Приговор при свечах / Judgment in candlelight - Владимир Анатольевич Арсентьев

Those examinations were conducted in connection with Bronevitsky’s exposure during pre-trial investigation as the one who killed Barinova and Svetlova, demolishing their house with a grenade launcher. As Bronevitsky provided the same details during the investigation and at the court hearing, the results of those tests were confirmed by witnesses at trial:

Stasov, captain of the rapid deployment task force of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, and Volkov, officer of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate of the Russian Ministry of Defense. They explained that the consequences could have resulted from the situation described by Bronevitsky.

Therefore, the court has no grounds to distrust the results of the tests above – regarding Bronevitsky’s injury, the burnt car, and the empty RPG-18. Hence, those results should be deemed valid.

Moreover, Bronevitsky’s story about how he demolished the house is adequately confirmed by the testimony of Yakovleva and Tigun, who saw the incident with their own eyes. Those witnesses told the court that they were walking down the street together at about half past three in the night and saw a car move towards them and then stop at a house. Something flew out of the car towards the house, like from a rocket launcher, causing an explosion, and the car left. Then the house started burning intensely.

Additional witnesses, including the ones above, were interviewed at trial at the initiative of the parties to address the gaps in the preliminary investigation and the conflicting accounts above.

For example, special investigator Prizov of the provincial-level investigations directorate testified in court that he was working on the criminal case against Pervushin and Prudon. While Prudon was looking through his case file, he complained to Prizov that Teterin had forced him to retract his pre-trial testimony in court during the trial of Porokhov.

Witness Teterin, interviewed in court, denied pressuring Prudon into anything.

Witness Prudon’s testimony is presented above.

Witness Vershinin testified at trial that Porokhov led the gang but did not execute the crimes committed by it. Vershinin explained that, being one of the leaders of the regional operations directorate, he received his information from operational sources which he refused to name.

Witness Nazarova declared in court that the defendants were guilty as charged, because all exposing testimony was in a folder she had personally titled “Porokh’s gang, or the off-limits,” which contained explanations by the witnesses to the case whom she had personally interrogated.

The witness also read out an explanation from her folder, provided, as she said, by Prygunov.

However, the judicial board had no opportunity to duly examine such documents in accordance with the law, establish their authenticity, or find out their relation to the case and procedural importance. While the case file does not contain such explanations, the witness – the prosecutor who supervised the investigation of the case – did not propose that the court should perform the above actions. Neither did so the state prosecuting attorney at trial.

Witness Prygunov said in this regard that he had given testimony “to some woman” in an office with a “city prosecutor” sign on the door. He said he had not given any other testimony than the statements in the case file, read out by the court during his interview at trial.

The judicial board found that witness Nazarova’s testimony provided above, including her mention of testimony (particularly witness Prygunov’s) not included in the case file, did not contain any evidence implicating the defendants, and the source of her information remained unknown.

Moreover, witness Nazarova stated in court that her folder included operative information but did not name the sources of that information.

Witness Drozdova told the court that she defended Prygunov, who was charged with involvement in the murder of Barinova and Svetlova in the same case, unconfirmed. For that reason, Prygunov stayed in prison for a long period of time. While in prison, he testified on the case, and then he was released. Drozdova cannot say with certainty whether Prygunov was addicted to drugs or whether he was on drugs during his testimony, because Prygunov kept that in secret. However, Prygunov is prone to drug and alcohol abuse.

Special investigator of the city prosecutor’s office Dmitriev, criminal prosecutor Blinov, field agent Borodin, and ex-investigator Rogov testified at trial that while working on the case of Porokhov and others, they all interrogated Prygunov, who was not subjected to unlawful duress. During the interrogations, none of them noticed any signs of substance intoxication in Prygunov, and they did not have any information about that.

Witness Nakhimov, director of the private security agency Tron, testified in court that Sergeyev worked in the agency until September 14, when he guarded Porokhov. After that, he went on vacation. He hasn’t come back to work since then.

Witness Kabanov testified in court that he was working in the Tron security agency and guarded Leskov, filling in for Moiseyev, who started his own business and was not in touch with Leskov. Kabanov is sure that Bednyakov never was Leskov’s guard and never worked with him. Knyazev occasionally visited Leskov, but he was neither his guard nor his driver.

Badmayev, manager of the emergency traumatology department of the city hospital, testified in court that he was Pervushin’s physician when the latter arrived to the hospital on June 21 with a concussion and a spinal injury. Pervushin underwent inpatient treatment until June 30 when he was released for outpatient treatment. Pervushin had sustained that injury on June 19 in Buryatia as the driver in a car accident.

Witness Badmayev also provided to the court Pervushin’s hospital record and other medical documents regarding his illness and treatment. They were exhibited at trial, and their copies were attached to the case. Badmayev’s testimony obviously corresponded to the documents he submitted.

Besides, pre-trial testimony of witnesses Knyazev and Bednyakov were examined at trial. The court found the following in