Puzzling Info in CNN Interview with Inna Duritska

What a statement by Inna Duritskaya, the mother of Boris Nemtsov’s girlfriend that “Anna proposed taking a cab, but Boris refused. He wanted to walk across the bridge” implies NO MATTER WHAT THEORY ONE BELIEVES IN

March 2, 2015

The statement above is made on at 0:55 in the CNN interview video where the mother narrates what her daughter told her.

As previously covered in depth in “Whose idea was it for Nemtsov to walk across the bridge, anyway?” this statement has three logical outcomes



Logical Possibiities

From all indications so far, no matter if one holds the Putin-Did-It or It-Was-A-Provocation theory or any other, NO ONE DISPUTES IT WAS A PLANNED HIT. 

The logic that follows does not care whether the hit was ordered by Putin, a sympathizer or a provacateur. 

If it was planned (which no one has disputed so far) there must have been constant surveillance and the killers either 

(1) got lucky seeing him walk relatively alone and took a shot (literally);

OR

(2) they KNEW that he was going to walk along the bridge.

Option (1) would require a lot of improvising: the killer appeared from the embankment, shot ONLY Nemtsov and jumped into a car and sped off.  That could not have been spontaneous.  The only possibility is that the killers realizing (1) was happening quickly fell into place within the time Nemtsov left the restaurant.   

Option (2) means either that the killers KNEW Nemtsov would walk (a) either out of habit OR (b) that his companion would suggest / insist that they walk.

Option 2(a) is a possibility.  The killers may have known Nemtsov’s pattern.  That he liked walking down to his apartment with his lady friends versus taking a cab.

Option 2(b) is the interesting one where the killers knew that he would be walking down the bridge because his companion would insist they do.

Implications

As per Inna, Anna denied she was the one who suggested the walk.  So this leaves Option (1) or Option (2a). 

But consider Option (2b) for a minute: and the implication is staggering.  Anna is lying either because she was duped (a patsy) or in the know about someone telling her to ensure Nemtsov who she flew down that evening from Kiev to meet walked down that path.  Indeed one has to ask who suggested the restaurant at GUM.

So Option 2(b) implies that Anna was part of a conspiracy.  It still does not address WHICH conspiracy theory – the Kremlin did it or some other party – but it does put Anna bang in the middle of it. 

Conclusion 

Assuming this was a planned hit, that NO ONE seems to deny, only conclusions from above logic IRRESPECTIVE OR YOUR PET THEORY (PRO/ANTI KREMLIN) are:

Killers shot him alone on the bridge either because

If Anna is telling the truth

1. They got lucky and improvised; 

2. He had a highly predictable routine;

If she is NOT telling the truth

3.  Anna was (with no / partial / full knowledge) part of a conspiracy to kill Nemtsov.

Three then begs the question becomes who could have influenced Anna the most?  Pro-Putin, pro-Kiev/anti-Putin or Business/Islamist/Other forces? 

Stay tuned.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Puzzling Info in CNN Interview with Inna Duritska

  1. Pingback: The Nemtsov Case: West Questions Some Motives and Not Others | ludwitt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s