Nekrasov: "Magnitsky was not an alert"

Ny Tid claims in February that they have discovered documents that allow them to reveal errors in the documentary The Magnitsky Act – Behind the Scenes. Journalist Øystein Windstad conveniently avoids the fact that all the documents they mention are detailed in the film, in addition to many other matters.

The forensic report Windstad cites to substantiate that Sergei Magnitsky was beaten up in jail, clearly states that Magnitsky died of cardiomyopathy, a condition associated with diabetes and hepatitis. Neither my film nor the Russian authorities have ever denied that Magnitsky's wrists had bruises and abrasions, but these were obviously caused by handcuffs.

The other bruises on Magnitsky's hands were on the innermost knuckles – not on the fingers, as Windstad claims. This indicates self-harm, and in the film I show that Magnitsky's lawyer Dmitry Kharitonov shortly after the client's death says that the bruises on the knuckles were the result of Magnitsky knocking on a metal door. Kharitonov was part of Bill Browder's team and was also the lawyer for Magnitsky's mother. He cannot be suspected of twisting facts in favor of the authorities.

The forensic report, which neither Browder nor Windstad doubts, has the following conclusion about the bruises: "These injuries are not considered to have been harmful to health and did not affect the cause of Magnitsky's death."

The Council of Europe's Special Rapporteur on the Magnitsky case Andreas Gross told the camera that Magnitsky was not killed but died as a result of neglect.

Don't mention violence. Windstad uses the term "in direct contrast" when referring to the Russian documents and the film's conclusions. This is obviously wrong, and makes us question Ny Tid's motivation. It is striking that Windstad does not mention the discrepancies between Browder's allegations and the forensic findings of the case.

Wasn't the journalist impressed by Browder's story that Magnitsky was killed in the cell of eight rebel policemen, even when the US forensic report commissioned by Browder states that Magnitsky died as a result of heart failure and did not mention any violence?

Browder claims that Magnitsky was tortured for "358 days," while the fact is – as I pointed out to Windstad – that Magnitsky was put in an "elite bloc" in the Matrosskaya Tishina prison for three months. This is also where the Khodorkovsky magnate was taken captive. As shown in the film, Magnitsky writes that until July 26, 2009, that is, during eight months of detention, he was well treated by the doctors.

I condemn the Russian prison system. However, Magnitsky's prison relationship has no logical connection to the history of the theft, which is central to our filming. This link is a misnomer intended to draw attention away from major inconsistencies in Browder's claims – such as that Browder had no control over its companies, which was used to steal money from the Russian central bank.

Misleading. Windstad mentions "an official report on Magnitsky's arrest and death" from July 2011. But the document the journalist refers to is actually called "a temporary / preliminary conclusion". It is on five pages and is not dated.

Here is one sentence that mentions a "suspicion" of abuse, but without references to forensic evidence. And most importantly: Kirill Kabanov (one of three people behind the report) admitted under oath in American law that all the information he had about the case when the preliminary conclusion was signed came from Browder.

I condemn the Russian prison system. However, Magnitsky's prison relationship has no logical connection to the history of the theft.

My main thesis is that the story of "the Magnitsky whistleblower" was created by Browder several months after Magnitsky's arrest, and almost one year after Magnitsky's alleged alert to the police on June 5, 2008.

Windstad challenges my findings and cites Magnitsky, who claimed that a police officer could have been involved in the scam. Once again, Windstad forgets something crucial: He doesn't put a date on the quote. The reporter's oblivion is strange, and becomes especially striking when he mentions a date in the sentence that follows the dateless quote: "During the police interview on June 5, 2008, he (Magnitsky) explained ...". The reader may think that the timeless quote about the theft of 230 million belongs to the same time period as the interrogation in June 2008. This is clearly misleading.

Browder's report is based on the idea that Magnitsky was arrested and killed as revenge for his warning to police in two meetings, June 5 and October 7, 2008. Magnitsky was arrested November 24, 2008. The quote Windstad forgets to date is from 14 on October 2009, and cannot in any way be interpreted as the reason why Magnitsky was arrested. There is also no other evidence that Magnitsky had accused the police of the theft before his arrest. All this I pointed out in my emails to Windstad.

In the same emails, I suggested that we define the term alerts, in addition to the word anklag to. The Western establishment uses these words in Magnitsky's case to say that he had to make a living with his revelations. Is it okay to skip the fact that there is no evidence of the disclosures that allegedly led to the arrest?

Before Magnitsky was arrested (for tax evasion, unrelated to the theft), the story of the scam and Browder's accusations against police were covered in detail by Russian press: No one was blamed for it, much less arrested.

Browder himself told his story of "corporate theft" in an interview with a Russian radio channel July 29, 2008. Here he said nothing about Magnitsky.

Not paid by Putin. The truth is that Magnitsky has been an accountant for Browder's companies since the 1990s, while being used in connection with the tax fraud. Magnitsky was called in for questioning by the police – he did not go there voluntarily as an alert. He also did not go to the press or others with information, as an alert could do. On October 14, 2009, almost a year after he was arrested, Magnitsky defends himself by blaming others. He provides no evidence. Does this make him an alert?

In Ny Tid's "grave case", a story is created about Browder's accusations against me, where he claims that I was paid by Putin or Putin's friends to make the film. This helps to plant a fictitious motive: that I have been sentenced to pay 700 kroner to an American foundation. This is a blatant lie. I was not asked about this in connection with the interview, and Ny Tid's editor has since said that they only had one source for this: Browder's assistant.

New Age articles are a shameful blackmail campaign that seeks to ruin my reputation and my career. This may mean little to anyone but my closest ones. But even if they repeat Browder's old lies, the articles direct a new attack on our film, with Browder's simple goal of keeping it away from a larger audience. In my opinion, it should bother far more than just my loved ones.