On February 21, the defense documents were examined. The court granted the prosecutor’s motion, extending the nighttime house arrest for Mr. Antonenko and Ms. Kuzmenko, and bail for Ms. Duhar.
During today’s court session, the records of the first hearings with investigating judge Vovk were examined, in which decisions were made about the detention (12.12.2019) and imprisonment of Andriy Antonenko (13.12.2019). They reflect the following chronology of events:
- The hearing on Andriy Antonenko’s detention began on 12.12.2019 at 17:49:55 and ended with the pronouncement of the operative part of the decision at 17:58:34 (however, Minister Avakov announced Judge Vovk’s decision at a briefing at 17:06, 40 minutes before the hearing began; later he also publicly stated that the judge had more information than was announced at the briefing)
Detention hearing (full video). During these 7 minutes, Avakov provided the judge with “more information” than during TV appearances. - On December 13 at 16:14:18, Judge Vovk began hearing the motion to apply a 60-day detention as a preventive measure for Mr. Antonenko. The hearing lasted until 3:31:20 on 14.12.2020 with a break from 16:21:39 to 23:58:06, as the defense attorneys filed a motion to recuse Judge Vovk (thus during the break, the investigating judge could watch the Freedom of Speech with Savik Shuster TV show, where Minister Avakov presented his assumptions about the guilt of the detainees, including circumstances that were not disclosed in the courtroom)
Additionally, the court examined the video and of the “Freedom of Speech with Savik Shuster” TV show, which began at 20:59:56 on 13.12.2019 and lasted until 23:47:01. As noted above, the preventive measure hearing actually began at 23:58:06, after the TV show ended.
We want it to be clearly understood that the entire course of the investigation was built on false assumptions, fantasies, and fitting facts to these fantasies.
While presenting the video, defense attorney Kruhovyi noted:
We are demonstrating violations of the presumption of innocence, which has three components:
- first, officials declare the crime solved and the perpetrators identified
- second, they present their false assumptions as thoroughly verified facts
- third, they tell people untruths, claiming that besides the announced evidence, there is some secret reliable evidence. And that this secret evidence allows them to confidently assert guilt.
The prosecutor said these TV shows were normal public presentations of versions in the early stages of investigation. That these versions have nothing to do with the circumstances of the crime. We basically agree with this completely. But this is exactly what needs to be proven, namely how absurd these versions were and what false data they were based on… We are trying to prove the investigation’s bias this way.
Our task is to demonstrate to the honorable Court which arguments were fabricated and show the difference between the picture painted in the media and the real one that the Court has now seen. To separate the reality that you learned about in this courtroom from the fantasies shown on television and show their level of influence. To prove that these fantasies were detrimental to establishing the truth by the investigation.
An example of how the prosecutor himself got carried away with these ideas is that in his opening statement and court sessions he said something about “unusual” phone behavior, although there is nothing about this in the case materials.
We don’t want the Court to get the impression that some publicly announced assumptions were not confirmed only because the prosecutor forgot about them or couldn’t prove them. We want it to be clearly understood that the entire course of the investigation was built on false assumptions, fantasies, and fitting facts to these fantasies.
End quote.
During the video analysis, the defense also drew attention to the fact that Minister Avakov publicly admitted on air that he had informed investigating judge Vovk through extra-procedural means, and that KNDISE director Mr. Ruvin also publicly stated that during the examinations he received names of desired suspects from the investigation, although both these individuals did not have proper procedural status during the investigation. The peculiarity of the probable criminal’s limp in the video, according to them, was “noticed by experts,” but they didn’t mention this in their conclusions. Dmytro Kruhovyi suggested this was done to give the conclusion an accusatory bias, since Mr. Antonenko does not limp in the reference video. Had the experts pointed out the explosive planter’s limp, they would have had to say that this feature distinguishes him from the real Antonenko.
Freedom of Speech with Ukrainian, English and Russian subtitles can be viewed here
Subsequently, the prosecutor’s motion to extend the preventive measures for the accused for another 60 days was considered, which the court granted.
It is interesting that during the consideration of the motion, once again the victims’ representative Dmytro Ivanov stated the absurdity of the prosecutor’s position.
In the photo: attorney Kruhovyi presents Avakov’s live appearance on 13.12.2019. Dmytro Ivanov reacts vividly to it.
The first two volumes of Antonenko’s defense evidence and a copy of his social media data can be viewed in full at this link.
The next hearing will take place on 16.03.2022. The court calendar can be .