Приговор при свечах / Judgment in candlelight - Владимир Анатольевич Арсентьев

conflicted with the facts of his case. This presented an obstacle for judgment, so the case required additional investigation. Moreover, the circumstances were presented in a conflicting manner, which not only rendered the accusation null and void but also did not fall under the definition of an accidental typographical error. In fact, it looked like the prosecutive function was unduly relegated to the court. In that situation, the court had to retrieve the evidence against Kochetov and formulate charges against him. The formal utilitarian approach is there for all to see, as the prosecutor’s protest, accusatory in its nature, was approved before the case was even heard on the merits. My colleagues should be careful, because they too will be judged one day.

In cases like that, it is not the judiciary power subordinate to the law, but the legislative power that entrusts the state prosecuting attorney with the duty to prosecute the case and bring specific, concrete charges in accordance with the law. This is what the defense, the court, and ultimately the civil society expect from the prosecutor.

However, this raises the question of violating the right to defense. Neither during the investigation nor in the course of the trial did Kochetov understand the charges against him or the specific acts attributed to him. All the time he insisted that he hadn’t killed Dneprova and that the corpse found in the swamp hadn’t been identified by the investigation. Note that according to the prosecution, Dneprova was alive and at home during the time in question, later taken home by her relatives. Kochetov also maintained that he had nothing to do with concealing parts of the body found next to the manhole.

The presiding judge asked the state prosecuting attorney to explain the charges to the defendant. Of course, that request could not be met, because for four years, nobody had been able to understand the contradictory accusation. Meanwhile, the court had to establish the circumstances of Dneprova’s death, as the “typo” in the indictment implied Dneprova’s afterlife. After all, it was for that reason that the high judicial instance relegated the criminal case to the court on the fifth year.

So the judge, of all officials, got the raw end of the deal and started investigating the case right during the trial. He travelled three hours by train to the mining town, where the proceedings took place, and booked a hotel room for the night. The town district was called Komarovo[182] and swarmed with mosquitoes just as its name implied.

The court’s tracing efforts showed that citizens Ch. and R. were on the maintenance crew cleaning the sewer manhole, which was located on a swamp next to the river. The water in the sewer was supposed to flow down into the river but it was spilling out from the top of the manhole. The workers used a pike to fish out what they thought was a trash sack. After about two weeks, Ch. was passing by that bag. He poked it with a crowbar, found a dismembered human corpse inside and notified the police.

The burlap sack was opened in the morgue. It contained a female body in adipocere condition, lower extremities detached, ribs broken when inspected by touch. The mortician also found bilateral fracture of the jaw, skull fracture on the right side, multiple open fractures of the left humerus, and multifragmentary fracture of the right humerus.

Dneprova’s guardian, Sh., identified the dismembered parts of the body as belonging to Dneprova (born 1922). Sh. and victim B. identified the cross pendant on the body as Dneprova’s personal item. It was Sh. who had bought the pendant and hung it around Dneprova’s neck. Not only did Sh. and B. identify the body and its parts in the morgue, but they also recognized the objects and clothing as belonging to Dneprova.

Dneprova died of an open blunt crush injury – a depressed skull fracture, probably inflicted by the butt of an axe while she was lying horizontally. Dneprova’s multiple bilateral rib fractures, sternum fractures, and bilateral mandible fracture all occured intra vitam. These injuries were not consistent with falling from a bed and knocking against blunt objects, as Kochetov maintained. Her post mortem injuries included partial removal of upper limbs, removal of lower limbs at the groin level and their mutilation into fragments by a chopping object believed to be an axe.

The pathologies found in her body’s musculoskeletal system were consistent with Dneprova’s medical record. Dneprova was a disabled person of group I, diagnosed with rheumatoid polyarthritis with lesions in large and small arm and leg joints. She was bedridden and required constant nursing care. Kochetov was whom she bequeathed her house to.

The court inspected the dark windowless room where Kochetov had moved Dneprova from her bedroom. Blood was found on the floor and mattress despite all renovations made by Kochetov. There was also an axe and Dneprova’s medical records. Kochetov had her passport and pensioner ID.

Dneprova’s nurse and guardian Sh., Kochetov’s partner, was taking care of the lonely Dneprova. Kochetov kicked Sh. out of Dneprova’s house, registered the house in his name and appointed himself the beneficiary of Dneprova’s will. On the eve of her murder, Dneprova was depressed and cried in fear of Kochetov, who was directly interested in her death so he could take over the house.

Beside the exhaustive facts above, the court found that Dneprova was in her home on the night of murder, which contradicted the defendant’s story.

Thus, the court established that Kochetov, living in Dneprova’s house and taking care of that disabled, bedridden woman, registered the house in his name, appointed himself the beneficiary of her will, and then decided to kill Dneprova for profit – to become the owner of the house.

With this in mind, psychopath Kochetov carried out his plan at night. He hit Dneprova with the butt of an axe kept in the house, while the old woman was lying on the