, however, can present the whole situation in a ridiculous light.

The entire discussion in court took the form of questions and answers.

I was asked, for instance, if I had ever seen any of the accused before.

“I’m familiar with their faces, but only thanks to the press,” I replied.

The judge asked me: “Were Politkovskaya’s publications anti-Chechen?”

“No,” I answered.

The attorneys for the Politkovskaya family requested clarification. Did Anna write articles that were critical of Ramzan Kadyrov and the Chechen authorities. To which, of course, I said that Anya had been quite outspoken on the issue in what she published.

Asked about my personal acquaintance with Anna Politkovskaya I replied that I had known her for seven years and we had worked in the same room. Could I describe Anya as a person and as a journalist? I’ve already done that many times. For instance, in the 2007 collection With Good Cause (Za chto). I won’t repeat myself here.

In other words, nothing sensational happened today during my cross-examination.