Приговор при свечах / Judgment in candlelight - Владимир Анатольевич Арсентьев

At the prosecution’s initiative, witness Prudon was additionally interrogated at trial as a measure to complement the judicial proceedings. The witness, however, failed to testify on the merits or freely expose the circumstances in a narrative. Answering the prosecutor’s questions, he said that his earlier testimony during the preliminary investigation was correct. Besides, witness Prudon explained that he had seen a pistol in Bragin’s car at some point but could not describe it. He also stated he did not consider that fact related to Petrov’s murder in any way. They had followed Petrov’s car in order to steal it. He had not and could not have seen Pervushin with the grenade launchers, because what he had seen Pervushin put in the car were merely bags with unknown contents. He also had not and could not have overheard any conversations between Porokhov, Pervushin, and Bragin because he was in another room. He had not taken the Mercedes from Pyzhov and Teterin, and he couldn’t say what car he had told the investigator about.

At the inspection of the crime scene, Prudon showed the place with the remnants of burnt cars. He said that Petrov’s car was among them.

Meanwhile, the case file includes a statement by Petrov, filed on March 8, that his car had been stolen on March 7 at 5 p.m. Petrov died on March 10. That means he submitted the statement three days before death, not a week before death as argued by Prudon during the preliminary investigation. However, Prudon stated at trial that he didn’t know what car he had told the investigator about or what it had to do with Petrov’s murder.

Moreover, Prudon’s testimony to the pre-trial investigation concerning Petrov’s car contradicts the testimony of victim Petrova, whose Mercedes got stolen on the day before the murder of her husband Petrov, as well as the testimony of witness El below regarding what she learned from Petrova.

Therefore, the investigation’s evidence that a Mercedes had been destroyed by Bragin, Pervushin, and Porokhov did not prove that those persons had destroyed a specific Mercedes belonging to Petrov. The fact that an unspecified Mercedes car, or any other car, was dismantled and destroyed at the time in question is irrelevant to the case. It cannot indicate, as the prosecution posited, that the defendants were involved in killing Petrov, which they were accused of by the pre-trial investigation.

At trial, witness Prudon did not confirm his testimony to the investigation regarding Pervushin possibly purchasing grenade launchers from Pertsev. He explained that he only saw Pervushin carrying bags with unknown contents. In that connection, the court examined Prudon’s interrogation reports in the case file, containing his testimonies, which were read out at trial upon a motion by Pervushin’s defense, as Pervushin denied purchasing any weapons during the pre-trial investigation as well as at trial.

The interrogation reports of Pertsev, arrested as a suspect, show that Pervushin bought a muffler for Porokhov’s Mercedes car in his shop, not a grenade launcher or any other weapons. That cylindric muffler might be what he and Pervushin put in the latter’s car. Pertsev did not know anything about any weapons, including grenade launchers.

It follows from the resolution to dismiss the criminal case that the prosecution of Pertsev was terminated due to the absence of crime in his actions, namely his involvement in Pervushin’s purchase of a muffler in an auto shop.

Consequently, Prudon gave truthful testimony at trial.

Bragin’s involvement in the killing of Petrov, according to the pre-trial investigation, was confirmed by a record of photo identification procedure, from which it follows that Bragin recognized Matvey, whom he had been driving around in March, on the photo No. 3. The car Bragin and Matvey had been following was green.

In that connection, defendant Bragin explained that he and Matvey were following the car mentioned in the record of photo identification in order to hijack it. Bragin doesn’t know either the owner or the driver of the car. He doesn’t know whether it belonged to Petrov. He also doesn’t know who Pastukhov is.

The case file did not include any testimony by Pastukhov. The court also had no opportunity to interrogate that person, because his location was unknown. The pre-trial investigation could not determine his location either.

Bragin’s alibi was verified at trial and confirmed by the following.

Witnesses Bragins testified in court that their son Bragin came to the town of Udinsk on the afternoon of March 8 and stayed continuously until March 11. He came at the request of his father, whom he helped to reconstruct the burnt bathhouse in their courtyard.

Witness Dorokhova, Bragin’s partner, confirmed the testimony of Bragin’s parents in court, stating that he indeed had been in Udinsk between March 8 and March 11 and came home afterwards.

The investigation also claimed that the culpability of the defendants was confirmed by the testimony of witness Abov, who personally wrote in the report that he had been following Petrov’s car together with Bragin and Prudon in order to steal it.

It is also indicated in the report, in the investigator’s handwriting, that there were three or four such rides, that the hijacking was Prudon’s idea, and that Prudon was behind the wheel. The following is also stated in the report:

– No one had any weapons on them, including Bragin.

– They did not commit any actions with regard to Petrov or his car.

– Abov learned about the murder of Petrov from the police in the autumn of the next year.

– He did not see who destroyed the car that they had used to follow Petrov’s car.

The investigator also found that witness Abov did not know whether Pervushin had any information about Petrov. He also did not know anything about the relationship between Porokhov and Pervushin or about the destroyed house.

Abov stated in court that he did not remember any of the circumstances he had testified about. However, when the court read