Novgorod case
Discussions began in April 2007 with a post on the (Russian-language) blog of Antonina's husband (her domestic partner at the time), Kirill Martynov (LiveJournal user "hvil").
On March 16, Antonina was visited by a police officer who brought her an official summons to testify as a witness in an inquiry into Alisa's fall.
[6] According to Kirill, Pakin only agreed to take the case on strict non-disclosure terms and intimated he would drop it immediately if it were to attract too much public attention.
[8] On March 22, the MCI officially opened a criminal investigation under Articles 30.3[1] ("Intentional actions (inaction) by the person concerned, directed expressly towards the commission of a crime") and 105.1[1] ("Murder") of CC-RF On March 23, a member of the Public Chamber of Russian Federation, Aleksey Chadayev, filed an official request with the Office of the Novgorod City Public Prosecutor, for the attention of Novgorod City Prosecutor Andrey Yefimov.
In the request, Chadayev demanded that all those case materials not covered by official investigation secretly be delivered to the Public Chamber Committee on Relations with Regions and Police Authorities.
On March 26, the President of the Union of Writers of Russia, Valery Ganichev, wrote a letter to the Governor of the Novgorod Region, Mikhail Prusak.
The same day, Vladimir Baydyuk, another investigator turned lawyer, dropped the case, declaring that Antonina's guilt is, as he sees it, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
On April 18, Antonina was subjected to a complex psychological and psychiatric examination, conducted by psychiatrists and an expert psychologist of the Regional Psychoneurological Clinic of Novgorod.
The MCI motivated his incarceration request by writing that Antonina "is charged with an especially grave crime, is currently unemployed, is constantly in contact with her underage daughter, and is living on the same premises with her, so that she is in position to commit other acts of violence involving her child.
A popular journalist, TV personality and blogger Maxim Kononenko stopped running his political anecdote blog.
[20][21] The defence filed a complaint[22] against Antonina's incarceration at the Novgorod Regional Court under Article 108.11 (right to appeal decisions on selection of measures of restriction) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia.
This broadcast initiated a discussion of the issue "Novgorod is Russia's national preserve for crime"[24] as part of Antonina's defence campaign.
The New Novgorod Newspaper published a page-size article by Aleksey Koryakov which, again, supported in every detail the point of view of the prosecution.
The request demanded to repeal the incarceration decision under Article 110 ("Cancellation or Change of a Measure of Restriction") of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia.
[39] On April 28, a press conference organized by Maxim Kononenko, Aleksey Chadayev and Kirill Martynov took place in Novgorod in text[42] and video form.
[58][59] On May 16, the defence filed a complaint at the Office of the Novgorod City Public Prosecutor, appealing against the decision that forbade Antonina to visit her daughter.
[61] [62] A Novgorod City Court session was scheduled for May 25 to hear a defence complaint against Kolodkin's actions, but it was postponed because of Antonina's absence (health reasons).
[64] On May 31, Antonina received a letter from the office of Novgorod City Public Prosecutor with a decision that repealed the interdict to visit her daughter.
[68][69][70][71][72][73][74] On June 9, the defence filed a request challenging the investigator and demanding an inquiry into his actions, as there were suspicions of constituting a fraud (use of forged documents).
[82][83] Kirill Martynov published a message telling his readers about his intention to file a complaint against the replies at the office of the Prosecutor General of Russia.
The defence believed that the very fact that the investigator calls for a re-examination qualifies as unequivocal evidence that it is impossible to prove that Alisa's fall was an attempt at murder.
On August 3, a Russian State Duma[33] deputy Yevgeny Royzman received a reply[107] from the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia to his inquiry, dated July 7.
[124] On September 6, Yashin released the case to the Office of Novgorod City Public Prosecutor, which then delivered it to the newly created Investigation Committee.
Later Kirill insisted that the case lacks any evidence of the motive[144] and the video of the boy's testimony filmed in May 2007 is significantly different than the drawn statement.
The hearing in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was scheduled on July 30[182] to discuss the motion about the closing of the process for public.
The prosecution's version of events is as follows:[note 1] The pre-investigation revealed that on February 26, 2007, about 9AM, Antonina Fyodorova proceeded to carry out the premeditated murder of her three-year-old daughter Alisa, who was a hindrance to her mother's private life.
Thinking that no witnesses to her actions are present in the stairwell, Antonina proceeded to stage an accidental fall of her daughter from the third-floor landing.
After the initial inquiry into the event, on March 22, 2007, the Office of Novgorod City Public Prosecutor officially opened a criminal case No.
At the time when the family left the hospital, the physicians declared Alisa's injuries to be of medium severity (because of a jaw fracture).
However, the policeman told Antonina that his colleagues found a corpus delicti in her actions and that they firmly believed it was not an accident and that she was going to be prosecuted under Article 105 of CC-RF (that is, for murder).
