Антоний Александрович Рейнеке-Григорьев (antonio_rg) wrote,
Антоний Александрович Рейнеке-Григорьев
antonio_rg

Митр.Валентин признал свой приговор?

С Парадосиса:
METROPOLITAN VALENTINE’S CONVICTION FOR PAEDOPHILIA



Several months ago, when Vertograd announced that Metropolitan Valentine’s conviction for paedophilia, upheld by the appeal court, had supposedly been quashed, I expressed my extreme scepticism on Paradosis – a scepticism reinforced by the large number of times that Vertograd has openly lied in defence of Metropolitan Valentine. However, it is only now that I have been able to see the opinion of a Russian lawyer – a lawyer, moreover, who was one of Valentine’s defence team – that confirms, from a position much closer to the actual events, and from a much deeper knowledge of Russian judicial procedure than I possess, my original scepticism. In my view there can now be no doubt that Valentine was guilty as charged, and that Vertograd’s defence of him was simply a lie.



The lawyer said:-



The information on the rehabilitation of Metropolitan Valentine distributed by Portal and Kredo.ru is a lie, which I told Soldatov immediately after it appeared in print. In actual fact Metropolitan Valentine was not acquitted, but on, the contrary confessed his guilt.



Let us look at what happened in order.



1. A guilty verdict was pronounced on Metropolitan Valentine. He was condemned, and although, because of the condition of his health, he was not sent to prison, he had to serve his punishment in his place of residence, with no right of leaving it (he signed that he would not leave).



2. This sentence has never been revoked.



3. A verdict of not-guilty has never been pronounced.



4. Not one of the appeals which Metropolitan Valentine made to the higher judicial instances has ever been upheld after their examination.



5. A long time after the guilty sentence had been pronounced, Metropolitan Valentine, not having received the satisfaction of his request that the guilty verdict be revoked and a not-guilty verdict pronounced, petitioned that his previous conviction be expunged (“o sniatii sudimosti”).



In jurisprudence there exists a principle according to which, if the accused recognizes his guilt and repents of it, his punishment can be softened. And so those who admit the verdict, and repent from the heart, and are distinguished by good behaviour, are released from prison (or from a punishment which the condemned serve in their place of residence) before time. And so if a condemned person petitions for a shortening of his term of punishment according to the sentence and that his previous conviction be expunged (“sniatii sudimosti”) (and does not insist on a review of the sentence) he thereby recognizes his conviction. In reply to this petition it is possible to display a reciprocal good relationship towards him – the conviction can be expunged, and the punishment shortened. The “expunging of a conviction” means only that if the formerly condemned person relapses again, he will be condemned “from a clean sheet”. The shortening of the term of punishment that took place in the case of Metropolitan Valentine allowed him to go abroad, which was forbidden him during the term of punishment (they did not give him a foreign passport).



Much more could be said about this case. However, I shall confine myself to a comment made by Priest Dmitri Kaplun (ROCOR) on May 26, 2003 on http://www.livejournal.com/users/hgr/319900.html, in reply to a glorification of Metropolitan Valentine uttered by Hieromonk Gregory (Lourie):



“I do not believe that you are being sincere in this question. You know everything about Metropolitan Valentine and cover him only because the validity both of your priesthood and of your activity as a clergyman depends on him.



“You cannot fail to know that for Rusantsov [the surname of Metropolitan Valentine] this is already the third proceedings linked with sexual perversions. One was incited in the 70s (in Makhachkale [Dagestan] in 1973), the other in the 80s (in Vladimir in 1988, the proceedings were conducted by the UVD investigator Tsarkov). Both were closed on the insistence of the KGB.



“Moreover, there were more than enough other witnesses. I, for one, was told much by Hieromonk Theodosius from Vladivostok, who once lived in Suzdal – now he is in the “Lazarite” jurisdiction.”



Vladimir Moss
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments