For your attention, the opening speech of October 8, 2020, given by prosecutor Tishin M.V. in the jury trial on the charges of Antonenko, Dugar, Kuzmenko in the murder of Pavel Sheremet. With elements of the presentation in full quality.
Written version of the speech (PDF) . It has significant differences from the audio version.
See also on our Youtube channel
Video version of Prosecutor Tishin’s speech
//www.youtube.com/embed/TH7jNfSxv0I?rel=0&hl=uk&cc_lang_pref=uk&cc_load_policy=1” frameborder=
Opening speech of Antonenko’s defense. Parts 1-3.
//www.youtube.com/embed/ogaoMD2AdaE?rel=0&hl=uk&cc_lang_pref=uk&cc_load_policy=1” frameborder=
Opening speech of Antonenko’s defense. Part 4-5.
//www.youtube.com/embed/ovxR-NmE57w?rel=0&hl=uk&cc_lang_pref=uk&cc_load_policy=1” frameborder=
We note that in both the written and the voiced version of the prosecutor, almost every slide and every sentence contains either completely false or manipulative information aimed at deceiving the court. However, we provide comments separately:
Click on the text to go to the section, on the disc 💿 to watch the video of the corresponding section from the courtroom.
To enlarge any image, simply click on it. All videos containing sound have Russian and English subtitles.
- Description of the crime scene 💿
- Investigative experiment 💿
- lies about the components of MON-50 💿
- lie that the explosive device is a MON-50 💿
- The experimental hole in the car is MON-50 💿
- lie about “used hexogen” 💿
- Komsomol report on Sisyphus’ labor 💿
- Watched videos 💿
- Hiding “evidence” 💿
- Evidence of guilt 💿
- Antonenko’s conversation with his brother-in-law 💿
- hole in mini MON-50 💿
- about Antonenko and Kuzmenko’s phones 💿
- about the connection between Kuzmenko and Antonenko 💿
- VKontakte login Antonenko 04.01.2020 💿
- about the photo with Inna Grishchenko and her case 💿
- communication about the murder of Oleg Kunytsky 💿
- demonstration of conversations by Yu. Kuzmenko 💿
- manipulation about geotag💿
- Characteristics of the accused💿
1. Description of the crime event💿
On July 20, 2016 at 7:44 a.m. in Kyiv, at the intersection of Ivan Franko and Bohdan Khmelnytskyi streets, a Subaru XV car driven by the famous journalist Pavlo Sheremet was blown up.
This is just a short video of the event.
//www.youtube.com/embed/YO7TXAkKxMw?rel=0&hl=uk&cc_lang_pref=uk&cc_load_policy=1” frameborder=
After the explosion of the car in which the famous journalist Pavlo Sheremet was traveling, the latter was still alive for approximately 20 (twenty) minutes, but unfortunately, he died from his injuries.
Subsequently, numerous inspections of the scene were carried out,
from which the remains of the explosion were removed, but what exactly was contained in them and in the fire debris was not yet known at that time. As established, the epicenter of the explosion was under the bottom in the area of the driver’s seat of the car.
Federal Bureau of Investigation research💿
Due to the public outcry, experts from the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the US Department of Justice arrived in Ukraine,
who conducted an even more thorough inspection of the scene and the car in which Sheremet was blown up. The car, or rather its remains after the explosion and fire, were disassembled at the car stands of the official Subaru representative in Ukraine.
To screen out parts of the blown-up car from foreign objects, Subaru technicians disassembled a similar car. Thus, foreign specialists discovered the remains of a metallic spherical object, which was later identified as a neodymium magnet. Chemical samples were sent by FBI employees to the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, USA.
Later, during the trial, numerous protocols of inspections of the scene of the incident will be attached, where these very remains, these things and objects that you now see on the slides were removed.
Immediately after inspecting the scene, the investigative team ordered a number of comprehensive examinations. The investigation was interested not only in who and how the explosives were planted, but also in the type and type of charge used during the crime.
2. Investigative experiment 💿
Please open the evidence base and the “Investigative Experiment” tab.
Thus, during the said examinations, some items seized at the scene were identified. They turned out to be parts of a MON-50 anti-personnel mine.
lies about the components of MON-50 💿
Right now we are seeing an image on a slide of some of these remains left from the said mine.
These were impressive elements such as rollers, a threaded bushing for the ignition socket, a plastic plug, and an electric detonator nipple.
lie that the explosive device is a MON-50 💿
We see a schematic image of the MON-50 mine with its main characteristics, which was placed under Pavel Sheremet’s car.
A comprehensive explosives examination was ordered to identify the explosive device.
During the said examination, an investigative experiment was conducted, during which two cars were blown up. For this purpose, cobblestones were removed directly from the crime scene, and MON-50 anti-personnel mines were also used.
The experimental hole in the car is MON-50 💿
Right now, the screen shows the car in which Pavel Sheremet died, as well as the car that was used in the investigative experiment. And you can see that right under the driver’s seat there are identical holes from the explosion of a MON-50 mine (this is Pavel Sheremet’s car, and this is the car that was used in the investigative experiment). They are identical, and it was established that this is exactly the kind of improvised explosive device that was used in the murder of the famous journalist.
the lie about “used hexogen” 💿
In addition, experts, based on the results of research, including an investigative experiment in field conditions, calculated the amount of hexogen used, which in TNT equivalent was 478.4 g. The standard MON-50 mine has 700 grams of plastic substance, i.e. half of the specified mine was used.
3. Komsomol report on Sisyphus’ labor 💿
Later, law enforcement officers worked out the crime scene. And in order to facilitate the work and effectively work out the neighborhood where the explosion occurred and where Pavlo Sheremet lived, for a more thorough search, the territory was divided into 33 squares. They included approximately 500 residential buildings, which is about 5,000 apartments, which were worked out by the investigative and operational group.
The operational services fixed the existing video cameras, the video from which was reserved from overwriting and in parallel collected video from over 300 surveillance cameras. A group of police officers was created, which almost around the clock reviewed the video, which was removed during the work. A number of investigative actions were carried out to separate individuals from those who permanently reside in the specified neighborhood.
More than 720 court permits have been obtained to seize information from mobile operators, 42,500 subscriber numbers, 15,300 IMEIs, and monitoring.
Відпрацьовувались служби таксі, автомобілі яких прибували до вказаного мікрорайону у кількості понад 250 таксистів та їх пасажирів.
Groups of radicalized individuals, individuals with skills in handling explosive devices, and employees of volunteer battalions were checked.
The versions and motives of the crime were not left out of consideration. More than 295 reviews and studies of publications and broadcast topics, the victim’s personal diaries, his e-mails and correspondence over the last three years were carried out. The victim’s personality was studied, including his articles, which are mostly analytical in nature to support reforms in the state, were worked out.
The staff of the Internet publishing house “Ukrainska Pravda”, LLC “Novi-Media” were questioned about the known circumstances of the crime and possible motives for the murder of Sheremet, and the news agency Channel 17, which was the first to begin live reporting from the scene of the murder.
In addition, 95 comprehensive examinations were conducted in the criminal proceedings, during which the victim’s and the accused’s data carriers, the car and fire debris, elements of the MON-50 and magnets, and videos from the scene were examined.
More than 50 searches were conducted, during which video materials were seized and suspects were processed, regarding whom there was operational information about their involvement in the commission of the specified crime.
Now I suggest you watch the video you watched.
4. Videos watched 💿
//www.youtube.com/embed/K0kNl4Qykpo?rel=0&hl=uk&cc_lang_pref=uk&cc_load_policy=1” frameborder=
Since then, the identification and separation of individuals who came into the field of view of police officers while watching the video has also begun.
“with a suspicious gait” 💿
During the inspections, a woman was discovered who, on July 15 and 18, 2016, walked suspiciously near the victim’s car and recorded the video surveillance cameras on her phone.
We are currently watching one of these videos. This video will now clearly show how the camera takes pictures…
hostage video demonstration💿
Also, 2 people were recorded – a man and a woman, who at night at 02:41 on 20.07.2016 pass by a Subaru car, now it will be seen in the video how a woman, having approached the car and crouching, puts something under it. Right now in the right corner of the screen you can see how an explosive device is being placed under Pavel Sheremet’s car. Later, the two specified persons continue their movement. Their movement was traced by a working group of law enforcement agencies.
about the logo on the back and Antonenko’s clothes 💿
The video shows a man wearing distinctive clothing with a print on the back, with a corresponding pattern. Looking ahead, when we examine the search reports, similar sweatshirts with a corresponding print, with a corresponding pattern, were also found on the accused Antonenko.
It is appropriate to point out that crimes of this category are not obvious and their commission requires very careful preparation. During the pre-trial investigation, not only evidence of involvement, but also evidence of the defendants’ non-involvement was examined.
Please open the results of the examinations.
identification of perpetrators as accused 💿
Thus, according to the results of a commission expert study by expert psychologists of the Kyiv Research Institute of Forensic Examinations with the involvement of international specialist Ivan Birch, conclusions were drawn that the explosive device planters recorded at the scene of the murder of Pavlo Sheremet… the video we saw earlier was identified as Yulia Kuzmenko and Andriy Antonenko, respectively.
Similarly, experts from the Kyiv Research Institute of Forensic Expertise, psychologists, and photo technicians identified the spy as Yana Dugar.
Please open the “Hiding Evidence” tab.
5. Hiding “evidence” 💿
On December 12, 2019, Antonenko, Kuzmenko, and Dugar were first notified of suspicion of committing the incriminated crime and searches were initiated, during which the defendants began to hide material evidence.
How and what did Antonenko hide 💿
In particular, the accused Antonenko, upon learning about the search and realizing that he could be exposed by law enforcement agencies in committing the murder of Pavlo Sheremet, hid the body of a MON-50 mine, which he kept at home, as well as the mobile phone through which he contacted his wife’s brother.
Here on the slide, if there is a possibility to enlarge the correspondence… this correspondence is exactly what is being discussed… Antonenko writes that it is necessary to hide the green thing that he has at home, namely the decapitated MON-50 mine. The specified materials were recorded during the conduct of covert investigative (search) actions and in the future the corresponding protocol will be attached to the court for its examination.
It is also indicated, as I have already said, on the account of the mobile phone from which Antonenko called and tried to hide material evidence in the criminal proceedings, he also gave the specified phone to one of his defense attorneys and at the moment they have not been identified.
In addition, Yana Duhar, in turn, hid seven mobile phones that she had previously used, books on sappers, as well as a bag with a sapper’s kit, which she kept in the apartment she rented.
There is now a text of the conversation between Yana Dugar…
Yana Dugar. A conversation about a sapper bag 💿
//www.youtube.com/embed/ldfENcrgo3E?rel=0&hl=uk&cc_lang_pref=uk&cc_load_policy=1” frameborder=
You just listened to…
Demonstration of a sapper bag from a Russian website💿
This is just the general appearance of a miner’s bag. We have just listened to an audio recording of the results of secret investigative (search) actions.
IPhone6 Yu.Kuzmenko💿
Yulia Kuzmenko also hid the password to the mobile terminal she used in 2016 – the Apple iPhone-6, which was seized from her home, reporting that it was malfunctioning, and later indicating the incorrect password.
In addition to the above-mentioned expert opinions and materials, the guilt of the accused is also proven by other evidence collected during the pre-trial investigation, which will necessarily be provided by the prosecution during the subsequent trial.
6. Evidence of guilt 💿
I ask you to open the part of them called “evidence of guilt”. The tab “protocol based on the results of the investigation”… .
These are precisely the materials of the secret investigative and search operations that I have already reported on regarding the concealment… attempts to conceal material evidence… This correspondence… is a mine… a mine casing, a sanitized MON-50 mine casing, similar to the one that was planted under Pavel Sheremet’s car. This is precisely the SMS message…
Antonenko’s conversation with his brother-in-law 💿
//www.youtube.com/embed/4Z6TRJFIl7I?rel=0&hl=uk&cc_lang_pref=uk&cc_load_policy=1” frameborder=
This telephone conversation took place after the text message, because, according to the pre-trial investigation body, the prosecution did not respond to the correspondence, so a phone call was made and the conversation was about the MON-50 mine, which the accused Antonenko asked to hide in the text messages.
hole in mini MON-50 💿
Expert explanations.
Yes. According to the experts’ explanation of the depleted MON-50 mine that Antonenko tried to hide (it is precisely in this that it is indicated above), the hole in the mine body that Antonenko hid was not provided for by the design and was probably made for an emergency means of detonating part of the MON-50. When Pavel Sheremet was blown up, half of the MON-50 charge was also used. That is, similarly to the mine under Pavel Sheremet’s car.
about Antonenko and Kuzmenko’s phones 💿
Overview of telephone connections. Open the overview of connections…
Also, during the analysis and monitoring of telephone traffic, it was found that his telephone number during the period from 9:00 PM on July 19 to 10:00 AM on July 20 (this is exactly the night… well, the night when the explosive device was planted and the explosion of Pavlo Sheremet’s car occurred in the morning on July 20) was fixed at his place of residence and was inactive, which is not typical for the accused Antonenko.
Similarly, in the period from 20:16 on July 19 to 9:19 on July 20, the mobile phone used by Kuzmenko was similarly not active, which is also uncharacteristic for her.
about the connection between Kuzmenko and Antonenko 💿
Analysis of common connections. The question was repeatedly raised at the stage of the pre-trial investigation… Kuzmenko-Antonenko please… that Kuzmenko and Antonenko were not acquaintances, rarely communicated, but during the pre-trial investigation it was established otherwise.
Now you are shown the number of telephone connections, Internet connections, correspondence in messengers, and on Facebook for 2016.
This is also an analysis of connections, according to which it was established that Antonenko and Kuzmenko were simultaneously in the area of base stations operating within the same territory 29 times between March 14, 2016 and October 30, 2016, that is, they were next to each other. They were together…
Also, traffic analysis, analysis of other materials, established Antonenko’s connection with a close acquaintance of Kuzmenko, surnamed Kiyan . We also see the number of their connections both via the Internet and via SMS messages and calls.
This is also schematically demonstrated, later a more detailed inspection protocol will be provided, in which all this will be reflected: the number of connections, dates, times, meeting places…
It is precisely shown schematically on the map, also that in the period from July 26, 2016 to July 22, 2016, at the very moment of the crime, ten times simultaneously they were in the area of base stations and within the same territory.
It was also recorded through analysis of telephone connections that between July 19, 2016 and July 20, 2016, Kiyan was recorded near the area where Sheremet resided.
VKontakte login Antonenko 04.01.2020 💿
Yes. Review of social media pages.
Review of Andriy Antonenko’s social media pages… according to the interrogation protocol, Antonenko has not used the social network VKontakte since 2014. However, on January 4, 2020, an entry to the specified social network was recorded, which indicates that while in custody he made attempts, even remotely, to hide some information that could be necessary and have evidentiary value in court.
about the photo with Inna Grishchenko and her case💿
We also see photos from social networks about Antonenko’s connection with the accused in another criminal proceeding, Hryshchenko. We are providing the specified files to the court and the participants in the process for more characterizing data on the accused Antonenko and his connection with other defendants in other criminal proceedings, as well as the fact that the same improvised explosive device was used in the commission of the criminal offense in which Hryshchenko is currently accused, as in the murder of Sheremet.
communication about the murder of Oleg Kunytsky 💿
This is also the correspondence between Kuzmenko and Antonenko. I also ask you to pay attention to one of the details: “let’s go tomorrow, there’s no point in discussing this here.” That is, they are acting covertly, secretly, understanding that the specified correspondence can be read by law enforcement agencies during secret investigative (search) actions, and recorded in accordance with the requirements of the law.
Also the presence of joint photos of Kuzmenko, Antonenko and Kiyan in the relevant period of the year. Also during the pre-trial investigation it was established that on 07/20/2016 at 9:22 in the messenger … on Facebook, on the social network Facebook Kuzmenko on the page Kuzminchuk Anna left a publication with … you see it is written. And then a few minutes later Kuzmenko in the browser … in the Google browser made a search query with the following parameters “Sheremet Pavel Grigorievich”.
demonstration of conversations by Yu. Kuzmenko 💿
//www.youtube.com/embed/ukSnpj3Whjg?rel=0&hl=uk&cc_lang_pref=uk&cc_load_policy=1” frameborder=
We have just listened to part of the telephone conversation between Kuzmenko and Mazurchak Vasilysa Nikolaevna, and it is clear from their conversation that another crime may be being prepared against the persons mentioned on the indicated slide. Can I press pause? Also… the next slide is a conversation between Kuzmenko and Ulyanov Volodymyr. Now you will hear what exactly is being discussed – also regarding the possible commission of a certain crime.
//www.youtube.com/embed/3DycRoxZ70Q?rel=0&hl=uk&cc_lang_pref=uk&cc_load_policy=1” frameborder=
Well, I think everyone has heard, in principle, no additional comments are needed here… Next…
manipulation about geotag💿
During the pre-trial investigation, it was also established that a geotag was preserved on Kuzmenko’s phone, which confirms the fact of her presence on July 19, 2016 at 3:56:33 near Leo Tolstoy Square in Kyiv, which is a few blocks from Sheremet’s house and of course contradicts her testimony given during the pre-trial investigation that she was at home that night.
These are joint photos of Antonenko, Kiyan, and Kuzmenko, which refutes the fact that the latter had previously known each other and were on fairly friendly terms. As he said.
This is also an SMS correspondence between Kuzmenko and Antonenko, a more detailed review protocol will be provided later, this simply confirms once again that they know each other and communicated quite often.
7. Characteristics of the accused 💿
Well, we will be left with the characteristics of the accused in the presentation.
procedural behavior – “they refused” 💿
As for the characterization, I can say that during the pre-trial investigation, the accused Antonenko has so far refused to conduct an investigative experiment with his participation, and has refused to undergo a forensic psychological examination using a polygraph.
In turn, Kuzmenko refused to undergo a forensic psychological examination using a polygraph, and also refused to be questioned simultaneously with Antonenko. Dugar, in turn, at the stage of the pre-trial investigation refused to provide handwriting samples for handwriting examination, refused to undergo a forensic psychological examination using a polygraph. She refused to undergo a forensic psychiatric examination, and refused to have her height measured.
I also want to draw the attention of the court and the participants in the process to this, since in the future, the defense may provide relevant documents, including the conclusions of the expert examinations. Therefore, I want to draw your attention to the fact that at the stage of the pre-trial investigation, for some reason, the accused refused to conduct certain investigative actions and participate in certain expert examinations.
again about the Hryshchenkos – lies about a connection to another crime 💿
This is regarding the characterizing… connection of the accused with the Hryshchenko family, who are currently accused of the attempted murder of citizen Chekurak in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, where similar improvised explosive devices were used, as well as magnets with which the said explosive device was attached to the bottom of the car.
This is precisely the way in which an improvised explosive device is attached, similar to the attempt to murder citizen Chekurak.
These are also common ties between the individuals involved in the attempted murder of Chekurak, their connection, including Hryshchenko Vladyslav.
This is exactly the accused Antonenko, captured in the photo with Hryshchenko Inna, Hryshchenko’s wife, as we have already seen. We see Kuzmenko and Dugar at the court hearing, when they were choosing a preventive measure for Hryshchenko. Also, a close acquaintance of Kuzmenko Kiyan arrived in the city of Ivano-Frankivsk, took away the vehicle… and later handed over the keys to it to the accused in our proceedings, Yana Dugar.
insinuations with Antonenko’s beard, fake date 💿
As for Antonenko’s beard, on the left side is the accused Antonenko – his photo during… different periods of the year… And we see that he also has a different shaped beard, just like the person who was captured on the video we watched, as one of the minelayers.
how Yana Dugar was a self-employed person💿
As for the characterizing data of the accused Dugar Yana… during the pre-trial investigation it was established that the latter repeatedly left the place of service without the permission of the command… This is precisely a telephone conversation about something that can be misleading…
Yana Dugar’s funny conversation “The Internet is over”💿
//www.youtube.com/embed/v0smA0ngSek?rel=0&hl=uk&cc_lang_pref=uk&cc_load_policy=1” frameborder=
If you listen to this audio file, I believe that it is necessary to be critical of the defendant’s testimony in the future and to carefully examine all the circumstances if she continues to speak, taking into account what we have just heard.
insinuations signed by Yana Dugar and “intelligence books”💿
Also here on the slide are the medical histories of some patients in the military hospital where Yana Dugar served. Appropriate examinations were also conducted and it was established that the records made by Yana Dugar were not made in July, but later – in November 2016. Also confirmed was the fact that Dugar is capable of misleading and the fact that she said that at the time of the crime she was in the hospital, which is also confirmed by several witnesses for the defense. However, about 50 servicemen who were interrogated at that time in the city of Pokrovsk in the hospital, refuted all the testimony of the accused Dugar.
This is a sample of intelligence books.
In principle, to put it briefly… in general, there is much more material at the disposal of the prosecution, they will be prepared and will later be provided to the court for research.
Also, taking into account the volume of evidence collected, as well as the position of the prosecution regarding its non-admission to the crimes with which it is charged, the prosecution proposes to examine all materials that were collected at the stages of the pre-trial investigation, and in the following order:
Start with the study of written evidence, namely documents and annexes to them, continue with the study of physical evidence. Further, study the written evidence of the defense, which was disclosed in accordance with Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine to the prosecution at the stage of pre-trial investigation, then interrogate the prosecution witnesses, the list of which will be provided additionally in the form of a corresponding motion, interrogate the experts and specialists who participated and conducted expert studies in criminal proceedings, since we have a lot of questions around the examinations conducted in criminal proceedings, interrogate the witnesses of the defense if there are relevant motions, further interrogate the accused and end with the interrogation of the victims. I believe that this procedure for studying the evidence will be sufficient to establish the truth in criminal proceedings and make an appropriate lawful and reasoned decision.
That’s all for me. I also request the attachment of the written text of the opening speech together with the disk on which this presentation, which we have just reviewed, is recorded. The list of witnesses is indicated in the register of pre-trial investigation materials, however, in my opinion, there is no need to call all the witnesses indicated in the register of pre-trial investigation materials before the start of the court session, the prosecution has prepared a motion, and measures will also be taken to ensure a certain number of witnesses at the relevant court sessions, in order not to delay the trial and consider it within a reasonable time. I also request the attachment of a motion indicating the witnesses and their addresses.