Приговор при свечах / Judgment in candlelight - Владимир Анатольевич Арсентьев

A report of the forensic examination by a team of explosives experts demonstrates that the examined object is an empty RPG-18 single-shot rocket-propelled anti-tank launching device, unserviceable in that condition. The weapon can fire a 64 mm shaped charge grenade. The grenade launcher firing range is 200 meters, and its penetrative capability is 200 mm. A live round was fired from the grenade launcher at hand with smokeless gunpowder as booster charge.

As seen from the record of identification procedure, Bronevitsky was presented with 4 grenade launchers, including RPG-7D1, RPG-7V, and two identical (according to the document) RPG-18 weapons. Note that the expert examination report above established the following identification criteria of the evidence – of the empty RPG-18: product number, date of production, and product code.

The record of identification procedure further states that Bronevitsky identified the grenade launcher number 2—the RPG-18, which, as he claimed, he used to “fire a shot from the car.”

However, the product number and date of production were amended in the record, which change was unexplained.

To clarify this, the court interviewed witness Rogov, the investigator on the case who performed that investigation procedure. Rogov confirmed the results of the identification and explained that no corrections or amendments had been made during the procedure or while the report was in the making. He personally wrote the product number and the production date in the report and did not change them afterwards. He does not know who made the correction.

Witness Bronevitsky told the court in that regard that he identified precisely the grenade launcher he had used to shoot at the house from the back seat of the car, which then had burned down. He had sustained a burn from the flames. All that happened on the night of the fire.

Moreover, Bronevitsky categorically denied, both during the pre-trial investigation and at trial, that the defendants had anything to do with the death of Barinova and Svetlova. It was him who was directly involved in those events. To substantiate his claim, the witness demonstrated to the court the burn marks on his body.

Bronevitsky made it clear at trial that he was sure about the object he identified as evidence to the case. After the procedure was over, the identified grenade launcher was lifted from the table, and he saw a little chalk “X” on the back side. The officers in the room explained that it was the grenade launcher from the scene of the incident.

A forensic medical examination, carried out by a team of experts, showed that Bronevitsky had a bodily injury in the form of a heat burn of the right axillary region and right posterolateral aspect of the chest, totaling up to 6 % of the body’s surface area. That injury was caused by high temperatures (flame and hot gunpowder gases) about two weeks before the examination. It could have been inflicted during the period and under the circumstances specified in the order to conduct the examination, that is, it happened when Bronevitsky was shooting a grenade launcher. The 2 weeks age of the injury is confirmed by a well-formed eschar in the center of the burn wound and distinct granulation tissue on the edges on the burn.

The injury could not have been caused by scalding with hot water – i. e. when Bronevitsky fell on an electric stove with a pot of hot water. This is confirmed by well-pronounced wound contours, burn uniformity, and the degree of the burn – all non-characteristic for a scald wound. No vertical slanting lines, caused by liquid flow and characteristic for scald wounds, were found on the burn surface.

The burn of the right lateral aspect of the chest and the right half of the back could have resulted from the impact of flames and gunpowder gases exhausted during a grenade launcher shot, as the exhaust pipe was located in the man’s right armpit area. In this case the longitudinal axis of the grenade launcher was at a 100 to 180 degree angle to the front of Bronevitsky’s body, depending on the proximity of the object blocking the exhaust (like the back of a car seat).

No contact chemical test for gunshot residue was performed with regard to Bronevitsky’s injury because much time had passed. His wound had been surgically treated with salve dressings, and the clothes he was wearing at the moment of injury were missing.

The wound – the burn of the right armpit, the right lateral aspect of the chest, and the right half of the back – is classified as moderate bodily injury causing an impairment of health exceeding three weeks.

Witness Bronevitsky confirmed at trial the results of the examination above. In a consistent and comprehensive manner, he told the court the circumstances in which he, to his knowledge, sustained the trauma while shooting a grenade launcher at Yezhov’s house from a car. In the course of pre-trial investigation, Bronevitsky claimed the same in each of many interrogations. He had also been held in a detention facility for a long time in connection with the case.

Bronevitsky’s confession that he destroyed Yezhov’s house can be found in the following folios of the second volume of the case file:

– folios 31–34, suspect testimony to investigator of the prosecutor’s office Vlasov;

– folios 36–50, testimony to deputy city prosecutor Nazarova;

– folio 51, testimony to investigator of the prosecutor’s office Rogov;

– folio 55, testimony to the same investigator;

– folios 59–61, testimony to the same investigator in the course of an investigative experiment on the scene.

– folio 61, testimony involving Bronevitsky’s lawyer and including Bronevitsky’s own diagram;

– folios 66–69, where Bronevitsky was charged with Barinova and Svetlova’s murder under Article 105 Section 2 of the CC RF; Bronevitsky’s own diagram can be found on folios 70 and 91.

In all those cases and at trial, Bronevitsky confirmed the results of the above expert examination – the destroyed car caught fire when he shot the