Speech by Stanislav Kulyk, Andriy Antonenko’s Counsellor

The first speech of attorney Stanislav Kulyk 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 1-3 (attorney Kulyk)

   Watch the speech on YouTube [English version pending]

Continuation parts 4-5 (attorney Kruhovyi) read or watch on the YouTube here:

  Transcript of the first speech by attorney Kruhovyi. 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. Defects of the Police Investigation 💿
  2. Legal Defects of the Indictment 💿
  3. Falsehood Voiced by the Prosecutor 💿

1. Defects of the Police Investigation 💿

Thank you. I believe everyone remembers the speech Mr. Tishyn pronounced lately. And in fact I want to thank him personally and acknowledge that I really admire the way he presented this material. It was a highly professional job. This is not an irony or a joke. I really want to pay my respects to him. Why? Because I understand how difficult it was to render all that rubbish, all the junk that the pre-trial investigation body produced for him.

In my, so to speak, past life, I used to be a police officer. Moreover, I was a major crimes detective. Therefore, I fully understood and applied the rule that the most important action is collecting the evidence at the crime scene and recording it immediately after the commission of a criminal offense. 

In this case, the prosecution, the police committed a number of flagrant violations, which made it possible (and unfortunately will  make it so in the future) to avoid punishment for the real killers of Pavlo Sheremet.

I would like to draw your attention, may it please the Court, to the fact that in the first minutes of July 20, 2016, after the car exploded, a number of serious violations were committed, which further impeded a proper investigation. Instead of taking care about the evidence, police officers allowed the car to burst into flames, and, I emphasize, after the explosion,  the car  was not on fire. The fire happened much later and after Mr. Pavlo had already been taken out of the car. After that, the fire was extinguished with fire hoses – all the evidence was washed away with water under high pressure.

As you can see in this video, police officers who arrived at the crime scene later, do not wear any boot covers, gloves, none of any additional scenes of crime equipment, they simply walk around the crime scene and trample the traces of the crime.

In the next video, you can see that there are several policemen in the frame who did not even try to prevent the fire. They just stand still and watch it.

The materials of the pre-trial investigation contain testimonies of persons who say that they tried to douse this car with their fire extinguishers and entreated the police: “Please, help!”. Nobody did.

Due to the fact that all this happened the car caught fire, important pieces of evidence were lost, which could be incredibly small particles around the scene. These are elements of an executive mechanism that could have been the key to identifying the offenders.  

They say it was a remotely controlled explosion. It was stated everywhere in all briefings, and sounded in the speech of the Honorable Prosecutor as well. However, an explosion mechanism in the proceedings and, incidentally, on a slide from the prosecutor’s speech, is referred to simply as “executive mechanism”. There was an electric detonator, but how it was activated is unknown, because we can only assume that it was activated remotely. In fact, it could be initiated in any other way, by timer, for example. But whether this was really the case, we’ll never know, because the police destroyed the evidence by their act or omission.

From the materials of the proceedings you will learn that no explosive was found. The reasons are explained in Volume 5, on page 47, where experts say  “the absence of traces of explosive transformation of the substance may indicate that they are destroyed by fire and its subsequent extinguishing”.

This is the opinion of a Ukrainian forensic expert and it was confirmed later by laboratory tests of the remains of the car, conducted in the explosives department of the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, USA – we see this information on the same page.

Therefore, from the very beginning the pre-trial investigation was not conducted in a proper way.

The pre-trial investigation was not conducted in a proper way..

By the way, I would like to advise those who have not seen it to watch a documentary that was made by journalists back in 2017, when no one knew about Mr. Antonenko, except  about him as an artist, nor about the other defendants. In this film, journalists show the moments where the investigation body failed.

Thus, the police failed to find the person who moved down Lypynskoho Street directly towards perpetrators. He could have been a valuable witness, but unfortunately, such information was lost. This witness has still not been found.

Police also lost another witness, a taxi driver who was directly in front of Pavlo Sheremet’s car at the time the explosive was planted and could also see the offenders directly. This very important witness was also lost, but was found later by journalists.

officers of the Security Service of Ukraine who were present at the crime scene were neglected by the police

Thus, despite the myth of great effort, despite the enormous administrative resources used and the large number of people involved, very important evidence was obtained not by the police but by a much smaller group of journalists.

The latter also found witnesses who had been neglected by the police – SSU officers who were on duty in a car on Ivan Franko Street directly on the night of the crime. Officers of the Security Service of Ukraine! The police simply lost them. And their testimony is not disclosed in the materials of the pre-trial investigation.

You see in the last video a lady who was probably involved in the explosion, and even most likely detonated  the bomb. She enters the subway at the University subway station, where she was captured by a camera and lost forever afterwards. The next logical step would have been to seize the video from all the CCTV cameras in the subway to understand where she went out. And the detective, Mr. Byrko did it… But a year later! A year after the crime. Of course, he received the answer that the videos have already been erased due to the expiration date. You see the documents – volume № 5, page 214.

You see a frame from the video, where the attackers pass by the monument to Borys Hrinchenko. This shot was repeatedly used at briefings and was shown among the slides of the prosecutor’s speech. However, this video was not the trophy of the police either! It was provided to them by SLIDSTVO INFO journalists Dmytro Hnap and Anna Babynets.

What we have in the end. This is a slide from the well-known briefing of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It allegedly presents the measures taken and their results, as written here. In fact, we do not see any results. This is a report in the best Soviet tradition, when the truth about a failed job is overshadowed by the amount of effort expended. Commercial instead of results.

2. Legal Defects of the Indictment 💿

I will spend literally a few minutes on a rather boring topic – the legal flaws of the prosecution. It’s not very interesting, but I have to  speak about it, because the violations are so glaring that we have to talk about them by all means.

Let’s start with the flaws of the indictment. My colleagues have said this before, but it is horrible when in such an important document about a particularly serious crime  deciding the fate of three people the detective simply refers several times to the Law of Ukraine “On Property”, which expired in 2007. – almost 10 years before the murder of Pavlo Sheremet, as well as the resolution adopted for its execution. 

The next important point, which we have already stated. There is no information in the indictment about the costs of the forensic examination. But it is not the prosecutor’s right to indicate these costs in the indictment, but his duty. This is a mandatory requirement for an indictment, provided for in paragraph eight of part two of Article 291 of the CPC. You may think that this is unnecessary formalism, but I want to note that there are no costs spent to the expert opinion, which the prosecution considers as the main evidence. This is extremely important and we will tell you why later. It will be about illegal financing of these expenses. On the slide you see exactly the forensic opinion, according to which there is no information about the legality of payment for relevant services.

It is surprisingly unspoken stubbornness that the prosecution repeatedly mentions that the defendants allegedly committed the crimes, they are accused of, as an organized group. Somehow proudly Part three of Article 28 is mentioned. Not everyone here is a professional lawyer. Perhaps this is the expectation. But it is enough to open this article and read that an organized group is a stable association for committing this or that or other crimes. That is, in this case it must be about committing two or more crimes. And the prosecution must prove it.

If the prosecution records this absurdity in the indictment, it must at least pretend to attempt proving it. Or have the wisdom to exclude it from the charges. Otherwise, it turns out that, according to the prosecutor, it was a music teacher, a nurse and a children’s surgeon who unified steadily together to commit a series of crimes. We have just the perfect set – charges under several articles for one act against one journalist. There is no single mention of any other crime in the materials of the pre-trial investigation.

In addition to such inaccuracies, to put it mildly, the indictment is replete with technical errors, some of which look extremely funny and cannot help but make you smile. Or mindedness regarding the amounts of the art master Mr. Byrko, who wrote in the indictment 6 times (pages 26, 28, 51, 53, 75, 78) that Mr. Antonenko and Mrs.Kuzmenko arrived on the scene wearing caps and sunglasses in order to prevent fixation of their faces on camera. Imagine inconspicuous people in sunglasses at 2 o’clock in the morning! Imagine such half-blind killers wandering in the dark, looking for the victim’s car. I think it could have been easier for the prosecutor to teach Mr. Byrko – the author of this fantastic opus – to draw up procedural documents rather than to defend the line of sunglasses at two o’clock a.m.

3. Falsehood Voiced by the Prosecutor 💿

I emphasize once again: I really admire Mr. Prosecutor.

Prosecutor managed to construct a good story out of shit&sticks and present the material pretty well

He managed to compose a good story out of “shit&sticks” and present the material pretty well. However, we have gathered here to establish the truth, and I offer to investigate together all the facts contained in the materials of the pre-trial investigation, and not just unsubstantiated statements or exclamations. I would like to draw your attention to the inconsistency of the statements of the prosecution with the real facts.

Please, your Honour, allow the prosecutor to interrupt me if I say something wrong.

I will refer exclusively to the materials of the pre-trial investigation to show the discrepancies of the opening speech of Mr. Prosecutor.

IED components 💿

It was stated in the speech and on the slide that parts of the MON-50 mine were found at the crime scene. However, in fact, if you read the forensic opinion, it will be obvious that the elements of the anti-personnel mines MON-50, except for the impact fragments and the threaded bushing of the fuse well, were not detected.

Please review this material. The so-called rollers or shrapnel – impressive fragments that could allegedly be used.  

On the slide and in his speech, the prosecutor claims that all the objects depicted on the slide are parts of  a MON-50 mine. This is not true, and this is explicitly stated in the forensic report in volume №6 on page 191.

  • Magnets are not part of  a MON-50.
  • The detonator is not part of  a MON-50.

According to the experts, only the impact fragments and the threaded bushing of the fuse well can come from a MON-50 mine.

only the impact fragments and the threaded bushing of the fuse well can come from a MON-50 mine

Unfortunately, the court did not want to inspect my exhibits, but after the hearing I can show them to anyone. These and only these objects – which you see on the screen and in my hands, can come from a MON-50. Although this is inaccurate! This is just an assumption.

Similar items are used in other mines – MON-90, OZM-72, and the fragments can come from bearings or simply be sawed steel wire.

I would like to note that all the counsellors of Andriy Antonenko are war participants and took part in the anti-terrorist operation, so we know a little bit about the explosives. And we did not understand why all these items were not compared with the elements of other mines. Why did they take only the MON-50 mine? Is it because it is the most common or because others were not on hand?

In fact, the expert himself says (and it wasn’t me who made it up, it is written in Volume 5, pages 36-37) that among the objects being compared, five objects out of 14 coincided with other 8 out of 10 impact fragments of a real mine. 5 out of 14 is not half, but only about a third. The rest did not match. 

Common generic features have been found only in 5 elements of 14.

Thus, elements found at the crime scene may be or may not be related to  a MON-50 mine. 

The slide on the left shows the elements seized from the crime scene, there were only 95 of them. 14 of them were taken for comparison and only 5 coincided with the eight elements of the mine.

This suggests that

  • at least not all the impact fragments come from a MON-50 mine, there exist some other that did not match
  • in  a MON-50 mine itself, not all the elements are identical and 2 out of 10 randomly taken are not like the other eight 
  • only the roughest degree of coincidence has been established – generic features (more accurate in terms of degree are group features followed by identifying ones). Of the three degrees of coincidence, only the smallest is established. Neither identifying nor even common group features have been established. 

The comparison of the fragments of the fuse-well-bushing was just as inaccurate. When the expert compared this metal piece of aluminum alloy (left) with the real bushing of the fuse well of a MON-50, he noted that theseelements differ in the relative quantitative content of manganese, zinc and lead.

That is, again, there is no absolute certainty that this is part of a MON-50.

In the same place, in volume 5 on page 37 we will read, as I also told: the specified investigated fragments have among themselves a generic (not group!) belonging and differ from the investigated threaded bushing of the fuse well in the relative quantitative content of manganese, zinc and lead.

Let me remind you once again that the other elements (magnets and detonator) 100% never  came from a MON-50 mine, and the impact fragments and the bushing may or may not have come. But it is not positive. They can be elements of other mines or industrially or artisanally made. They were not compared to other mines.

Finally, on the subject of explosives, the most dramatic, the most glaring element of information distortion is the myth on RDX

the myth of RDX 💿

Let me dispel this myth, which is constantly voiced, in particular, recklessly voiced by the prosecutor in his opening speech.

I have already said at the beginning and demonstrated the documents – the opinions of competent Ukrainian and American forensics – that no explosive substance used in the explosive device was found.   

Note that the opinions of other experts set the weight of the explosive indicated as a suspiciously accurate figure of 478.4 grams, but only in TNT equivalent. Why do they say so? Because nothing is known about the substance itself. Forensic experts who were unable to determine what kind of explosives blew up Mr. Pavlo notably determined only the explosion power and recorded the information.

There was no RDX in question.

Where did the RDX come from?
In all documents, in the opinion of the main forensic examination it is noted that traces of diphenylamine were found everywhere at the crime scene.

Diphenylamine found
… on metal fragments of gray and black, and fragments of entries in a polymeric insulation, the fire debris on the metal fragments from the superimposition matter of black and on fragments of metal, plastic and glass nature …
Note the word diphenylamine highlighted in red in the document on the right.

Diphenylamine everywhere

On 14 of 14 items made of gray metal (alloy) and black shorts, black straps and a piece of plastic part

…… in a shakeout from the yellow material 

…… on the left moccasin 

…… on two polymer items of blue color, in powdered substance of black color, on metal fragments of gray color…… 

on a cover of a fuel tank of the car, and on polymeric and metal fragments of various shapes

and a spring, and also metal fragments of various shapes 

…… on metal fragments of various form, on metal, polymer fragments of various shapes, 

… on fire debris and fragments of fabric and thread, on garbage and metal particles of various shapes, on metal objects of various shapes and deformed metal objects of cylindrical shape, on deformed polymer gray object of rectangular shape, and on damaged and dirty white men’s underwear.

Everywhere, in each sentence on each subject (see red line on the right) we find only one word: diphenylamine, diphenylamine, diphenylamine, diphenylamine, diphenylamine, diphenylamine, diphenylamine.

Let me explain – diphenylamine is not an explosive. This is a stabilizer that stabilizes the explosive so that it does not explode arbitrarily.

And where is the RDX?

The word RDX (hexogen) in this document occurs only once. It is underlined in green. And the object on which the RDX was found is marked by a green oval.

This item has been labeled “item 1.4”, “BT-4” or “3444414”. There is no explosive anywhere, but diphenylamine all over, and this is the only subject where “RDX” was found.
Why then do they write that the explosive was not found? What kind of thing is this?

Attention. This is a plug of the RDX detonator EDP-r. The same thing I said at the beginning that it does not come from  a MON-50 mine. Imagine  the sensation: RDX on an RDX detonator. What a great piece of news! 

Indeed, this detonator contains a little more than 1 gram of pure RDX. And this is exactly the indicating feature by which the forensics identified this object as a detonator. 

Taking into account the results of the study, as well as the presence of traces of explosives – RDX, it was found that the object № BT-4 is   a remnant of  a so-called plastic plug of detonator EDP-r
That is, this explains the statement that in fact no explosive that formed the bomb itself was detected. Its traces were washed away, trampled, destroyed by fire.

And the examination clearly tells us that the explosive “RDX” was discovered only on this object – the detonator, which initiates the explosion, but does not perform it.

An electric detonator EDP-r is equipped with an explosive – hexogen [RDX], and is a standard means of detonation and is one of the main structural features of the explosive device (volume 5, page 40).

The electric detonator is included in the design of the explosive device, initiating the explosion of the main charge of the bomb. It is a separate element and, as we have already said, is not part of  a MON-50 mine. These electric detonators are separate products and are used to detonate almost all types of mines as well as non-military industrial explosive charges. So just as a flash drive can be inserted into any computer and any flash drive can be inserted into a particular computer, the latter are related to computers, but are not part of them.
Therefore, the RDX found on the detonator plug (the filling scheme is shown in the figure) is an integral part of the detonator, but is not an integral part of the main charge of the explosive.

IED: the outcome 💿

What all this means for us.
This means that, in fact, journalist Pavlo Sheremet was not blown up by a MON-50 mine. And these are not our fantasies. These are the materials of the pre-trial investigation. I just want to weed out the fallacies that they are trying to implant into the heads of judges and jurors at this stage.

Later, during expert experiments, this idea was ruled out by the experts. They concluded that the instrument of the crime was an improvised explosive device without a shell, and not  a MON-50. Improvised explosive device.

And the only particles that could connect this device with the instrument of the crime were….

shrapnel (rollers, impact fragments) that allegedly originate from  a MON-50 (or maybe not) and the threaded bushing of the fuse well, which may also be or not be part of  a MON-50.

This is really important. Because at the stage of the opening speech such inaccuracies are allowed. Allowed in an unbridled desire to fit non-existent facts under a specific accusation. 

According to the unforgettable Ivan Plyushch [prominent speaker of Ukrainian Parliament] – insert  the uninsertable.

The uninsertable element also made up by the investigation bodies was the RDX explosive, which was not found anywhere at the crime scene, according to FBI research. It was discovered only on the remains of a detonator, which is commonly equipped with 1.02 g of RDX. This is 1 gram of explosive, which only initiated the bomb, and did not form its main composition. However, this circumstance is deliberately forgotten and the court and the public are misled by the fact that they constantly repeat the word “RDX” without adding the phrase “one gram”. This creates a misconception that the composition of the explosive device is known.

In return, they forgot multiple repetition of a word diphenylamine in the forensic examinations and hush it up.
Because there is no diphenylamine in MON-50 mines and this is not consistent with the ridiculous theory about the so-called “Antonenko’s mine”.

Here I will pause for a moment to explain the most important reason why I have been explaining these details for so long. These details are important from the point of view of the so-called “half of the Antonenko’s mine”, but we do not base our defense on this. We have much stronger arguments that my colleague will pronounce later.

I explained all this so carefully for other reasons. This is extremely important because in the future, when the pre-trial investigation body can still find the real killers of Pavlo Sheremet, if at the same time they find material evidence that will not coincide with what is being said now – they should not avoid punishment due to the fact that you and I will be guided not by the forensic opinions, not by established facts, but by this chatter. 

Statements that “the explosive device was a MON-50 mine, or made from a MON-50 mine or based on a MON-50 form a cognitive bias and unreasonably narrow the search range. 

Now imagine that the bushing was not from a MON-50 mine, but from MON-90, and in a garage belonging to some terrorist there will be MON-90 with bushing missing  found the villain  will say he is not involved, because it does not match the official version. If they find roller bearings, he will say that they are not  from a MON-50 and thus he is innocent. Find the dynamite, TNT, HMX, xylitol, dinitrobenzene, dinitronaphthalene, picric acid, dunnite, tetryl, tetralit or HND – and his defense will tell us  “he did not kill Pavlo Sheremet because despite the forensics the detective molded the fake that Sheremet was blown up with RDX in the indictment.”

I will repeat the results of the expert reports, which you will find in the materials of the pre-trial investigation. This is not an interpretation, but hard facts.

There was no firm evidence of a MON-50 mine!. There was a threaded bushing and shrapnel, which may have originated from  a MON-50. But this is just  a possibility.

There was no RDX. The basic explosive is unknown. There was diphenylamine all over that has nothing to do with a MON-50!

There was no RDX explosive. The latter was found only on the remains of the detonator, where it should be, and nowhere else.  The basic explosive is unknown.

Diphenylamine was found everywhere and it has nothing to do with a MON-50!

the myth of the investigative experiment 💿

Next I would like to talk about procedural behavior. Much of the prosecutor’s speech and official statements in the media were devoted to this. And now we will talk not only about the procedural behavior of defendants in this criminal case but of the investigators as well .

On December 28, 2019, Mr. Antonenko gave comprehensive testimony. In particular, during the interrogation, he reported everything about the empty MON-50 mine  casing he owned, and also agreed to an investigative experiment and to a lie detector.

However, in the media and in the opening speech of the prosecutor there were theses that Mr. Antonenko allegedly refused to conduct an investigative experiment and to conduct an examination using a polygraph.

I would like to draw attention to this discrepancy and, using only the materials of the pre-trial investigation, to refute this information.

The pre-trial investigation materials (volume 9, page 131) contain a transcript of Mr. Antonenko’s interrogation. In it you will be surprised to see this.

Detective O.Ya. Katynsky: Do you agree to have a polygraph?

Suspect Antonenko A.S.: Of course

Detective Katynsky O.Ya.: I wanted another question, do you agree to an investigative experiment?

Suspect Antonenko A.S.: Of course, we are the first people who are interested.

And the so-called refusal of the investigative experiment on January 2 this year was recorded on video. And I ask you to watch this video of Mr. Antonenko maliciously refusing to conduct this investigative experiment.

I will quote Mr. Antonenko once again: I will gladly take part, but accompanied by my lawyer.

As you can see, the investigative experiment on 02.01.2020 was intentionally disrupted by the investigation body because the lawyers were not notified in time. 

There were no more attempts to hold it again!


Yulia Kuzmenko did take part in an investigative experiment that day, but it failed due to the investigation.
She was driven through the streets of Kyiv in chains, and because of this the examination (you will find it in the materials of the proceedings – volume № 36 page 16) allegedly said that it could not compare her gait.
It would be logical to make another attempt – without a chain. But it did not happen!

Because it is clear to everyone that if Ms. Kuzmenko and Mr. Antonenko pass under the same cameras together in the same angles, it would become obvious that they are not just unlike, but totally, completely different people than the perpetrators depicted in the video.

This was done so that society would not see a glaring difference in their height! This is really a very important detail. And colleagues have already talked about it. Later we will emphasize this and provide more detailed information. And the sources of this information will also be mainly the materials collected by the investigation body, and not our arguments, fabrications or statements of talking heads on TV.

violation of rights of the defense 💿

I will say more. During the pre-trial investigation, the right to counsel was grossly violated.

You have already seen they tried to impose upon Mr. Antonenko a legal assistant not of his own choosing. But he was not given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence.

The information that is obvious to us today (about his own height) was concealed from him. As soon as he was detained, he was taken to a temporary detention center, where he was photographed near the so-called “sizer” – a prison ruler. You see this photo from the detainee’s questionnaire, which was kept in the detention center. He is depicted here apparently in footwear. And here is his height in shoes, as you can see, is 185 cm. We have drawn the offender on the right for comparison. He is also in shoes and 172 cm tall. However, the isolator answered our inquiries that the information about Antonenko’s height is classified, they say protective measures were imposed for his personal safety. That is why he and his lawyers were denied this questionnaire.  This contained information about his height and his photo near the “sizer”. We later received this information only with the warrant of the investigative judge.

We also requested an examination to measure the height of Mr. Antonenko. It was not done immediately, and the defense, which requested the performance of this examination, got an official report with the results up in June – after 4 ½  months. And all this time, Mr. Antonenko was detained. 

After the pre-trial investigation finished on May, 22 we were informed about the disclosure of the materials in accordance with Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. However, we  were not  shown these materials for the next almost 20 days. We received them only on June 10, after mass protests due to the public campaign “Avakov, disclose the evidence”. I have never seen such violations in my practice.

In addition, even without immersing ourselves inside the essence of the forensic opinions – I promised not to provide evaluative judgments, but to operate solely on facts – we saw terrible forgeries inside there. One by one.

Just as an example – if you summarize the invoices of all of the examinations, which the so-called “expert” Irkhin conducted in December 2019, it turns out that he worked 60 hours a day.

For these sham examinations they billed the defendants for 169,6 thousand hryvnias. Please note – I do not touch on the essence of these opinions, they do not apply to Mr. Antonenko at all. But if you look at the content of what is shown,  everything is quite deplorable.

This is just one small example. In fact, later you will see that the situation is much worse. That the scale of the forgery is glaring.

But that’s coming soon.

acquaintance with Yulia Kuzmenko 💿

Later in his speech, the prosecutor spoke about the acquaintance of Mr. Antonenko and Mrs. Kuzmenko and their communication. My colleagues talked about it. 

Andriy Antonenko saw Yulia Kuzmenko only once before the day of the tragedy, she was an accidental witness of the traffic accident where Andriy’s son was injured. It happened on January 28, 2016, at 6:30 p.m.

Before Pavlo Sheremet’s death, they met once and contacted via Facebook and by phone only a few times.

However, you are given completely manipulative figures. This slide from the prosecutor’s opening speech shows you not the contact numbers that precede the events of the crime, but the contacts for the whole year of 2016!

If you analyze these figures for the whole year, you will get a completely different picture. 

Till  July, 21 2016 statistics as follows:
one sms message
10 phone calls
no gprs
87 messages in Facebook

Even 10 phone calls are several connections in a row, which are actually negotiations on the traffic accident (5 conversations from January 29 to February 1), on the court sitting regarding the accident (once on April 15) and three calls related to volunteer donations (July 6). Just three issues. De facto 3 contacts. The same can be seen from the correspondence on Facebook – all 87 messages easily fit on an A4 sheet. They were all disclosed to the investigation body.

That’s the whole truth about the communication between the two defendants to prepare such a serious crime. Moreover, not only this, but, as we remember, to plan a number of crimes.

in any message, in any content of the seized phones and computers there is no single hint of conspiracy or extremism

And most important – in any message, in any content of the seized phones and computers there is no single hint of conspiracy or extremism. It is clear from the correspondence that they did not meet.

Against this background, the allusions to Mr. Antonenko’s acquaintance with Mrs. Yulia’s current husband, Petro Kiyan, who is present in the courtroom today, look absolutely manipulative.

He is not a party to the case, he has the status of a witness and is not involved in anything. Acquaintance with him, meetings and communication were never denied by the defence, but all this does not prove Mr. Antonenko’s relationship with Mrs. Kuzmenko.

If the investigation body had given Mr Kiyan the role of a kind of “liaison”, Mr Kiyan would have been on the dock. And so the numerous statistics of his meetings with Mr. Antonenko and the meeting in the brewery on July 18, 2016 are absolutely irrelevant and manipulative information to confuse the court. Distract, so to speak, from the main thesis:
The acquaintance between Mr. Antonenko and Mrs. Kuzmenko until July 21, 2016 was purely virtual

Extremely strange and I would say cynical is the demonstration of a fragment of correspondence on Facebook between the defendants about the alleged commission of a murder. 

It is really a historical fact. They discuss a very real situation that happened at that time. This has been discussed by many members of society. Without commenting on this case, I will say that the officers of the 8th Special Regiment were suspected of committing the murder of Oleg Kunitsky.

Discussion of this in 2017 does not indicate any connection with the murder of Pavlo Sheremet.

the myth of phones behaviour 💿

In his opening speech, the prosecutor voiced the investigation’s information about the alleged unusual “behavior of the defendants’ phones”. However, in the case file the investigation body clearly states that the night before Mr. Antonenko’s phone was last active on the Kyivstar operator at 11:24 p.m., and the next morning he received the first incoming call at 7:23 am.
The investigation also notes that all this time Mr. Antonenko’s phone was, as usual, and as he himself constantly claims, at his home, on Starovokzalna Street.

What was so extraordinary about it?

We conducted an analysis for the whole of 2016 to find out the time, relatively speaking, of “waking up” and “falling asleep” of the defendants’ phones. We recorded the time of the first activity after 3 am (let’s call it – the phone woke up) and the last second of the conversation or SMS message in the evening, more precisely before 3 am of the next day.

On the graph you can see that the countdown starts from 3 o’clock to 27 o’clock, i.e. 27 o’clock is 3 am of the next calendar day.

Such an approximate schedule can be built on the activity of the phones of each of us.

This graph clearly shows how these indicators fluctuated during the year. On some days there are such emissions – significant deviations from the mean line. Too late or too early calls are extraordinary behavior. In itself, it does not indicate anything.

But if you look at the activity on the fateful evening before the crime and on the morning of July 20, the last and first calls marked with an asterisk on this chart are absolutely normal! They are no different from other days, except that Mr. Antonenko woke up quite early that day, but this has a good explanation – an incoming phone call from his friend woke him up, and this friend is a defense witness.

In this graph, the same data is displayed in the form of a bar chart. On the vertical axis, the day is divided into segments of 15 minutes (still from 3 to 27 hours) and determined horizontally by the frequency – how many days in a year there were days when the first and last activity of the phone fell into the appropriate 15-minute interval.

And, as we see in this frequency diagram, the median “wake-up call” (blue) falls at about 10 o’clock in the morning. I emphasize that this does not mean that Mr. Antonenko wakes up so late, it means that he start using his phone most often at this time in the operator’s network. Most of these days, as we see, looking at the longest column – 25 per year. Similarly, the most typical time of “falling asleep phone” (ie time of last use) – 10 pm. Red color. There are 26 such days in the year of 2016.

And the interval 11:15 – 11:30 pm is marked in green – not far from the median. There were 13 such days in the year. Therefore, to say that the evening of July 19, 2016 was somehow outstanding is at least a very gross mistake. Similarly, the time of the first activity of the next day (marked in yellow on the graph) is less typical, there were only 5 such days per year, but even under these circumstances there is nothing extraordinary. Moreover, we know why – an incoming call from the witness. 

Almost everything can be repeated about Mrs. Kuzmenko’s phone.

19.07.2016 Kuzmenko’s phone is last active at 7:15 pm, in the morning 20.07.2016 the first entrance 09:15 am which is absolutely typical for it. All this time the phone is located on Urlivska Street, at the place of her permanent residence by that time. Nothing extraordinary is happening to it.

Chart, which is built on the same principle as the active phone Mr. Antonenko, it is clear that these days – evening 19 July and the morning of July 20, 2016 Mкs. Kuzmenko had not fluctuations at all, I emphasize, not at all,  that is no different from the average value. If Mr. Antonenko has a slightly unusual early wake up in the morning, Mrs. Kuzmenko has no deviations absolutely.

Similarly, in the frequency diagram, which is based on the same principle as Mr. Antonenko’s phone, we see that Mrs. Kuzmenko most often uses the phone for the first time between 7 and 7:15 a.m. – 80 precedents, typical phone sleep time 7:30-7:45 pm – 21 precedent for the year. During the events (green column) last activity has been recorded at 7:15 – 7:30 pm – 14 precedents per year. The next day waking up at 9:15 which happens 10 times for the year.

Thus, all the nonsense about the extraordinary behavior of phones – just a fantasy, irresponsible babbling, hoping that no one will check. People just slept at night as however the prosecution blames them for that.

the fantasies by Avakov and Herashchenko about a mine 💿

Mr. Minister and his deputy have invented a meme about “half of the MON-50 mine”, which they are trying to justify by ridiculous fantasies about holes. 

In the object, which was found near Mr. Antonenko’s apartment, the discharged mine case there is an additional hole. And they say that’s why this subject is related to the possible commission of a crime! In fact, the allegations of officials boil down to the fact that anything that has holes can be used to commit a criminal offense.

This is a manipulative statement and it claims that the hole was made to screw the detonator, although there are 2 places where the detonators can be normally mounted.

However, this discrepancy, to put it mildly, is actually significant.

Let’s see how this item was seized, how rumors and gossip were deliberately created about it and who was the source of these rumors.

the myth of Inna Hryshchenko 💿

Why did Mr. Antonenko and the other defendants appear in these criminal proceedings? The police, so to speak “came onto them” through the accused in another proceeding. 

The Gryshchenko couple, Inna and Vlad, who have nothing to do with this case, are constantly mentioned, even during the prosecutor’s opening speech. They were not even interrogated as witnesses, at least you will not find any mention of them in the case file.

As this was in the prosecutor’s opening speech, we are forced to return to this topic. Mr. Antonenko has never , I emphasize, has never been acquainted at all with Vlad Grishchenko. And he met Inna Grishchenko for the first time in 2019 at a concert.

Instead, Your Honor, you are foisted by such slides. And they stated that according to information from social networks, Mr. Antonenko and Mrs. Hryshchenko allegedly had some connection, were acquaintances on the day of the criminal offense, and so on. However, this is all manipulation.

Please note that this information was taken from Mrs. Hryshchenko’s Facebook page, not Mr. Antonenko’s. And it says “Dreams must come true. Now I have a selfie with Andriy Antonenko. Thank you for a wonderful performance.”
What does this indicate? Madam first saw a person whose songs she liked, and she was able to take common pictures with him. However, manipulation is not only there. Date! Date, may it please the Court. Date, honorable jurors and honorable representatives of the victims. Date – August 28, 2019! The first time a person saw Mr. Antonenko at a concert in 2019. And because of this, they say that Mr. Antonenko and Ms. Gryshchenko are allegedly connected.

In fact, it’s just the minister’s team who are trying hard to justify, as well as in the case of the crazy halves of the mine, why they united all our defendants in a group and why at all the briefings about Antonenko, Duhar and Kuzmenko 60% of air time for some reason was dedicated to Hrishchenkos.

insinuations about the beard 💿

We are again forced to return to the information with a beard, because it is voiced by the prosecution, and, unfortunately, was voiced in the opening speech by the prosecutor. However, again, with, to put it mildly, discrepancies.

We never said anything at all about Mr. Antonenko’s beard, because in fact the portrait forensic examination did not recognize Antonenko in the photo. However, the prosecution shows obviously false and irrelevant information. 

The photos on this slide are allegedly dated May 2016 with a difference of 3 days. Look at how old Mr. Antonenko has grown in these three days and how much his beard has grown! Why did this happen? (This is not our information, this is a slide from the prosecutor’s opening speech).

Because in fact this photo was taken not in the year 2016, but in the 2012! Why was this done? To draw attention to the fact that Mr. Antonenko’s beard in 2016 had a shape similar to the beard of a person in the video.

However, the fact remains that the real photos do exist on the social network Facebook as while of July 19, 2016, as of July 21, 2016, they show the shape of Mr. Antonenko’s beard at the time when the criminal offense was committed.

And for comparison, here is an offender on July 20, 2016 from surveillance cameras, who has a completely different shape of the beard – there are no sideburns and in general it is different in shape.

Of course, while studying the casefile you will be able to draw your own conclusions. But now the fact that the prosecution has shown other photos not the nearest photo by the time of the crime, but other, in order to confirm the alleged involvement of Mr. Antonenko, shows that they try to manipulate your opinion.

manipulations on Yulia Kuzmenko’s geotag 💿

And finally. I could not help but show the blatant manipulation during the prosecutor’s speech regarding Mrs. Kuzmenko’s mobile phone. It was stated that during an examination of Ms. Kuzmenko’s mobile phone, an alleged geolocation was found near the crime scene. And it was noted that at three o’clock in the morning she was not far from the crime scene. However, discrepancies – again discrepancies – the devil in the details. 

The explosive was planted on the 20th at 3  a.m.!

And this “point” was shown to you and it seemed that here, Mrs. Kuzmenko was then in a crime scene dated 19th of July – the day before!

In addition, Yulia Kuzmenko’s mobile phone is an Iphone Xs Max, which was launched in 2018, and the geotag was allegedly found in 2016.

I ask you to draw the only possible conclusion from this.I ask you, please be objective. And note that if the people accused of the crime were really guilty, there would be no need to invent all this nonsense, and “discrepancies” as I call them, including those pronounced in the speech of Mr. Prosecutor.

Читайте також: 

Справа Антоненка та ін. Список свідків обвинувачення та їх показань

Вступна промова прокурора у справі Шеремета. 37 фото 8 відео


Published by: Леонід Маслов

Leave a Reply