Sensation at court: Who had organized blast in metro?

A victim of the Minsk metro blast stated he has serious doubts about Kanavalau and Kavalyou’s culpability.

Andrei Tyshkevich, a person injured in Minsk metro blast, who takes part in the pleadings in court in the terrorism case as an aggrieved party, has stated that the trial had planted serious doubts in his mind about Dzmitry Kanavalau and Uladzislau Kavalyou’s guilt, Interfax- Zapad reports.

“I do not want to be a soldier in an undeclared war. I was at the mass festivity on July 3 (in Minsk, Independence Day – 2008), I was in the metro on April 11. I do not want to test my guardian angel for the third time. I do not have hundred-percent certainty that those who had committed these atrocities are on the dock. When I came to the first session of the court, I had assurance that those who had committed the crime are on the dock, and now I do not have such confidence,” A. Tyshkevich said.

He stressed that “he was in the explosion epicenter”, and the contradictory conclusions of experts generate doubts. “The opinion of FSB (Federal Security Service of Russia) experts it is said that the yield of explosion was so strong that caused barotraumas at a distance of 35 metres.

But there were no signs of explosion on the accused. Moreover, a guy was sitting on a bench and he survived. However, the explosive yield was 12.5 kg in TNT equivalent. What kind of explosion was it?” the victim of the crime asked the court, underlining that many of his questions had not been answered.

“As a person who found himself on the rail track after the blast, I was greatly interested what was going on at the station after the blast. If it were not for my physical abilities, my knowledge of a designing engineer, there would have been 16 fatal causalities, as the train arrived in 30-40 seconds. Why had it arrived? Who had ordered that?” A. Tyshkevich asked.

“I do not understand in which way the investogators detected the flat where Kanavalau and Kavalyou stayed. Pachytskaya (Pochitskaya), the key witness, states that no one left the flat on April 12. How had they found the flat?” the person affected continued, noting that he had not received answers to those questions during the trial.

His speech was greeted with applause, and the presiding judge put out of court one of the trial participants for that.