We present the full transcript, video, and brief fact check of the speech of Prosecutor Zuzak S.O. during the 1st extension of the preventive measure in the form of detention of Andriy Antonenko (Case 757/4849/20-k, investigative judge of the Pechersk District Court Pisanets V.A.).
The material is provided with the aim of further documenting human rights violations and false reports in court by the prosecution and prosecuting the guilty parties.
A brief comment on the facts
The suspicion reported to Antonenko is substantiated, in particular, by the report of the inspection of the scene of the incident dated July 20, 2016 — this is an inspection of the place where the car was blown up, an additional inspection of the scene dated July 24, 2016, where damage to the car was discovered, the report of the interrogation of the victim Prytula, the report of the examination of the corpse in the morgue of the Kyiv Clinical Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination, the expert’s conclusion No. 2017 dated August 10, 2016, according to which Sheremet’s death occurred from an explosive injury, multiple shrapnel wounds, etc.
This is a standard manipulative tactic of the prosecution, designed to create the impression of a large amount of evidence. The materials listed above prove only the very fact of the crime and in no way relate to Mr. Antonenko and in no way confirm the validity of the suspicions brought against him.
Experts have established that during the manufacture of the explosive device that blew up Pavel Sheremet, elements of the MON-50 mine were used.
This is also a manipulation designed to mislead the consumer of information, as it does not say which elements come from the mine, nor does it mention the fact that the mine model is only an expert assumption.
For example, the EDP electric detonator (and its waterproof modification EDP-r) is not an element of a mine, it is a separate industrial product that is used both in military explosive devices of various types and in civil explosives. MON-50 can be detonated not only by a detonator of this type, but also, for example, by an MD-5M fuse or a fuse for UZRGM hand grenades.
Only one element was found that probably came from an industrially manufactured mine – this is a metal threaded sleeve of the ignition socket for screwing in a detonator or a unified fuse (see picture). But the same sleeves are used to screw in detonators in other devices, in particular the MON-90. The MON-50 mine is simply more common and probably the only one familiar to the experts who made the conclusion.
Striking elements (shrapnel) in the form of rollers come from waste bearings and can be taken from both MON-50, MON-90 or OZM-72 mines and from ordinary bearings or sawn from a metal rod. There is no evidence that the shrapnel in the VP that killed Pavel Sheremet was manufactured industrially.
During the search, Antonenko, with the help of his wife’s brother, hid the casing of a decontaminated MON-50 mine, which is not a prohibited item (since it does not contain explosives).
It is not true that this happened during the search. It was before it began, so Mr. Antonenko’s actions are not illegal.
Although the MON-50 case was seized from Antonenko’s neighbors illegally (without a ruling from the investigating judge) and is improper evidence, the suspect, during interrogation on December 28, 2019, recognized this artifact as his and told everything about it. The case was presented as a souvenir in a sanitized state in the presence of witnesses, who later confirmed this, which suggests that it has no connection to the murder. Therefore, there was no place for evidence to be concealed.
In the body of Antonenko’s mine, both fuse socket bushings and all the shrapnel are in place and in full condition!
Antonenko previously repeatedly posted images of this item on Facebook (11/21/2019, 11/20/2019, 11/18/2019, 08/23/2019, 01/10/2017).
Typical, albeit perhaps short-sighted, behavior of a person who has been falsely accused of a serious crime is an attempt to avoid further distortion of evidence by investigators. It is possible that the police officers used a typical operational technique: knowing about Antonenko’s possession of a mine case on Facebook, they deliberately provoked such behavior, giving him freedom of communication before the search and freedom of movement to his brother-in-law, Ruslan Yermochenko. How else to explain such “recklessness” of the searchers?
According to the experts’ conclusion, Pavel Sheremet’s car was also blown up using a hexane-based explosive.
This is not true. There is no evidence that the explosive hexogen (RDX) or the plastic explosive PVV-5A (the Soviet version of C-4 based on hexogen, which is used in anti-personnel mines) was used to commit the crime. At the site of the explosion of Pavel Sheremet’s car, diphenylamine, characteristic of gunpowder (or dynamite), was found everywhere, and microscopic particles of hexogen were found only on the fragment of the EDP-r detonator, where they should be, because the detonators are equipped with one gram of hexogen.
Mr. Antonenko was identified by two different examinations — a psychological examination of non-verbal behavior conducted by experts from the KNDISE, and a forensic analysis of his gait by the international expert “Ivan Birch”
About psychological expertise — this is not true. There was no psychological expertise of nonverbal behavior. There was an extremely crude average comparison of gait, which was carried out by employees of the KNDISE, having neither the methods, nor the talent, nor scientific works in this field. Since they are psychologists, in order to legalize their research, they called gait “nonverbal behavior”. With such success, they could, for example, referee football matches — the behavior of players on the field is also mainly nonverbal.
All the scientific sources listed in the conclusion of the KNIISE employees, which they noted in the conclusion, are not related to the identification of individuals by walk, but there are references to the Russian textbook on disinformation, the works of the DPR prosecutor’s office employee Sednev, including those made jointly with the head of the expert commission, Mr. Irkhin.
The conclusions of the forensic analysis of Ivan (not Ivan) Birch’s gait were extremely cautious, with many caveats, including a direct reference to a court manual stating that there is no evidence that gait is unique; there is no reliable database; there are no published and verified error rates; there are no published black-box studies of the reliability and repeatability of the analyses; and there is no standardized methodology for analyzing, comparing, and reporting gait characteristics.
“Ivan Birch” was engaged legally, in accordance with Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expertise”
This is not true. According to Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expertise”, the right to include Birch in the expert commission belongs exclusively to the director of the KNIDSE. Payment to foreign experts for participation in the forensic examination and reimbursement of other expenses related to its conduct is made by agreement of the parties. However, the online public procurement system does not contain any mention of the contract concluded between the KNIDSE and Birch for the provision of services for participation in the forensic examination and compensation for the corresponding expenses. Regarding the payment of these expenses to Birch, the KNIDSE replied to the defense that it was a secret. At the same time, the expert opinion directly states that Ivan Birch was not involved in the KNIDSE, but by a certain Maksym Rybachuk. This is probably Maksym Rybachuk, Colonel, Head of the International Wanted Persons Department of the Department of International Police Cooperation of the National Police of Ukraine.
Maksym Rybachuk, who has no procedural status in the case, instead of the head of the KNIISE, even before the appointment of the expert examination, personally provided Birch with all the files and even gave instructions on how to conduct the examination, which is directly recorded in the expert opinion. The video files provided to Birch, as well as the instructions given to him, are absent from the materials of the proceedings.
It was established that Mr. Antonenko has been in a relationship with Yulia Kuzmenko since 2016. Previously, he had hidden this.
Manipulation. “Maintaining a relationship” can be done in different ways. Until 21.07.2016, Mr. Antonenko and Ms. Kuzmenko were acquainted only virtually. They met on Facebook by chance, through an announcement about a traffic accident on 29.01.2016, and actively communicated on various topics, mainly after a real acquaintance, when Yulia attended Andriy’s concert with her son.
About “hiding” – this is a 100% lie. During his first and last interrogation on 12/28/2019, Mr. Antonenko spoke about their “Facebook” acquaintance and subsequent relationship on a volunteer basis, about the first meeting at a concert on 07/21/2016
Mr. Antonenko and Ms. Kuzmenko exchanged 89 messages on Facebook Messenger before the day of the tragedy.
Yes, to be precise — 87 messages from Antonenko’s two accounts. The text of all the messages easily fits on two pages of A4 paper.
Mr. Antonenko and Ms. Kuzmenko were discussing on Facebook some murder that they were going to cover up.
Yes, they discussed it. In fact, on July 2, 2017, they discussed on Facebook Messenger the high-profile detention of officers of the 8th Special Forces Regiment, who were suspected of inflicting serious bodily injuries on June 30, 2014, which caused the death of Oleg Kunytsky.
About “hiding” is a lie, because Yulia suggested that Andriy delete the post in defense of the suspected serviceman, whom she considered guilty. By the way, he has not been convicted yet.
Mr. Antonenko crossed the state border 6 (six) times from 2016 to 2020, so he may flee.
This is a lie, even if we forget that the possibility of escape does not depend on the number of border crossings and the availability of visas and passports, that the ECHR considers such logic to be erroneous, and that 6 border crossings in both directions is not that many. The thing is that there were not 6 crossings, but 2 (two!) — to Moldova and back, and the prosecution supported this with documentation.
Although it was probably an unintentional mistake due to confusion, prosecutor Zuzak stubbornly insisted at the trial on six intersections, showing a certificate for two (and that the greater number was not established).
Also, an unambiguous post by Antonenko was found on Facebook stating that he lives in Prague, which indicates his intention to change his place of residence.
This is a lie. An informational post on Facebook about living in Prague in 1995 can only indicate living in Prague in 1995, and not any intentions.
Apparently, the police are using Facebook in the language of the occupier, which displays the entry as: “Now lives in Prague.” The Ukrainian version displays as “1995. Moved to the city of Prague, Czech Republic.”
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F100000480609760%2Fposts%2F734690349890312%2F&width=500
It was established that Mr. Antonenko has acquaintances, including with persons who have previously been convicted, namely with the Hryshchenko couple. In particular, the investigation revealed a joint photo of Mr. Antonenko and Mrs. Hryshchenko.
Manipulation. It is not specified whose Facebook account the photo was found on and with what text.
Mr. Antonenko is not familiar with any of the Hryshchenkos.
Of Vlad and Inna Hryshchenko, only Vlad, whom Mr. Antonenko has never seen, has a criminal record.
As for Inna Hryshchenko, she was the one taking a picture with Mr. Antonenko during a concert in the hospital, not him with her. And this is her page, not Antonenko’s, where the joint photo is posted. They are not even virtual friends. The caption to the photo shows that these people have not met before.
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpermalink.php%3Fstory_fbid%3D2330753883714168%26id%3D100003387387787&width=500
The Hryshchenko couple is suspected of attempting to kill the businessman using a similar explosive device that blew up Pavel Sheremet’s car.
This is a lie. Apart from the type of attachment (on neodymium magnets), it cannot be claimed that there is anything in common between these explosive devices. One is sheathed, the other is sheathless, in one the type of detonation is remote, in the other it is via a rope, the explosives are probably also different.
And, by the way, a small detail – the now deceased (of natural causes) Mr. Chekurak was not a simple businessman, but a local criminal authority. This does not in any way prove in favor of the suspects, but mentioning the unfortunate “businessman” in the context of accusations against (presumably) innocent persons does not do the prosecution any favors.
The difference in the shape of Antonenko’s beard with the person in the video is explained by the fact that Antonenko at other times wore a “Spanish” beard, similar in shape to the attacker’s beard. This breaks the defense’s position .
This is a manipulation designed for an inattentive audience. It doesn’t matter what shape Antonenko’s beard was, say in 2018, as the prosecutor demonstrated. The shape of the suspect’s beard should be
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fphoto.php%3Ffbid%3D1441832002509473%26set%3Da.534063559952993%26type%3D3&width=500
https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fandrew.antonenko%2Fposts%2F1440001142692559&width=500
to be re-examined the day before and the day after the events. The images show that this is not a Spanish beard.
The defense did not claim at all about the difference in the shape of the beard at the pre-trial stage, since the expert examination stated that the image on the video was not clear enough. The prosecution’s argument about the image being unclear contradicts its argument about the beard.
And, finally, the defense’s position is not about the beard, but about the fact that Antonenko is than the person in the video.