Приговор при свечах / Judgment in candlelight - Владимир Анатольевич Арсентьев

or their property, and who stated that Yezhov and Kozhin had gone to another town on business and not to hide from Porokhov; the testimony of victim Sukhova regarding the facts of the fire in the house, where she woke up not because of an explosion but hearing a noise and smelling something burning and then started looking for her bag with her pension money at the exact same time when, according to the investigation, a grenade exploded in the living room. What Bednyakov said contradicted her testimony: no dogs were barking in the courtyard, no windows were broken, but the glass popped out because of the pressure caused by the fire that started inside the house. The prior events also did not include any dangerous situations or threats of violence;

– the testimony of many witnesses whose number was expanded at trial, namely:

– Nizhnev’s testimony ruled out the crime motive proposed by the investigation – the disappearance of his car, which was returned by the police;

– Pavlenko and Kabanov denied that Leskov had a connection with Knyazev and Bednyakov, despite them stating otherwise;

– according to the testimony of Blinov, Dudko, and defendant Bragin, the three of them left together after Bragin gave the car to Leskov, which contradicts Knyazev and Bednyakov’s claims that Blinov drove Moiseyev and Sergeyev away from the crime scene;

– Prygunov’s court testimony. During the preliminary investigation, he gave a different testimony, which he retracted in court for the following reason. According to Prygunov, what he told the investigator was a conversation that he had allegedly heard between Perov, Moiseyev, Sergeyev, and Leskov in the latter’s car, while being in a different car himself. When information is obtained in such a way, it can hardly be considered reliable;

– eyewitness Bukin denied the house explosion and the involvement of the defendants except Bednyakov and Knyazev, who smelled like gasoline and left the grenade launcher in the car that subsequently burned down, which Knyazev told Leskov in the presence of Bukin;

– many residents of the houses near the scene reported that the fire had been developing in a different way than recounted by Knyazev and Bednyakov;

– Bazyuk reported that the presumable empty RPG-18 was found in a different place than claimed by Knyazev and Bednyakov;

– Bronevitsky personally said that he had committed the murder of Barinova and Svetlova under the circumstances in the charges against the defendants. His testimony rules out the defendants’ culpability for the events;

– military experts Stasov and Volkov confirmed Bronevitsky’s testimony;

– eyewitnesses Tigun and Yakovleva unequivocally confirmed the facts of the event described by Bronevitsky;

– Nakhimov and many residents of the two taiga villages confirmed Sergeyev’s alibi;

– the witnesses above confirmed Moiseyev’s alibi;

– Knyazev and Bednyakov’s stories are also refuted by the objective evidence assessed in court, specifically Biryuk’s burial certificate. Biryuk’s funeral was the point of departure for the testimony by Bukin, Bednyakov, and Knyazev, as well as operatives Kuks and Utkin. The investigation connected all the following events with the burial. However, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the time period the witnesses were testifying about, because the criminal events attributed to the defendants happened, according to the investigation, before the funeral of Biryuk.

In the absence of prosecutorial assessment of that fact, it was impossible to address the inconsistency in court, as Bukin confirmed at trial that all the events he recounted during pre-trial investigation happened, as he believed, after Biryuk’s funeral and wake;

– operatives Kuks and Utkin told that they met with Porokhov when he was hurrying to a funeral in another town, the town where Biryuk was buried;

– Bednyakov and Knyazev refused to provide any comment at trial;

– the prosecution provided a video recording, received by the prosecuting attorney on the case from the management of the regional operations directorate, as seen from the document accompanying the videotape. The record shows Porokhov pointing out that Yezhov’s house was demolished by someone else, which rules out the involvement of any of the defendants in the event;

– the record of seizure of the empty RPG-18 and Bazyuk’s testimony are mutually exclusive, as Bazyuk’s testimony rules out that the empty RPG-18 or any other object was seized from him, while the record of seizure rules out the veracity of his testimony. Thus, the preliminary investigation could not in good faith establish the origin of the material evidence. The court has no opportunity to address that discrepancy because Bazyuk, the source of evidence, died, so the empty RPG-18 presented to the court cannot serve as the basis for the prosecution’s case;

– the house and car inspection reports showed no traces of gasoline and grenade explosion correspondingly, which contradicts Knyazev and Bednyakov’s claims;

– the forensic medical experts concluded that Barinova and Svetlova sustained deadly injuries and Sukhova sustained injuries from the flames, which contradicts Knyazev and Bednyakov’s claims about a grenade explosion;

– the fire cause assessment experts found no traces of highly flammable or combustible liquids in the house and no traces of grenade explosion, despite Knyazev and Bednyakov stating the opposite;

– the fire cause assessment experts examined a piece of wood from the house and ruled out any traces of shaped charge jet impact associated with the launch of a rocket-propelled grenade, despite Knyazev and Bednyakov stating the opposite;

– the fire cause assessment experts examined the car and ruled out its demolition with the use of gasoline, despite Knyazev and Bednyakov stating the opposite yet confirming Bronevitsky’s statement that the car caught fire because of the grenade launcher flame;

– Bronevitsky recognized the empty RPG-18, which contradicts Knyazev and Bednyakov’s stories;

– the forensic medical report concerning Bronevitsky confirmed his testimony despite the claims by Knyazev and Bednyakov.

In view of all the above, it is impossible to treat Knyazev and Bednyakov’s testimony during the preliminary investigation as undeniable evidence to the events in question.

Furthermore, the testimony obtained from Knyazev and Bednyakov during the pre-trial investigation cannot be used to prove the culpability of the defendants, including Knyazev and Bednyakov themselves. Their