Speech by Dmytro Kruhovyi, Andriy Antonenko’s Counsellor

The first speech of attorney Dmytro Kruhovyi in the criminal proceeding No 12020000000000490 from 22.05.2020  on prosecution of Antonenko A.S. (Riffmaster), Kuzmenko Yu. L. and Duhar Ya.S. 
for items 5, 12 § 2 art. 115; § 3 art. 28, § 1 art. 263; § 3 art. 28, § 2 art. 194 CC of Ukraine 

This is a text version. Parts 4-5 (attorney Kruhovyi)

   Watch the speech on YouTube [English version pending]

The beginning parts 1-3 (attorney Kulyk) read or watch on the YouTube here:

  Transcript of the first speech by attorney Kulyk. Full-size slides and video
   Watch it on YouTube [English version pending]


Click on a text link to jump to a section or click the disk 💿 to watch the video of the speech.
To review any picture in full-size resolution just click on it.

  1. The Review of the Defence Evidence 💿
  2. The Outcome 💿

Thank you, your Honours! 

May it please the Court, dear participants of the process. 

I will try to present some of the evidence, the materials with which we will refute the arguments of the prosecution.

4. The Review of the Defence Evidence 💿

First of all, paradoxically, this argument will be exactly what’s been accumulated in the investigation for nine months.  Now let’s look at the motive that everyone has heard about. We all know that it is completely absent from the casefile.

According to the investigation body , three people, previously unacquainted – a pedi{`}atric surgeon, a music teacher, a nurse, for unknown reasons, decided to unite in one organized group  and commit an offence, a particularly serious crime  – to kill a human. 

I will not dwell, in great detail, on the motive, providing the complete deployment. Let us analyze the evidence that we already know, without even looking at the casefile, which was so politely presented by the prosecutor.

circumstantial evidence 💿

The first  – I will call this section “circumstantial evidence”  – is the movement of criminals.

Google and Facebook confirm that Mr. Antonenko arrived home  on {nineteenth of July, 2016} on Starovokzalna street 7V at 9:10 p.m.  and was there until 11:15 a.m.  the next day.

Up to 12:55 a.m.  he used his phone on Facebook. In the morning at 7:23 he talked to a friend.

He could have managed to arrive from Starovokzalna to Oles Honchar street neighborhood from 12:55 to 2:15 in the morning, but how could he avoid  the field of view of any video camera?  How did he get back to Starovokzalna? The prosecution does not answer these questions. 

We will demonstrate that Andriy Antonenko about 9 pm arrived at his home, at 7-V Starovokzalna Street, and was there using his smartphone. This is confirmed by the tracking data of Google, Facebook and the testimony of people with whom he communicated on a smartphone (that is, it was he who did, not anybody else). 

The phone was on WiFi and did not turn off. The last activity was recorded at 12:55 a.m. on the twentieth of July 2016. During this time, an unknown person was already climbing under Olena Prytula’s car, which will explode the next morning.

We will also show, and this is confirmed by the police, that at 7:23 a.m. Mr. Antonenko is already talking on the phone with the witness, and the phone is located at Starovokzalna. This is also confirmed by the prosecution.

We are not saying that this is a direct alibi (алібай), but these circumstances will force the court to ask the prosecutor: 

How could Antonenko, without an underground tunnel, helicopter, teleport, carpet-plane, flying stupa or broom, invisibility hat, etc., move between 1 and 2 ante meridiem  from Starovokzalna Street to Oles Honchar Street and back to Starovokzalna Street without getting into the lens of any of the CCTV cameras? 

We will show you that on the morning of July 20, at 7:24, Mr. Antonenko spoke with his friend, who will also be questioned, hopefully, in this case as a witness. 

And pay attention, Your Honors, I said that the last communication in the evening took place at 12:55 a.m., when we already know exactly that at 12:22 a.m. an unknown person committed unknown manipulations with Olena Prytula’s car, which the deceased Pavlo Sheremet will drive to work that morning and, unfortunately, die.

height and appearance 💿

Direct evidence – height and appearance.

The second point is about the direct and basic evidence to which we refer. This video demonstrates how examinations of the height of perpetrators were conducted. The video is borrowed from the forensic materials of 2016, and has not been edited. [We accelerated it a little] and drew conditional lines. The legend is on the left side of the screen. The head of the department of the Main Expert Institution of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, also used similar conditional lines, but on freeze frames. This video shows an “extra” working for the police. 

Please note the date: August 3, 2016, less than 2 weeks after the murder.  All static objects in the stills are the same, so we can say with confidence that the position of the cameras has not changed. The extra, holding a properly calibrated leveling ruler, with the help of a bubble level holds it strictly vertically. Every look at the camera is a still image and a recording of the position of the ruler.  Next, we have already mounted the image of the ruler on the frames and connected its length markings with three lines. Green line – 160 cm, yellow – 170 cm and red – 180 cm, respectively. And here instead of the expert on the screen there are conditional rulers and these lines, and on the screen you see the image of the suspicious persons on the night of probable planting of explosives. You should pay attention to the stills, when a person with a beard steps on the red line at the bottom and barely, without even reaching, touches a thin conditional line by the top of his head. And along this line we can see his height. This line is yellow showing one hundred and seventy centimeters! The person is also wearing shoes.
We can clearly see three stills in one video and one still in another from the next camera on Lypynskoho Street. The extra will finish his work and we will clearly see this fourth still. We see the same people. Note they are wearing hats and footwear. They are possibly stooped. I don’t know what kind of hump there is, we see height that is fixed in the same way – look at the still … 

And in this freeze frame… Also yellow… the man in shoes and a hat barely reaches the yellow line. So his height is 170 cm in shoes and a hat.

Expert opinion. Volume 33 page 16. This is the result of the same study laid down on paper, where we see that the height of an individual in the video, taking into account the error due to blurred images, finding the individual in constant motion, possible differences in posture, the presence of a cap on head and with an unknown thickness of the sole of the shoe on the individual. And this height is at the level of  170 cm. Possible deviation of ±3%, or ±5 cm.

Next video. It’s already August 9. Another experienced expert, the head of another department of the State Department of Internal Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, conducts the same examination. I emphasize once again: this is an official video provided by the prosecution and it is in the case file and I hope it will be examined. Again, paradoxically, this is evidence in favor of the defense.

Here you see in the stills the height of the individual was recorded at the level of 171-173 cm. This person who has a beard is stubbornly associated with Andriy Antonenko by the prosecution.

And again almost the same conclusion. Volume 33 page 31. 172 cm + – error 5 cm 16 mm,

Thus, taking into account both examinations, we see that the range in which the two intersect is at the level of 166.84 cm. This is the minimum limit, and the maximum circa 175 cm. it is necessary to take a range of heights that do not contradict either of the two examinations. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence will be violated. If a person’s height does not fall into at least one of the two intervals – this should already be interpreted in favor of innocence.

So we have 166.84 – 175 cm height of an alleged perpetrator with a beard. Such a person with such a defining feature should be sought as the murderer of Pavlo Sheremet.

What is the height of our client? Does it fall into this range?

We bring to your attention the forensic opinion of the habitoscopic examination, which was conducted at the request of the defense at the end of February 2020, after numerous complaints and requests to the pre-trial investigation body.

Том 36 аркуш 78. Довжина тіла (зріст) 179,6-179,7 см.

In volume 36 page 78. The body length (height) of Mr Antonenko is given by the prosecution as 179.6-179.7 cm.

On his military ID, Mr. Antonenko’s height without shoes is 180 cm. This is data we presented the court in December last year. 

Thus, Mr. Antonenko’s height is outside the range defined by the experts and given by the prosecution.

He is definitely the wrong person.

Antonenko’s height differs from the offender’s height so significantly and in such a way that it completely refutes the whole construction of the indictment.

The prosecution may say that the person’s height in the video is slightly distorted due to his natural posture while walking, a stoop certain, but it cannot be alleged that Mr. Antonenko has grown by 10 cm over the years. A criminal could walk on stilts or high heel shoes to pretend to be taller but he cannot cut his legs when having a height of 180 cm he could appear to be 10 cm shorter! Experts have clearly stated that posture and gait can affect growth only within the limits of around 3%.  

In the course of the trial, we will demonstrate, using only the data of the indictment, that Antonenko cannot be a person on video, outside the permissible level of error. 

Given the maximum error, if the offender was barefoot and incredibly stooped, his anthropometric height in an upright position under no circumstances can exceed 177.2 cm. 

Why? What is “out of margin of error?”

The prosecutor cynically stated in his written opening speech “2 cm only”, even forgetting the rules of rounding – in fact 3 cm. But it does not matter. Experts have determined the maximum level of error and this maximum level is exceeded – Antonenko’s height without shoes and cap falls outside the acceptable range.

The figure we see the explanation of the degree of deviation from the specified index within the permissible error. 

For example,  most likely – the average length of video that set experts – is 172 cm.  it is possible that as a result of random factors, it will sometimes deviate from the mean. in the upward or downward. 

But such values as 175 and 169 cm, which are already at the limit of acceptable range – significantly less likely extreme performance – 177 and 167 cm – at the level of fiction, and everything outside this interval should be discarded altogether. 

You see, we can even determine a certain percentage – what is “at the level of fiction “.

99.7% determine that the measurement result lies in the middle of the interval of three variances, or as they say, three sigma.

Recall the school curriculum in mathematics for 11th grade.

The so-called “three sigma rule”, which is used in statistics and all exact sciences. It is known to every scientist who measures something.

This is the law of probability of deviation from the mean value. It says that the probability of deviation from the mean value is distributed according to the normal law, along such a curve. 

This is the so-called Gaussian or Gauss-Laplace curve. 

The fact is that the probability of such a deviation with the distance from the mean value falls insanely by law 68-95-99.7. The first third accounts for 68%, the first and second for 95% of all cases, the first three values ​​of the sigma falls for 99.7%. 

In our case, just one sigma is a deviation from the average height of 1%. In the figure we see that the probability of deviation by 4 sigma is 0.0003%. 

Why am I mentioning all this? 

According to this law, the deviation from the average value, say by 1 cm and the deviation from the interval of 1 cm – is not the same thing! If the deviation from the middle is quite possible, then at the edges of the segment 1 cm – this is not “just a little”. And in numbers concerning our business it looks as follows. 

If the expert defined the three-sigma interval as 166.1 – 176.1, then the probability of exceeding the limit of 176.1 (3 sigma) by at least a millimeter is 0.15%. The probability of exceeding the limit of 177.8 (4 sigma) is 0, 0003%.
And Mr. Prosecutor suggests that we believe in the deviation of 5 sigma! That’s about 1 chance in 4 million!

I’ll stop here. It may seem like high matters to somebody.

If it is difficult for understanding, then let’s make such an analogy, a friend told me, with a refrigerator. Imagine a refrigerator that has been stolen – we know the model of the refrigerator, a reconstruction is being carried out, we are trying to carry this refrigerator through the elevator door or the front door, let’s stop at the elevator. And it will not pass, will not pass only a by damn 2 cm, the prosecutor says it is only 2 cm, but what is the difference of how many centimeters, if the refrigerator does not fit through, just as Antonenko does not fit through in the range defined by experts, the fridge could never ride that elevator. Antonenko did not walk that street… in the early morning on July 20, 2016….

portrait an psychological examination 💿

Andrew’s portrait examination did not identify him. This is a slide from the presentation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Despite the manipulations mentioned by a colleague, despite attempts to provoke cognitive bias, showing a photo of the killer and signing it by the name as “Mr. Antonenko”, so that any other theory would not come to mind.
So, they showed you a slide with the killer, signed it as “Antonenko” and in the conclusion, in fact, it was: “we don’t know who it is.”

Psychological gait. 

Or psychological nonverbal behavior. We do not know what it is, but in the materials of the proceedings there is a psychological study, according to which our experts. Theorists or practitioners who have invented a way to identify a person by “psychological signs of gait,” “markers of nonverbal behavior,” are a very complex concept, which I will discuss later. Now I will pay attention only to scientific sources on Wikipedia or other search engines where you will never find such a phrase “nonverbal behavior.” This is pseudo professional jargon, the phrase itself is absurd, there is only the term “nonverbal communication” – how we convey information without the help of language.

But recently the author of this examination, Mr. Yuri Irkhin (we already mentioned him before today), said the  following

Mr. Irkhin was a little bit late deciding give this interview, he should have given it before and to the detective Podolyak, then we haven’t meet here together

All scientists without exception, to which we sought  noted that Mr. Irkhin abuses terms that appear to be scientific-looking, but cannot be found in any scientific paper or article in any language.

Beginning with the term “nonverbal behavior” and further:

  • spatio-temporal structures of appearance
  • psychological and functional features 
  • constitutional physique – much of muchness
  • diagnostically significant markers of features (markers of signs are in general madness as “fecal shit”)
  • psychological and functional features of the constitutional physique (combination of delusions)
  • kinematic and dynamic features (It is interesting what is the difference? Do the psychologists know the distinction?
  • diagnostically significant markers of features (again diagnostically significant markers, google it – you will never find)

Listen to this nonsense, on the basis of which people were thrown behind the bars:

  • Motor motility
  • Congruence of separate functional individual kinematic and dynamic features of motor motility and individual psychological external behavioral features of person №1 and person №2

To make you understand, the term “congruence” in psychology has a completely different meaning. Consistency of information, consistency of its pronounce, ideas, beliefs between themselves; in a broader sense – the integrity, self-consistency of the individual in general. Sincerity. 

But this achiever uses the term “congruence” instead of “uniformity” to give you an idea of ​​the unattainability of his level of knowledge for your ordinary brain.  You may think that this or all other scientific terms are too complicated for you, and that you simply do not comprehend the heights or depths of thought of this self-proclaimed scientist. But, as it turns out, these terms are unknown to science in general. It turns out that  Mr. Irkhin invented them himself!

“Motor motility”, “spatio-temporal structures”, “congruence of features of markers of signs”, many things this “behaviorist” wrote … I would call it “a psychological portrait of legs and hands”.

And in the end – “straight back”, “bear walk”, “swinging hands”. 

The psychological portrait of legs and arms painted by Ukrainian so-called “experts” also cannot identify a person anywhere in the world. My colleague Taras Bezpaly said at the last hearing that these experts were disciplined for conducting research in the absence of proven methods and a lack of any scientific basis for concluding there is a way to identify persons by finding psychology in human gait.

forensic gait analysis by Ivan Birch 💿

What Mr. Irkhin mentioned in the interview in the video you just watched, the identification part — is the main and the only evidence of the prosecution —  the so-called forensic gait analysis by Ivan Birch.

A British expert, Ivan Birch, was involved in violation of the procedure and his services were paid for in an illegal and non-transparent manner. There is no reason to claim that they were paid to KSRIFE from the State Budget in accordance with Articles 5 and 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Science”. The costs of paying for his services are not mentioned in the indictment. They are also missing on the prozorro site. This precludes his participation not only from a formal point of view, but also because it casts doubt on impartiality.

Ivan Birch signed the Ukrainian text without knowing the Ukrainian language. His opinion does not meet the standards of confidence. He should not have used the word “sufficient” within his evidence to describe his findings as this term is simply missing in the British (and accepted international) standards.

Ivan Birch, working remotely, received videos and instructions in an out-of-procedural manner. There is no formal chain of evidence and thus no way of being sure of what he saw or was referring to.

How did this affect the result? 

Firstly, we have doubts about the reference videos. 

Secondly, Birch, having no idea of ​​the content of the investigator’s rulings, received information and documents from a certain Maksym Rybachuk, whose procedural status is unknown. 

And what is this? It’s very simple – we have to assume that the questions he was asked are improper for the task of gaining correct evidence. Most likely, he was asked to choose the most similar person in a vicious circle, and he himself writes about this in his opinion.

We will also demonstrate that the so-called British forensic analysis of gait cannot be used in court as primary evidence. We have already briefed you on Scotland Yard’s report.

Афера Шеремета. Скотланд Ярд спростовує фантазії очільників МВС і КНДІСЕ. Документ

I want to emphasize that although we do not consider Mr. Birch a proper expert in the case at all, because his involvement was not in accordance with the law, his work was paid not from the State Budget, as required by law, but from non-transparent sources, we will still take a look at his opinion (volume 33 sheet 53 and sheet 97) and discover the following words.

Further consideration of the role and probative value of forensic gait analysis is presented in a Primer for courts published by the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 2017….

Let’s read this textbook a little, very superficially. On page 6 we will be surprised to see that

  • There is no evidence that the gait is unique,
  • There is no credible database
  • There are no published and verified error rates
  • There are no published black-box studies of analyst reliability and repeatability

I will explain next what the black box method is.

The only such study that is close to this design was conducted in 2013 when 7 experienced gait specialists, with a known result who is depicted in the video, were asked who is who, who is depicted in the video, and the method is most likely a coincidence they guessed. 

And the error rate was 29%.

The failure rate is 29%, ie the probability that Mr. Birch was wrong, according to the most optimistic estimates is at least 29%


This is the price of respect for a human, his of her life and health, freedom, honor and dignity, inviolability and security [quote of Article 3 of the Constitution].

irrelevance of MON-50 💿

Irrelevance, i.e. inappropriateness of the mine MON-50 empty case.
Unfortunately, we have to refute the fantasies heard in the public speeches of officials.

According to the indictment, Antonenko is not charged for making explosives. So let’s think about why is the case of the MON-50 mine, to which ministers, prosecutors, and detectives paid so much attention, as my colleague noted during a previous speech? 

In fact, this case has nothing to do with this criminal offense.

This quote from the indictment is repeated 6 times “unidentified persons during 2016 illegally assembled a homemade device which was later handed over to the perpetrators of the crime Kuzmenko and Antonenko”, This is repeated 6 times in the indictment. A question I could not answer during the trial: if unknown persons made an improvised explosive device, it turns out that after this assembling they gave the hollow case of a MON-50 mine to Antonenko and said “keep it to yourself” or “take it as a souvenir”. What kind of nonsense is this?

Here Antonenko during 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 holds the case from the so-called “MONka”. We see on January 10, 2017, he openly posted its photo on social networks. 

We see the date January 10, 2017. He was photographed with it for the photographic materials necessary for his work. We see this case from a mine, with a “smiley” painted on it. 

Did this explosive-criminal-conspiracy-etc gang come up with keeping such an important piece of evidence as a mine case in plain site? 

Your honors, there’s no perhaps about it.

Previously, my colleague explained long and rightly that the only thing that can connect a crime with a MON-50 mine are the rollers and a bushing. Antonenko’s MON-50 mine case contains all these elements on hand, we saw a video in which during the seizure of this case, an explosives specialist said that all these items are there, he said the impact fragments are in place. They cannot be in Antonenko’s apartment and at the crime scene or in the room for storing material evidence at the same time.

And here in this place you can exclaim: if this box has nothing to do with the crime, then why hide it !? And you will be absolutely right! Because all the rollers and bushings are in place and therefore this item does not relate to the murder of Pavel Sheremet in any way. And who could know about it? Either the person involved in the investigation or the real killer!

The real killer knew the design of the explosive device and because of this would not hide anything, because in his empty box there is a full set of the fragments and the bushings available! And Antonenko didn’t! He, being suddenly unjustifiably accused of a particularly serious crime, having no idea what Pavlo Sheremet was killed with, began to panic, hiding what he thought might compromise him. Precisely because he had no idea what might follow!

Witness Oleksandr Polozhynskyi described the circumstances of Andriy’s acquisition of this ill-fated composition.

You also saw a video of his transcript of the interrogation of the investigator, where he gave the same testimony under oath at the pre-trial investigation and in front of the investigating judge during the consideration of the extension of the measure of restraint. 

During the trial, two witnesses will be questioned to explain the circumstances of Mr. Antonenko’s acquisition of the item, in particular from whose hands he received it and that he received it already in a discharged state. 

We will also show that most of the evidence, as presented by the prosecution, is inadmissible.

This is like searches without the decision of the investigating judge – in this regard, we filed a petition at the preparatory hearing – and “wiretapping” and “outside” without court permits. As we have not obtained these rulings from the prosecutor on the covert investigative (search) actions, there is no reason to believe that the relevant evidence was obtained legally.

In particular, we already have every reason to claim that a number of pieces of evidence are distorted, and some of them —  intentionally.

5. The Outcome 💿

We still do not understand much in this case. Namely, the motives of falsification and mechanisms of distortion of the truth are not completely clear. However, this is not because we did not try to find out, but because the prosecution constantly behaves like an exposed sharper. We do not fully know when and how this trickster juggled the card deck.

But today we are firmly convinced of the innocence of all three defendants.

So here comes the debrief.

The Gadyukin Brothers rock group summed up that “History runs laps, and we follow it…”

It is not the first time when the world is not witnessing that a person is falsely accused.

More than a hundred years ago, a young officer in the French army was unjustly accused of treason. Attempts to purify his name, known in history as the “Dreyfus affair”, divided French society and spread throughout the world. 

That case, like this one, was important for the history and reputation of justice in the country.

The Dreyfus Case ”is an example of how the authorities went to great lengths to discredit the defendant in the absence of any direct evidence of his guilt”

We can refer to this story as an illustration of how justice, under pressure from society, can finally win. 

Surprisingly, there are a lot of coincidences between the Dreyfus Affair and this one.

Mr. Antonenko and other defendants were charged with committing the crime by state officials. This is an exceptional case in the history of Ukraine and I wonder why it happened?

These events unfolded against the background of the ongoing dispute between France and Prussia, which occupied Alsace and the Moselle in 1870.

By 1894, the army was recovering from defeat. Its leaders tried to create a cult in the country, while despising the republic itself.

The military, most of whose leaders were supporters of monarchism, did everything to prevent the loss of power and prevent the reform of the army. In connection with the demands of society for radical reforms, the fight against monarchism, the army was looking for something that should raise confidence in its effectiveness in the eyes of the people, to raise nationalist sentiments.

In 1894, the Minister of Defense of France, Auguste Mercier, was accused of inaction, that his subordinate structures worked inefficiently. “A minister who is never present in the office.”

In the summer of that year, the counterintelligence found a message to the Germans, which in the future will become known as “bordereau”.

General Mercier decided that “if the perpetrator is found, arrested and convicted, it will be politically advantageous.” In addition, it will “shut the mouth of the far right and the press.”

The identity of the perpetrator was selected. It became the captain of the artillery Alfred Dreyfus, a Jew, a native of Alsace, who was occupied by the Germans, it was very easy to show his connection with them. In fact, Dreyfus’ reputation as a cold and closed or even arrogant character, as well as his curiosity, had played against him.

Certain traits, some false, some natural, made the allegations plausible, turning the most common actions of everyday life into evidence of espionage.

To convict the captain, it was necessary to compare the inscriptions on the “bordereau” with his handwriting. 

There was no one at the disposal of the General Staff competent in the analysis of writing. And here Major du Patti de Clam enters the stage. 

He considered himself to be an expert in graphology. Comparing the bordereau with the captain’s letters, he made a clear conclusion about the similarity of the inscriptions, and then categorically stated that Dreyfus is the author of the bordereau. He reflected this conclusion in the report.
At the same time, other specialists were involved, who refused to draw such an unambiguous conclusion because they believed that there were too many differences in the bordereau and the captain’s handwriting.

Disappointed French Defense Minister Auguste Mercier turned to Alphonse Bertillon, the inventor of the Bertillon system, a system for identifying people by their anthropometric data, but who was not a handwriting expert.

On October 7, 1894, after ascertaining who was guilty solely on the basis of questionable knowledge of Alphonse Bertillon’s handwriting, the Minister Mercier decided that Dreyfus was guilty.

On October 13, 1894, Dreyfus was arrested. 

On December 19, 1894, the trial began.

Alphonse Bertillon, who was not an expert in handwriting, was introduced as a scientist of paramount importance. During the trial, he advanced the theory of “self-forgery” and accused Dreyfus of imitating his own handwriting.

The reason for the accusation and arrest of Dreyfus was the conclusion about the similarity of his handwriting with the handwriting in the bordereau, made by a person who was not an expert in this matter. 
The reason for Antonenko’s accusation and arrest was the conclusion that his gait was similar to that of a crime scene, although such a method is not scientifically substantiated.

In the future, Emil Zola will write in his letter, which became known to the whole world, about the participants in this case as follows: 

What a cesspool of folly and foolishness, what preposterous fantasies, what corrupt police tactics, what inquisitorial, tyrannical practices! What petty whims of a few higher-ups trampling the nation under their boots, ramming back down their throats the people’s cries for truth and justice...

Major Besson d’Ormeshevyl in the indictment paid more attention to “face” the accused (where they gossiped about habits of Dreyfus, his love of gambling and an excellent knowledge of German and his excellent memory), while a “material” part never been described:

“Absence of evidence is a proof of guilt because Dreyfus made everything disappear “

On December 22, 1894,
Dreyfus was found guilty on the basis of the examination and testimony of a man who was not even an expert in the field, and was sentenced to the most severe punishment – military degradation and permanent prison exile.

In August 1896, Georges Picard established that Dreyfus was not a spy. The real culprit was Ferdinand Esterhazy, who later even confessed to it.

For a long time, the leaders of the Army did not admit their mistake. After the conviction was overturned in June 1899, Dreyfus was convicted again on September 9 of that year and sentenced to 10 years. It was not until July 12, 1906, that Dreyfus was fully acquitted.

Throughout this story, Dreyfus has tried to portray a villain, a criminal. All this was done to create a negative image in the eyes of society and the credibility of the accusations.

As with Dreyfus, so with Andrew, the truth is that he did not have and has nothing to do with all the negativity that was announced about him at the presentations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

No matter how Andrii tries to create the image of “Conan”, “barbarian”, “cannibal” or “militant”, he is a musician, a cheerful and good guy, a great friend, son, father and husband.

If the investigators had not been stopped by an unknown force at some point, you and I would have seen proof that Andriy lived in Brazil as a child and could easily escape from Ukraine.

Were there any examples in the history of Ukraine when the police so zealously covered the circumstances of the investigation of the crime, made entire series, held briefings with the participation of a bunch of politicians?
The only possible answer to this question

It’s just a show!

Like a hundred years ago, one minister decided that “if a perpetrator is found, arrested and convicted, it will be politically advantageous.”

closing statement 💿

When you think of the police, what do you imagine? What news do you have in front of your eyes? 

This? This? Or That? It’s not hard to believe, іsn’t it?
Can we assume at least for yourself, not in a voice that the real organizers of this crime have an influence on the police and could deliberately direct the investigation to the wrong way of accusing the uninvolved persons? No doubt!

During the trial we will force you to ask yourself the following questions:

  • Has anyone seen Antonenko at the crime scene? No

  • Are there any witnesses who saw him going there or coming back or him while preparing for the crime? No.

  • Are there any witnesses who have heard that he mentioned this crime? No

  • Were DNA, fingerprints, footprints or handprints of the defendants found anywhere? No

  • Are there any traces of explosives on the clothes? Were there any items found? Were there any instructions, photos of the victim or his car found? No. No. No!

  • Did the numerous wiretaps and fluffers planted in the prison cells reveal any hint of involvement? No

  • Is there any reason to believe that any of the defendants hated Pavlo Sheremet or at least knew who he was? No

  • Did the defendants know each other as of summer 2016? No.

  • Was there any communication with third parties, who allegedly organized everything, found among their things, gadgets, notes? No

  • Have any of them been associated with extremists, criminal organizations or intelligence services? No.

And what is there? There is an examination of gait and psychological examination of gait. The author of the examination of the gait Mr. Birch says that the error is 29%, i.e. every third conclusion is wrong. Mr. Birch signed this examination without knowing the Ukrainian language. And our so-called experts are brought to justice for violation of the instruction on reporting their opinions. And the thing is not in the formalities, the thing is that they entitled gait the subject the psychology, and acted by an unknown author’s method, having no scientific papers in this area.

All this will be obvious to you when the prosecution presents its so-called evidence. When you look and study it, as the defense did. I will not comment on it anymore. Because no evidence exists.

And lastly.

We must not forget that this case is not just about Antonenko, Duhar or Kuzmenko, but also Avakov. We must not forget that deprivation of human life is the most terrible crime.  

But almost the same crime is to cover up the true culprits. And the prosecution is doing this intentionally or through negligence. 

It quite necessary to prevent them from doing this.

In the name of the deceased Pavlo Grigorovich Sheremet

Читайте також: 

Справа Антоненка та ін. Список свідків обвинувачення та їх показань

Watch the speech on YouTube


Published by: Леонід Маслов

Leave a Reply