We were attacked by hacker attacks

NRK's ​​documentary department announces that they have a viewing right to The Magnitsky Act, and that they should watch and review a TV version of the movie soon. Director of Piraya Film and producer Torstein Grude says that the documentary is in competition at the Tampere International Film Festival in March, and that both the documentary and Piraya Film will be held during the festival. Furthermore, producer Grude says that the film has been awarded "Special Commendation" at Prix Europa in Berlin.

The attack by hackers. Grude, who has filmed parts of it The Magnitsky Act, says that the work on the movie was greatly backed by hacking:

"Our editorial team, in the spring of 2016, was subjected to an advanced hacker attack, which among other things destroyed the raw footage of the Magnitsky film. We had backups at several other locations, and were able to continue working on the editing of the film. At the same time, our main character Bill Browder illegally gained access to the unfinished film, and launched an extensive campaign to discredit us filmmakers and the film itself worldwide, "the principal of Piraya Film says, continuing:

“Among his closest allies in this campaign here in the country is the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. They have lobbied for the film against Norwegian politicians, such as Trine Skei Grande, and have tried to get a meeting between at least one of our
sources of funding, namely Free Word, as well as with Browder. In addition, they have promoted a number of attacks on us and the film on their own website, in the daily press and on social media, ”says Grude. He believes that the movie has, by the way, been buried by Bill Browder and his lawyers, but that they should stand by to get the truth out.

[Ny Tid publishes here on the internet a longer version of the text with a more comprehensive answer by Nekrasov. They are added in English from here. Red TL]

No context. Director Andrei Nekrasov says this about the motivation for making the film:
“The reason for making a movie is often the same – that the filmmaker feels passion for a story, message or theme. What is unusual with The Magnitsky Act, is that the story I passionately believed in, turned out to be largely incorrect. I still believe that greed and corruption are the basis of social, economic and political evils. I also believe that warning is important, although I think Sergei Magnitsky was not a whistleblower.
Again, as with all films, a filmmaker wants his work to be recognized for its qualities. In case of investigative films we want our investigation to be appreciated for its findings and its methods. As our film is not a usual journalistic investigation we also want it to be recognized for its film language and structure. ” writes Nekrasov by email.

He says he does not want politics in the film:
"For me, it is important that the film does not become a political weapon. At the same time, as a responsible citizen, I believe that the lies of Bill Browder, who has formed the basis for laws and resolutions, must be shown.
When I realized that Browder's story was wrong and was thinking that our film would also be about the way media stories create reality (while we expect this to be the other way around), such thoughts seemed rather theoretical. Then the theme of 'fake news' became mainstream ignited by the election of Donald Trump. What it means is that there's less and less criteria for truth, apart from people's political convictions. The process and method of our investigation had nothing to do with politics, indeed it ran against my political convictions, and so the film is particularly important in the era of politicization of truth. "

"I also believe that alerting is important, although I think Sergei Magnitsky was not an alert."

Director Nekrasov emphasizes that there is no connection between Magnitsky's death and that NOK 1,8 billion disappeared:
"The prison conditions and circumstances surrounding Magnitsky's death have nothing to do with the tax fraud that was brought about through Bill Browder's liquidated companies, which is the main theme of my film. Regardless of this, I fully condemn any breach of Magnitsky's rights that may have occurred. I also condemn such violations in other prisons in Russia and elsewhere in the world, "says Nekrasov, and continues:

"We are drawn into the discussion of whether the circumstances surrounding Magnitsky's death are related to the theft, because Bill Browder constructs such a connection. I want to show that this connection does not exist, "writes the director, and elaborates:" Browder's connection is a typical fallacy, of a 'red herring'. It is significant that he has been changing his presentation of the case according to the audience and the amount of information discussed publicly. Before the publication of my film he was saying, for example, that Magnitsky had been tortured every day over the entire 11 months period. He stopped saying such things, apparently, after I discovered, inter alia, the fact that Magnitsky was held in the elite block, with a higher comfort / comfort level for 3 months (Matrosskaya Tishina No. 99/1, where I had kept the oligarch Khodorkovsky). »

"These injuries on the hands and the leg were not dangerous for Magnitsky's health."

Ny Tid refers to post mortem photos submitted by the Helsinki Committee (see photo in another case), which may indicate that Magnitsky was killed:
«I must disagree. The pictures are of the traces of handcuffs and bruised knuckles as a result of Magnitsky's banging on the door (according to Magnitsky's own lawyer, Dmitri Kharitonov, sharply critical of the prison authorities otherwise). A small bruise on a leg, not foot, is not a proven sign of a beating. According to the written report describing these injuries a bruise on the leg dated back days before Magnitsky's death. Important: the detailed post mortem examination (which Browder generally refers to, selectively quotes and does not dispute) clearly states that these injuries on the hands and the leg were not dangerous for Magnitsky's health, and have no causal connection to his death. Please see our film.
Any picture entails and requires interpretation. Your question implies Ny Tid is using Browder's interpretation. Why would you do that? Not only Russian medical analyzes have stated that beating could not be the result of Magnitsky's death. An American medical expert organization, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) came to the same conclusions. Is Browder a medical doctor? Please see in the film how he uses the Russian medical forensic report by falsifying its translation – and also how Browder is hiding the medical statement that no signs of injuries were found on Magnitsky's head / skull.
The mention of head injury is not among the causes of death. The document you are referring to states separately: causes of death, and putative diagnoses, that is Magnitsky's previous conditions. Cranial injury is a diagnosis with a question mark. After a detailed examination it was concluded, I think, that Magnitsky had a fibrosis of soft tissues. I also recall a doctor and / or mother saying that Magnitsky had a head injury a few years before imprisonment. »

And Nekrasov continues:
“I regard Magnitsky as an ordinary citizen and a regular accountant who was so unlucky to die under poor conditions in Russian prison. Every year, about 100 people die in the Matrosskaya Tishina prison, which Magnitsky put in. Is that okay? Of course not. The rest of the allegations are fabricated by a convicted criminal with clear motives to make the conviction of himself and Magnitsky, as well as Russia's Interpol investigation, appear politically motivated. ”

Nekrasov has denied several times before and to Ny Tid that he has received money from Russian sources to make this film.

Did not charge the police officers. Key questions are what was the reason for Magnitsky's death, and who he possibly blamed for what.

In a police interview conducted on June 5, 2008, Magnitsky mentions the names of police investigators Kuznetsov and Karpov over ten times. Magnitsky reiterated in an October 2008 interview that he believed the same people he had named in the previous interrogation could be behind the investigation. Nekrasov holds on to the claim in the film:
"I claim that Magnitsky did not blame police for the theft of $ 1,8 billion. He didn't. At the same time, Browder says he did. This also emerges in the film and it is a lie. This is something I am prepared to go to court with, precisely because the questions of exact meaning and context can be answered, ”Nekrasov writes.

[new here online: 
Ny Tid has had access to a document from 13 October 2009 that Magnitsky wrote in prison in preparation for the trial against him. Among other things, he wrote straight out that he believes Kuznetsov and other police officers are behind the theft of Browder's companies and the embezzlement of NOK 1,8 billion and that Magnitsky believes that Kuznetsov and his allied police officers are behind a fabricated criminal case against him. Magnitsky also wrote this earlier before he was arrested and charged himself, but in a less direct way.
Nekrasov dismisses this document as false accusations from a lawyer who is doing everything to defend himself.
- You believe that there is no evidence that Magnitsky accused the Karpov and Kuznetsov policemen of participating in the investigation and of re-registering the companies. What about what Magnitsky wrote in a prison document in October 2009?
"There is no evidence of Browder's claim that Magnitsky accused the policemen before he was arrested. Magnitsky was arrested in November 2008 and placed in custody for tax evasion. Browder was also investigated for the same. The statement represents the opinions of a suspect under investigation. This suspect has a motive in defending himself. The statement has no evidence and represents no danger to anyone mentioned in the statement. Without evidence in the statement, it would have been rejected anywhere, not just in Russia. There are more than 100 business people in prison in Russia, and perhaps more prisoners in business-related cases. And according to independent sources, 000 percent of these claim they are innocent and are subject to some sort of conspiracy. ”
]

"By claiming that Magnitsky blamed police for theft of $ 1,8 billion, Browder believes, among other things, that Magnitsky did counter-reaction and revenge in the form of arrest, imprisonment and death. There is no coverage for these claims.
At least 3 Russian newspaper articles reported in detail on the theft, presenting, inter alia, Browder's version of the events, well before 7 Oct. 2007. It is up to Browder, and yourself, if you will, to prove that a fractions of a phrase (which is actually about defending Magnitsky's accomplice, according to the police, Mr Khairetdinov) without names of any police officers, and using the word 'probably', can be construed as an accusation leading to a retaliation.

"Try to apply the same standards of proof of guilt to a Norwegian authority ..."

To the allegation that Magnitsky 'mentioned' the police as involved in the theft, Nekrasov replies: "That is not accurate. That fraction says: “… probably the same group of people who used the illegal re-registration of…”. That is not the same as 'mentioned'! Magnitsky had not named Karpov and Kuznetsov as members of any 'group'. He 'named' them during an interrogation on 5 June, along with many other people, including his colleagues. With greatest respect, calling this a 'confirmation', and 'accusation' is not just far-fetched, it is simply not serious.
Try to apply the same standards of proof of guilt to a Norwegian authority – if you read those transcripts and put them into the context of the events it is clear that Magnitsky is clearly dodging investigator's questions and defensively making his way through an examination by shifts. Is this what you honestly call whistleblower? »

"Browder claimed Magnitsky had gone to the police in a proactive move. It is not true. He was summoned. (When I asked Browder that, he suddenly forgot how it was). While describing the scene in his book he forgets Magnitsky was there with his defense lawyer (obvious from the transcript). Why would all whistleblowers go to the press, and the superintelligent Magnitsky who had admittedly been so aware of the police rotten nature, go to the police – to do what? Where's his whistleblower files? Or even mention of them! »

«To accuse with the effect of retaliation means to have evidence. There's not a shred of evidence Magnitsky had one or demonstrated it to the police. Browder on the one hand claims that everyone is corrupt, complicit, including the courts, and at the same time is telling us the police were somehow afraid of Magnitskij's 'revelations'! Which? »

«When your whistleblower is arrested, would you not let the press know? Browder is very good with press releases. When his 'whistleblower' was arrested Browder forgot to mention it to anyone! Because he made up the whole story much later. As I point out in the film. »

"I also wrote a book by the way, first in Russian which came out there, and the plan is to translate it."

See also the main case "The Truth of the One, the Truth and the Truth of the Other"
and the case  «Magnitsky Acts Alternative Facts»

Follow editor Truls Lie on X(twitter) or Telegram