We offer to your attention the opening speech of prosecutor Tishyn [Attorney General Office] from 08.10.2020 on the jury on charges of Antonenko, Duhar, Kuzmenko for the murder of Pavlo Sheremet. Presentation elements in full quality included.
Written version of the speech (PDF) . (It significantly differs from the voiced version).
See also on our Youtube channel
Note that in both the written and voiced versions of the prosecutor, almost every slide and every sentence contains either completely falsehood or manipulative information aimed at deceiving the court. However, we provide comments apart:
Click on the text to go to the section, on the disk 💿 to watch video of the section from the courtroom
To enlarge any image, just click on it.
All videos containing audio have Russian and English subtitles.
20.07.2016 at 07:44 in Kyiv, a Subaru car driven by prominent journalist Pavlo Sheremet was blown up at the intersection of Ivan Franko and Bohdan Khmelnytsky streets.
This is just now a short video of the event
After the car explosion where the prominent journalist Pavlo Sheremet was inside, the latter was still alive for about 20 minutes, however he unfortunately died from his injuries.
Subsequently, numerous site inspections were conducted,
during which the remains of the explosion were seized, but what exactly was contained in them and in the fire debris was not known yet at that time. It was found that the epicenter of the explosion was under the bottom in the area of the driver’s seat of the car.
Due to the gained significant public response, specialists from the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the US Department of Justice arrived in Ukraine,
who even more thoroughly inspected the scene and the car in which Sheremet was blown up. The car, or rather its remains after the explosion and fire, was disassembled at the car stands of the official representative of “Subaru” in Ukraine.
A similar car was dismantled by Subaru technicians to weed out parts of the blown-up car from alien objects. For example, foreign experts found the remains of a metal spherical object, which was later identified as a neodymium magnet. The chemical samples were sent by the FBI to the FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, USA.
In the future, during the trial, numerous protocols will be attached, where these remnants of these things and objects that you now see on the slides were seized.
Immediately after inspecting the scene, the investigative team appointed a number of comprehensive examinations. The investigation was interested not only in who and how has planted the explosive, but also in the kind and type of the charge that was used for the crime.
Please, open the evidence base and the Investigative Experiment tab
Thus, during these examinations, some items that were seized at the scene were identified. They were parts of the anti-personnel mine MON-50.
We just see now a slide show of some of these remnants left of the mine.
These were roller-type pellet fragments, a threaded bushing, a plastic plug and a nipple of electric detonator.
We see a schematic representation of the MON-50 mine with its main characteristics, which was planted under Pavlo Sheremet’s car.
A comprehensive explosive examination was ordered to determine the explosive device.
During this examination, an investigative experiment was conducted, during which two cars were blown up. For this purpose, cobblestones seized right from the crime scene were used, as well as anti-personnel mines MON-50.
Right now, the screen shows the car where Pavlo Sheremet died, as well as the car that was used during the investigative experiment. And you can see that just under the driver’s seat there are the same (this is Pavlo Sheremet’s car and the car used in the investigative experiment) holes from the explosion of the MON-50 mine. They are identical and it was established that this is exactly the kind of improvised explosive device used in the murder of the prominent journalist.
In addition, experts based on the results of research, including an investigative experiment in the field, calculated the amount of applied RDX , in TNT equivalent it was 478.4 g. Regular MON-50 contains 700 grams of plastic substance, i.e. half of the specified mine was used.
Subsequently, law enforcement officers worked out the crime scene. And in order to facilitate the work and effectively work out the neighborhood [working out – Ukrainian police slang meaning complete inspection/investigation of] where the explosion took place, and where Pavlo Sheremet lived, for a more thorough search, the area was divided into 33 squares. There were about 500 residential buildings in them, which is about 5,000 apartments, which were worked out by the investigative task force.
The operative services traced the existing video cameras, the video of which was reserved to avoid overwriting and in parallel the video from more than 300 surveillance cameras was collected. A group of police officers was formed, who watched the video seized during the inspections almost around the clock. A number of investigative actions were carried out to separate persons from those permanently residing in the specified district.
More than 720 court permits have been obtained to seize information from mobile operators, 42,500 subscriber numbers, 15,300 IMEIs, monitorings.
Taxi services, whose cars arrived in the specified district in the number of more than 250 taxi drivers and their passengers, were worked out.
Groups of radicals, people with explosive ordnance skills, and volunteer battalion officers were inspected.
The version and motive of the crime were not left out either. More than 295 reviews and researches of publications and topics of broadcasts, personal notes of the victim, his e-mail and correspondence for the last three years have been performed. The identity of the victim was investigated, including working out of his articles, which are mostly analytical in nature to support of reforms in the state.
The staff of the Internet publishing house “Ukrainian Pravda” and “Novi-Media LLC” was interrogated about the known circumstances of the crime and possible motives for the murder of Sheremet and Channel 17 news agency, who were the first to report live from the scene of the murder.
In addition, 95 complex examinations were conducted in the criminal proceedings, during which the media of the victim and the defendants, the car and fire debris, elements of the MON-50 and magnets, video from the scene were examined.
More than 50 searches were performed, during which video materials were seized and on, about whom there was operative information about involvement in the crime, were worked out.
Now I offer you to watch the videos watched.
Since then, individuals who came into the sight of police officers watching the video have been identified and segregated.
During the inspections, a woman was found who was walking by suspicious gait on July 15 and 18, 2016 near the victim’s car and recording CCTV cameras on her phone.
We see one of these videos right now. This video will now clearly show her taking pictures of the cameras…
Two individuals were also recorded – a man and a woman, who are at night at 02:41 a.m. 20.07.2016 passing the Subaru car … now it will be visible further on video as the woman having approached the car and having squatted, plants something under it. Right now, in the right corner of the screen, you can see an explosive device planted under Pavlo Sheremet’s car. Later on, these two individuals keep moving. Their activity was monitored by a working group of law enforcement agencies.
In the specified video there is an image of the man who has typical clothes with a print on a back, the corresponding pattern. Looking ahead, when we investigate the search reports, the defendant Antonenko was also found to have similar sweaters with the appropriate print, with the appropriate image.
It would be appropriate to point out that crimes of this category are not obvious and their commission requires very careful preparation. The pre-trial investigation not only examined the evidence of involvement, but also the evidence of non-involvement of the defendants.
Please open the results of the examinations.
Thus, according to the results of a commission expert examination by experts of psychologists of the Kyiv Research Institute of Forensic Examinations with the involvement of international specialist Ivan Birch, it was concluded that individuals recorded at the scene of Pavlo Sheremet’s murder who planted the explosive… the video we’ve seen before have been identified as Yulia Kuzmenko and Andriy Antonenko, respectively.
Similarly, experts from the Kyiv Research Institute of Forensic Science, psychologists and photo technicians identified the scout as Yana Duhar.
Please open the “Hiding Evidence” tab
On December 12, 2019, Antonenko, Kuzmenko and Duhar were first notified of the suspicion of committing an incriminated crime, and searches were launched during which the defendants began to hide material evidence.
In particular, the defendant Antonenko, learning about the search and realizing that he could be exposed by law enforcement agencies in the murder of Pavlo Sheremet, hid the case of the MON-50 mine, which was kept at home, as well as the mobile phone through which he contacted his wife’s brother.
Here on the slide, if there is an opportunity to increase the correspondence… in this correspondence it is just a question… Antonenko writes that it is necessary to hide the green thing that is in his house, namely the discharged MON-50 mine. These materials were recorded during covert investigative (search) actions and in the future the relevant protocol will be submitted to the court for its examination.
It is also stated that as already said on the account of the mobile phone from which Antonenko called and tried to hide material evidence in criminal proceedings he also handed the phone over to one of the lawyers who is not currently identified.
In addition, Yana Duhar, in turn, hid seven mobile phones she had previously used, books on explosives, as well as a bag with a set of sapper, which she kept in her rented apartment.
There is now a text of a conversation between Yana Duhar…
You just listened…
this is just a general view of the miner’s bag. We have just listened to a recording of the results of covert investigative (search) actions.
Besides, Yulia Kuzmenko in turn concealed the password to the mobile terminal she used in 2016 – Apple iPhone-6, which was seized from her home, reporting its malfunction, and later – indicating the wrong password.
In addition to the mentioned forensic opinions, besides indicated materials, the guilt of the defendants is also proved by other evidence collected during the pre-trial investigation, which will be certainly provided by the prosecution during the further trial.
Please open part of them “proofs of guilt”. The “report on results of…” tab.
These are exactly the materials of the covert investigative actions, which I have already reported on cover up – attempt to conceal physical evidence… this correspondence is on mine … case of the mines, discharged case of MON-50 mine which is similar to what was planted under Pavel Sheremet’s car. These are just sms-messages…
This telephone conversation took place after the sms-correspondence, because, according to the pre-trial investigation body, the prosecution, the individual was not responding the messages, so the phone call was made and the conversation is about the MON-50 mine, which defendant Antonenko asked to hide in his sms-messages.
So. The explanation of the experts on the discharged MON-50 mine, which Antonenko tried to hide, states that the hole in the mine case, which Antonenko hid, is not provided by the design and is probably made for an abnormal method of detonating of the MON-50 segment. Half of the MON-50 charge was also used in the bombing of Pavel Sheremet. That is similar to the mine under Pavlo Sheremet’s car.
Overview of phone connections. Open the connection overview…
Also during the analysis and monitoring of telephone traffic by inspection of telephone connections of Antonenko it was established that his phone number in the period from 09:00 p.m. 19.07 till 10:00 a.m. 20.07 (it is in the night… at night when an explosive device was planted) and on the morning of July 20, Pavlo Sheremet’s car exploded) was recorded at his place of residence and was inactive, which is not typical of the defendant Antonenko.
Similarly, in the period of 8:16 p.m. 19.07 to 9:19 a.m. 20.07, the mobile phone used by Kuzmenko was not active, which is not typical for her as well.
Common connections analysis. The question was repeatedly raised at the stage of the pre-trial investigation… Kuzmenko-Antonenko please… that Kuzmenko and Antonenko were not acquainted, rarely talked, but during the pre-trial investigation it was established otherwise.
Now you are shown the number of telephone connections, Internet connections, correspondence in messengers, on Facebook in 2016.
This is also a connection analysis, according to which it is established that Antonenko and Kuzmenko in the period from 14.03.2016 to 30.10.2016 29 times simultaneously were in the area of base stations operating within the same territory, that is, were next to each other. Were together…
There is also an analysis of traffic, an analysis of research on other materials established Antonenko’s connection with Kuzmenko’s close acquaintance, the surname Kiyan [now Mrs. Kuzmenko husband]. We also see the number of their connections both via the Internet and via text messages and calls.
This is also schematically demonstrated, in the future there will be a more detailed review protocol, which will reflect all this: the number of connections, dates, hours, meeting places…
Just shown schematically on the map, also that in the period from 26 July 2016 [this is an error – June] to July 22, 2016 at the time of the crime ten times simultaneously were in the area of base stations and within one territory.
It was also recorded analysis of telephone connections that in the period from 19.07.2016 to 20.07.2016 Kiyan was recorded not far from the area of Sheremet’s residence.
So. Reviewing social media pages.
Review of pages on social networks by Andriy Antonenko…. According to the interrogation minutes, Antonenko has not used VKontakte social network since 2014. However, on January 4, 2020, the login to the specified social network was recorded, which indicates that while in custody he even tried to hide some information remotely that might be necessary and have probative value in court.
We also see photos from social networks regarding Antonenko’s connection with Gryshchenko, who is accused in another criminal case. We provide these files to the court and the participants of the trial more likely as characterizing data of the defendant Antonenko and his connection with other participants in other criminal proceedings, as well as the fact that the same improvised explosive device was used in committing the criminal offense in which Grishchenko is currently accused, device similar to one used for Sheremet’s murder.
This is also Kuzmenko’s correspondence with Antonenko. I also ask you to pay attention to one of these details “come on tomorrow, it’s not a good place of discussing this matter.” That is, they act in disguise, disguise, realizing that the law enforcement agencies can read this correspondence during covert investigative (search) actions, record it in accordance with the requirements of the law.
Also the presence of joint photos of Kuzmenko, Antonenko and Kiyan at the appropriate time of year. Also during the pre-trial investigation it was established that on 20.07.2016 at 9:22 in the messenger… on Facebook, in the social network Facebook on the page Kuzminchuk Anna Kuzmenko left a post with… here you see what is written. And then in a few minutes Kuzmenko in the browser… in the Google browser made a search query for the following parameters “Sheremet Pavel Grigorievich ”.
We have just listened to a part of Kuzmenko’s telephone conversation with Mazurchak [error – Mazurchuk] Vasylysa Mykolayivna, and it is clear from their conversation that another crime may be being committed against people mentioned on the slide. Will you pause? Also … the next slide now is Kuzmenko’s conversation with Ulyanov Volodymyr. Now you will hear what exactly is being said about the possible commission of a certain crime.
Well, I think everyone has heard, in principle, there are no additional comments, as it were,… Next…
During the pre-trial investigation it was also established that Kuzmenko’s phone had a label with geodata, which confirms the fact of her stay on 19.07.2016 at 3:56:33 near Lev Tolstoy Square in Kyiv, which is a few blocks from Sheremet’s house that of course contradicts her testimony given at the pre-trial investigation that she was at home that night.
These are joint photos of Antonenko, Kiyan and Kuzmenko, which refutes [error – confirms] the fact that the latter were previously acquainted and were in a very friendly relationship. As it was said.
This is also an sms-correspondence between Kuzmenko and Antonenko, a more detailed review protocol will be provided later, it just confirms once again that they know each other and talked quite often.
Well, it is only left to review the presentation of the characteristics of the defendants.
As for the characteristics, I can say that during the pre-trial investigation, Antonenko, now the defendant, refused to conduct an investigative experiment with his participation, refused to undergo a forensic psychological examination using a polygraph.
In turn, Kuzmenko refused to undergo a forensic psychological examination using a polygraph, and refused to conduct a simultaneous interrogation with Antonenko.
Duhar, in turn, at the stage of pre-trial investigation refused to provide handwriting samples for handwriting examination, and refused to undergo forensic psychological examination using a polygraph. She refused to undergo a forensic psychiatric examination, to measure her height.
I also want to draw the attention of the court, the participants in the process, because in the future, perhaps, the defense will provide the relevant documents, including the conclusions of the examinations. Therefore, I would like to draw your attention to this, at the stage of the pre-trial investigation for some reason the defendants refused to conduct certain investigative actions and participate in certain examinations.
This applies to the defendants’ connection with the Gryshchenko family, who are currently accused of attempted murder of Mr. Chekurak in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, where similar improvised explosive devices were used, as well as magnets used to attach an improvised explosive device to the bottom of the car.
This is a method of attaching an improvised explosive device, similar to the assassination attempt on Mr. Chekurak.
These are also common ties between the persons involved in the assassination attempt on Chekurak, their connection, including Vladislav Gryshchenko.
This is exactly the defendant Antonenko, who is captured in the photo together with Gryshchenko Inna, Gryshchenko’s wife, as we have already seen, just mentioned. We see Kuzmenko and Duhar at the court hearing, when Gryshchenko was chosen a preventive measure. Also a close acquaintance Kuzmenko Kiyan arrived in the city of Ivano-Frankivsk, took away the vehicle… further handed over keys from it to the defendant in our proceedings Yana Duhar.
As for Antonenko’s beard, the defendant Antonenko is depicted on the left — his photo in the period… different period of the year… And we see that he has the same different beard shape as well as the person who is fixed on a video we watched as one of the planters of the mine.
As for the characterizing data of the accused Dugar Yana… during the pre-trial investigation it was established that the latter was repeatedly absent without official leave… This is just a telephone conversation about what can be misleading…
If you listen to this audio file, I believe that it is necessary to be critical of the defendant’s testimony in the future and to investigate all the circumstances carefully, if she speaks further, given what we have just listened to.
Also on the slide now, the slides show the clinical records of some patients at the military hospital where Yana Dugar served. Relevant examinations were also carried out and it was established that the recordings made by Yana Duhar were not made in July, but later in November 2016. There was also evidence that Dugar was capable of misleading and that she said she was in hospital at the time of the crime, as confirmed by several defense witnesses. However, about 50 servicemen, who were in hospital in Pokrovsk at the time, were interrogated and refuted all the testimony of the defendant Duhar.
This is a sample reconnaissance books.
Basically if so take a brief summary… this is generally much more material available to the prosecution, it will be prepared and will later be submitted to the court for consideration.
Also, given the amount of evidence collected, as well as the position of the prosecution [error:defense] regarding the non-admission of guilt in committing the crimes incriminated in it, the prosecution proposes to investigate all materials collected during the pre-trial investigation, in the following order:
Beginning with the study of written evidence, namely documents and appendices to them, continue with the study of physical evidence. Further examine the written evidence of the defense, which was disclosed in accordance with Article 290 of the CPC of Ukraine to the prosecution during the pre-trial investigation, then interrogate prosecution witnesses, a list of which will be provided in the form of a motion, interrogate experts and specialists who participated and conducted expert research in criminal proceedings, as far as we have a lot of problems due to examinations conducted in criminal proceedings, to interrogate witnesses of the defense if there are relevant motions, hereafter question the defendants and to finish with the interrogation of victims. I believe that such a procedure for examining the evidence will be sufficient to establish the truth in criminal proceedings and to take a relevant lawful and a substantiated decision.
That’s all I have. I would also like to attach the written text of the opening speech together on the disk on which the presentation we just watched is written. The list of witnesses is indicated in the register of pre-trial investigation materials, but in my opinion there is no need to summon all witnesses mentioned in the register of pre-trial investigation materials, the prosecution has prepared a motion, the measures will be taken as well to provide certain number of witnesses in order not to delay the trial within a reasonable time. I also ask to attach a motion indicating witnesses and their addresses.