Previously, our human rights initiative justified why the comprehensive psychological and portrait examination of the KNIISE scientist Yuri Irkhin cannot be considered evidence of guilt in the Sheremet case. It was the investigation that lightly dubbed it “key evidence.” Now we will describe in detail how Yuri Irkhin himself refuted the conclusions of his own examination in a comment to journalists, and the prosecutor confirmed its dubious evidentiary weight.
The examination was not conducted using a scientifically sound methodology, but rather the personal opinion of experts. Irkhin admitted that the methodology does not exist in the registry, and he allegedly used an “innovative method”. The expert promised that his methodology would be published in a year or a half. For this, he even managed to be brought to disciplinary responsibility by the qualification commission of the Ministry of Justice. It is worth adding that even the OGPU prosecutor Serhiy Zuzak, who was previously part of the group of prosecutors in this case, stated that the evidentiary value of the examination in this case is questionable. Four state expert institutions refused to repeat the KNDISE study, since the methodology is not registered, and it is impossible to “recognize” people from the video as part of a psychological study. However, already now, based on Irkhin’s author’s assumptions, Antonenko, Kuzmenko, and Dugar have been found guilty of the journalist’s murder.
Irkhin called it a “mystery” why the investigation identified his expertise as the main evidence in the case. He added: he has been working in this field for thirty years, but this is the first time his expertise has become key evidence. Interestingly, prosecutor Zuzak later told reporters in a comment that at the beginning of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecution did not know that the methodology was not registered, but was the personal opinion of the experts. “Of course, this undermines the evidentiary weight of the expertise. At the stage of the pre-trial investigation, we identified this expertise as the main evidence, since it directly indicated the involvement of the suspects in the murder. But in my opinion, this expertise alone as the main evidence is not enough to send the case to court,” the prosecutor said. However, the new group of prosecutors in the Sheremet case for some reason called this expertise “the main evidence” of the suspects’ guilt and went to court with it. Doesn’t this indicate that the case is politically motivated?
The expert opinion is based on the literature of the former Ukrainian law enforcement officer and scientist, and now an “expert” of the pseudo-republic “DPR” Vladislav Sednev. He is a former colleague of Irkhin, who at the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war remained in occupied Donetsk to work in a terrorist organization – the so-called “Prosecutor General’s Office of the DPR”. He published his monograph “Essays on the Theory of Forensic Examination” in 2015, already being in the territory not controlled by Ukraine. And Irkhin referred to it in the list of used literature. By the way, scientist Sednev thundered into the “Peacemaker” base because he betrayed his oath. In turn, Irkhin stated that he does not consider his colleague an “enemy of the people and a traitor.” “To my great regret, we have not maintained relations with him since 2014. Sednev is an outstanding psychologist, scientist, doctor of legal and medical sciences. He remained in Donetsk, our ideological platforms diverged. I do not know about this. His scientific work is freely available. I did not know that it was published when he was already in the “DPR”. These are echoes of 1937. You are probably hinting that I should disown my father, etc.? Nothing prevents me, I do not perceive him as an enemy of the people, as a traitor. He is a scientist who has the results of his scientific work. I used them,” Irkhin justified himself.
Irkhin had a clear motivation to falsify expert data in the Sheremet case. According to lawyer Vitaliy Kolomiyets, the reason is the expert’s attachment to terrorists. The lawyer explained: if they recognize the scientific knowledge and authority of a person who, according to Ukrainian law, is an accomplice or accomplice in the activities of terrorist organizations, then this is, at least, a separate element of a disciplinary offense. Because what is a crime for the state cannot be a benefit for an individual employee. “And if they try to legalize these illegal armed formations in any way, then Irkhin will be an accomplice of these criminals,” the lawyer summarizes. Finally, the defense of the accused considers KNIISE specialist Yuriy Irkhin to be an accomplice in the crime of falsifying evidence in the Sheremet case.
More on the topic:https://lb.ua/…/465249_ekspert_spravi_sheremeta…https://news.24tv.ua/advokat-yani-dugar-pro…https://youtu.be/45iuhRixlZg
