The subject of Aravot online “Face to Face” talk show is discussed by ethnographer Hranush Kharatyan and Parliamentarian Tevan Poghosyan
Aram Abrahamyan – I want you first of all to talk, so to speak, about the official hypothesis that Valerie Permyakov has gone to drink water, he did not get it, and due to some reason opened a fire.
Mrs. Kharatyan – It’s strange, I do not think that it can be called an official hypothesis, I think this was a simple information that was released to build a public mind around it, they should have said something. It’s very primitive, of course, but even we can try making theoretical assumptions from it.
A. – Why has the deputy chief police Hunan Poghosyan voiced this very information?
Read also
Kh. – I cannot say either the thought of the deputy police chief is so simple or the investigators’ thought who were to come up with some hypothesis Everything is so strange: the items left at the crime scene, 21 bullets were released from the automatic, 21 bullets are released on people sleeping only in the event of serious revenge, hatred, internal tension, special outburst and obsession of destroying. I do know whether there was an investigation made or not. How many hours was the armed soldier wandering in the streets of the city? Wasn’t there a defensive system in the city who would pay attention on an armed man wandering in the city early in the morning?
A. – In short, Mrs. Kharatyan is not happy with this explanation. What about you?
Tevan Poghosyan – Indeed, it’s a very primitive hypothesis. It is clear that a reference was made to Permyakov’s words. As far as I know, when committing this type of crime, later they do not come with honestly confession. They knock at the door and ask for water rather than take out the gun and open a fire, moreover, executing everyone. Well, if he killed the one, it was as affected, why he did not drop the gun on the ground and ran away, and decided that he should go inside the house and execute or stab everyone whom he sees there sleeping. So, I think, this hypothesis is a very primitive one, and I am also for the idea that hypotheses should be really many, they must be different, starting from the one that it could be initiated especially by our enemies, which could have its consequences in the atmosphere of fear. It is not successful on the border, let’s try placing a similar problem in any town, however, the main objective is killing of an Armenian. We need to try making a claim to disclose the case not in one day and said, period, this is what happened, he has confessed his guilt and let’s judge, but we should try making a longer investigation in the framework of all possible and impossible hypotheses. What morals are operating in this Russian military base, where people instead of solving their the so-called military task can leave the base by jumping over the walls at 3:00 a.m., moreover, with a gun? The second problem, when the border guards are catching a trespassers, whom do they hand him over?
A. – Should they hand him over to the police?
P. – This is a problem that we must consider in the sense that if he were an Italian, were we supposed to hand him to the Italian Embassy, or if an American – to the American Embassy? And why is was handed to the military base and not to the police of Armenia. Here, a number of questions arise that need to be thoroughly investigated, drawn conclusions, and naturally, all the public and government institutions should learn their lessons of this situation.
Prepared by ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
