Sheremet's murder. Where is the prosecutor lying? All the facts in a nutshell

A complete and dry fact check based on official information from the materials of the pre-trial investigation and court appearances. Without unnecessary references to the media and speculation. Exclusively based on information from the court.

This article is an official statement to the media from Mr. Antonenko's defense. We are ready to provide more detailed transcripts and materials from the case. Any documents will be disclosed to anyone, except with certain restrictions, solely for the purpose of protecting the privacy of third parties. 

General information

Pavel Sheremet, a Russian citizen, a well-known journalist and host of Radio Vesti in professional circles, died on the morning of July 20, 2016, from a bomb planted under a car.

On December 12, 2019, musician Andriy Antonenko, military nurse Yana Dugar, and pediatric surgeon Yulia Kuzmenko were detained on suspicion of murder. Minister Avakov announced the detention in Twitter at 15:26, when the prosecutor had not even applied to the court on this matter (protocol from 12/12/2019 16:14:51 by Antonenko, protocol from 16:22:36 by Kuzmenko). 

The successful resolution of the crime and the arrest of the alleged murderers were announced on the same day, even before the judge made a decision. briefing with the participation of the President of Ukraine, the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Mr. Antonenko and Ms. Kuzmenko were charged with planting explosives, Ms. Dugar with reconnaissance (photographing street cameras) the day before. A Nazi motive was stated, exactly copied from another case; at the same time, there is no information about the suspects' connection with Nazi or extremist organizations or special services. The evidence declared gait study, for Yana Dugar — also facial recognition from video from cameras near the crime scene.

On December 13 and 14, preventive measures were chosen for the suspects: detention for Mr. Antonenko and Ms. Kuzmenko, 24-hour house arrest for Yana Dugar. Later, Yana Dugar's house arrest was replaced with night arrest, and later with bail of ₴168.15 thousand. In August, Yulia Kuzmenko was placed under detention replaced under 24-hour house arrest. Andriy Antonenko is in custody.

The pre-trial investigation was completed on May 22, and the trial began on August 19. According to the final accusation Mr. Antonenko was not the organizer and did not manufacture the explosives, it was done by unidentified individuals who wanted to destabilize the political situation, and the accused were allegedly hired on a voluntary basis “from among the volunteers and military personnel” because of their “low willpower” and “propensity for violence.” The only direct “incriminating evidence” remained gait analysis, which was compared with the video of the bomb being planted.

In May-June, the defenders of Andriy Antonenko and Yulia Kuzmenko appealed to the ECHR with applications alleging violations of the rights to liberty and the presumption of innocence. The status of the applications is still unknown. Case numbers №23002/20 (Kuzmenko v. Ukraine) №29341/20 (Antonenko v. Ukraine).

Contrary to the requirements of the law on the continuity of the trial, the jury sessions were held twice a month, and from October 21 to December 10, the break was almost 2 months. As of December 12, 2020, a year after the detention, the court had not considered any evidence of the prosecution, de facto performing only the formal function of periodically extending preventive measures. We remind you that Article 322 of the CPC Ukraine requires continuity in the consideration of cases, and part 4 Article 28 of the CPC Ukraine requires that cases where the accused is in custody be considered urgently and out of turn.

Official information

However, during this time, one important event did take place in court: the opening statements of the prosecution and defense. In fact, this was the first official presentation of the parties' vision of the facts and evidence during the trial.

Despite the statements of the prosecution's spokespersons, the defense did not find any evidence in the pre-trial investigation materials that had not been previously announced by law enforcement officers, but it did find official confirmations of non-involvement, the complete absence of some previously announced evidence, as well as serious inconsistencies, forged documents and expert reports. There is no direct evidence, except for the expert reports of the walk. None of the witnesses does not indicate the involvement of the accused in the murder. Evidence of motive, ties with special services or extremists, the presence of a single control center, or acquaintances of the accused among themselves, as before, is absent. We would like to remind you that, in accordance with the requirements of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the prosecutor does not have the right to provide evidence that has not been disclosed to the defense, so one should not expect any sensations.

So, for those interested in the course of events, we present the arguments and facts available today, stated by the prosecutor in the trial, briefly and dryly. 

We did not ignore any of the prosecutor's arguments that were heard in court.

From what will be presented below, it is clear that in the prosecutor's speech, if we do not take into account the event of the crime and the time of the explosion, there is not a single word of pure truth without distortion and concealment of information.

Terminology and notation used

🤞 Manipulation is information that is formally true, but presented in such a way as to mislead its consumer, for example, by hiding part of the information or incorrect emphasis, or presenting irrelevant, that is, information that is not related to the matter. Manipulation is usually designed for an inattentive, uninformed, or biased audience. 
🪲 Insinuation — inaccurate or slightly distorted information presented with the aim of creating the illusion of the reliability of evidence of guilt or a negative impression of the accused (recall that the law expressly prohibits using the characteristics of the accused and even the commission of other crimes as evidence of his guilt). 
🤥 Disinformation is a direct and deliberate lie that can be refuted by evidence and facts.

Text links are marked with 📰, video links with 📽️. Click on these links for more detailed explanations.

What does the prosecutor say and where is he lying?

🤥🤞 A lot of resources and effort were used to investigate the crime. The FBI was involved in the investigation, serious investigative experiments with explosives were carried out. A large number of police officers were involved, a huge number of investigative actions were carried out. From the first days, the investigation was carried out  carefully and professionally.📽️ 📰

This is a manipulation designed to create false confidence in the results of the investigation. In fact, due to police negligence, evidence was destroyed at the crime scene, as a result of which it was not possible to establish the type of explosives and the execution mechanism, and important witnesses and videos were lost. 📽️ 📰.


🤥🤞Carefully studied hypotheses of the probable motive for the crime led to the fact that all versions of the motive, except those specified in the indictment, were reasonably rejected. 📽️ 📰

Lies, there is no connection between the accused and Pavel Sheremet, objective refutation of other versions absent in the case. All data on other versions are classified, so this statement is not supported by anything. The prosecutor has no right to operate with such chatter without providing any confirmation.📽️ 📰


🤥 The elements of the MON-50 mine found at the explosion site are a detonator, a fuse sleeve, and magnets. 📽️ 📰

Lie - the detonator and magnets are not elements of the MON-50 mine. 📽️ 📰


🪲 It was determined that Pavel Sheremet died as a result of an explosive device detonated by  “based” on the MON-50 mine.📽️ 📰


In fact, the explosive device was probably uncased and contained only two elements, which probably came from the MON-50 —  rollers and bushing, but this is inaccurate. Other origins of these elements were not considered at all. 📽️ 📰.


🤥🤞 During the examination, an investigative experiment was conducted, during which two cars were blown up with MON-50 mines. Holes were formed identical to the one in the Subaru car in which the journalist died. Therefore, it was also blown up with a “MON-50 mine.”📽️ 📰

Actually it was held expert an experiment (not an “investigative” experiment, as the prosecutor called it due to his lack of knowledge or ignorance) during which six explosions. Experts immediately rejected the version with the MON-50 mine, as they established that the explosion was not directed, as in mines of this type, and not as powerful; the most probable (and confirmed by explosion No. 5, from which the prosecutor actually took the picture) assumption is considered that the charge was shellless half the power of the MON-50 charge (no other explosive was tested during the experiment). The prosecutor's statement about the "identity" of the holes as a result of the explosion looks like complete madness, uninformed people may think that the device can be calculated from the holes, but in fact, from the hole or funnel, only the force of the explosion can be approximately estimated, not the substance or type of device.


🤥🤞 Experts have determined that explosives were used for the detonation. hexogen in the amount of 478.4 g. (in TNT equivalent) 📽️ 📰

Lie, the type of explosive was not established. Indeed, the approximate power of the explosion was estimated in equivalent, but no hexogen The word “hexogen” itself is in the examination, but there is no hexogen. 📽️ 📰


🤥 🤞Street cameras captured the “spy” who on July 15 and 18, 2016 suspicious gait passed near the victim's car, and the phone recorded the surveillance cameras.📽️ 📰

The “spy” was never recorded by the camera “near the victim’s car”. At least, there are no such videos in the materials, and the court shows footage from another street. “Suspicious gait” will soon be a meme. The fact of taking pictures is an assumption that concerns only one camera, and the attackers passed under it without hiding. 📽️


🤞Street cameras recorded a man and a woman who approached the victim's car at 02:41 on 07/20/2016 and the woman placed something under it.📽️ 📰

It seems that these people are indeed likely involved in the murder. However, it is not necessarily a man and a woman, the beard and mannerisms of the “man” may be a fake, at least there is no reason to reject it. The conditional “man”, despite the prosecutor's statement, did not approach the car at all, and the “woman” is only seen crouching, and not “placing” something.


🤥🪲The attacker in the video has characteristic clothing with a pattern on the back; during the search, the accused Antonenko was “found to have similar sweaters with the corresponding image”.📽️ 📰

This is not true. Similar sweaters and similar drawings were not found. During the search, only clothes with drawings were seized. Not a single item of Mr. Antonenko's clothing was declared as material evidence. An examination was conducted on this occasion, the results of which were hidden from the defense and the court.


🤞The “man and woman” caught on camera were identified experts as the accused Mr. Antonenko and Ms. Kuzmenko, in particular, the similarity in their gait  established by a British expert Ivan Birch📽️ 📰

The examination was comprehensive. The portrait examination established impossibility identification. The psychological examination noted that the individuals had “congruent markers of nonverbal behavior,” although later the head of the expert commission, Irkhin, stated that the psychological analysis did not identify anyone and using it as evidence is for him a riddle📽️ 📰

British expert on the move Ivan Birch signed the Ukrainian text with the words “sufficient evidence” (for Antonenko) and “conditionally sufficient” (for Kuzmenko), but in the generally established scale of confidence — weak, moderate, moderately strong, strong, very strong, extremely strong — there is no equivalent for such a statement [see, for example, ENFSI standard, page 17, guide for judges, p.24]. Scotland Yard officially explained to Mr. Antonenko's defense attorneys that gait analysis can only be used as supporting evidence and should be treated with great caution. There is no set methodology. The examination is subjective, based on extensive research and experience.

All experts compared criminals with reference videos, however, there is no evidence in the case that they depict Antonenko and Kuzmenko, except for the data of secret surveillance. The main thing is that in general missing originals reference videos. In addition, human gait is not unique, and the error rate, according to Birch himself, is 29%. 📽️ 📰


🤥🪲After reporting a suspicion  On December 12, 2019, all three defendants rushed to hide physical evidence. Mr. Antonenko hid his own phone and the decapitated body of the mine, Ms. Kuzmenko - the password to the iPhone 6 she used in 2016, Ms. Dugar - a sapper bag and seven phones.📽️ 📰

This is almost all a lie from beginning to end. Andriy Antonenko really asked his brother-in-law to hide the MON-50 building and about it stated during interrogation, although he asked not to after, and to a report to him about suspicion. About hiding the phone is a lie. He did not hide it, but put it on the hood of the car, the investigators simply forgot about it, the “hiding” was not reflected in the protocol, and the contents of the phone were later fully disclosed to the prosecution. Yana Dugar did not hide any sapper bag and seven phones. These items were not found during the searchA month before her arrest, she told her friend (in connection with the Hryshchenko case) that if she had been searched, questions might arise. 📽️ . Her friend, a sapper, left his bag at her house, and later took it back. This bag is a legal and completely safe item, available for free sale. The blatant lie is that this happened after Yana reported the suspicion, that was a month earlier. The demonstration in court ( was a pathetic insinuation📽️ 📰) slide of a sapper bag - an inattentive observer might think that what was being demonstrated physical evidence, seized from Yana Dugar after attempts to hide it. In fact, the photo shown in court was borrowed from a Russian flea market site📽️As for Yulia Kuzmenko's old iPhone 6, the password was cracked, the content was analyzed by the prosecution and it turned out that it not used since March 2016 and does not contain any evidence in favor of the prosecution. When a person forgets a password from 4 years ago, this does not indicate their involvement in the murder.


🪲 The attempt to hide the MON-50 building is evidence of Mr. Antonenko's guilt.📽️ 📰

Insinuation, quite the opposite. The body of the MON-50 mine was presented to Mr. Antonenko in the same condition (without explosives), and even with a hole, as confirmed by witnesses. It contains both fuse sockets and all 485 rollers, that is, nothing can connect it to the murder weapon of Pavel Sheremet. The real criminal knew this and would not hide anything. 📽️ 📰


🤥🪲The proof of Mr. Antonenko's guilt is an abnormal hole in the body of the MON-50 mine, which  proves it intention to saw off half of this body in the future. With the murder of this object  is related to the fact that the instrument of the crime was half of a MON-50 mine. 📽️ 📰


We will leave this crazy theory without comment. It is worth looking at its genealogy. 📽️ 📰


🤥 An examination of Antonenko's telephone connections revealed that his telephone number was registered at his place of residence and was inactive, which is not typical. Similarly, between 20:16 on 19.07 and 9:19 on 20.07, the mobile phone used by Kuzmenko was not active, which is also not typical for her.📽️ 📰

In his opening statement, the prosecutor sometimes confused the time, contrary to his own materials. In fact, on the fateful evening before Pavlo's death, the last activity of Mr. Antonenko's phone was 23:24, Ms. Kuzmenko's 19:45. The first activity of Mr. Antonenko's phone the next day was 7:23, Ms. Kuzmenko's 9:19. Although the uncharacteristic behavior of the phones in itself is an extremely dubious argument and the prosecutor did not provide what it consisted of, the defense found out that this was pure fiction, 100% disinformation, counting on the fact that no one would check it precisely because of its insignificance. The activity of the connections was absolutely normal compared to other days of the year. 📽️ 📰.


🤥🪲🤞The defendants knew each other at the time of the murder, as there were many telephone calls, Facebook correspondence, and GPRS connections between Ms. Kuzmenko and Mr. Antonenko in 2016. This refutes their testimony that they were not acquaintances. 📽️ 📰

This is about an acquaintance only between Ms. Kuzmenko and Mr. Antonenko, neither of them knew Yana Dugar at the time. However, these two defendants knew each other only virtually on Facebook and first met in real life on July 21, 2016 during a concert, and then became friends. Their correspondence on Facebook until that moment was completely published and does not resemble the correspondence of the accomplices. This is what they showed during interrogations and did not change their testimony. The prosecutor demonstrated the manipulative statistics of their communications in the court session, not to the moment of Pavel Sheremet's death, and after all of 2016, moreover with fantastic nonsense about GPRS (if they were both online at the same time, they were chatting there). 📽️ 📰


🤞The acquaintance between Ms. Kuzmenko and Mr. Antonenko in 2016 is confirmed by the acquaintance between Mr. Antonenko and Mr. Kiyan at that time.

This is manipulation. Mr. Kiyan, the current husband and at that time lover of Yulia Kuzmenko, is not accused of anything, his communication with Mr. Antonenko does not prove that he knew Ms. Kuzmenko.


🤥 On January 4, 2020, while in prison, Mr. Antonenko logged into his VKontakte profile, likely with the aim of destroying evidence.📽️ 📰

This is madness. A screenshot is provided as proof, showing that someone visited the page. You cannot access the Internet from the isolation ward, any electronic devices are prohibited there. Mr. Antonenko's defense lawyers were on his VKontakte profile on 04.01.2020, which was publicly reported, and this is what later inspired the prosecution to search the defense. Obtaining permission to search the home of Mr. Maslov's defense specialist, who was on Antonenko's profile with his defense lawyers and wrote about it in Facebook, accusation of this very fact justified the need for a search. The defense has a ruling from the investigating judge, which states from the investigators' submission that it was Mr. Maslov, not Mr. Antonenko, who logged into the VKontakte account on January 4, 2020. Subsequently, the contents of this account were disclosed to the prosecution. A copy of it is posted on publicly availableIn it, as in other profiles of Mr. Antonenko, Ms. Dugar or Ms. Kuzmenko, there is no hint of a crime or its preparation or extremism.


🪲 In 2017, Mr. Antonenko and Ms. Kuzmenko communicated on Facebook about a murder. The fact that during the correspondence Antonenko stated that Facebook Messenger was not an appropriate place for discussion, according to the prosecutor, indicates a conspiracy.📽️ 📰

They discussed the high-profile detention of officers of the 8th Special Forces Regiment in 2017. Mr. Antonenko did not believe in their guilt, and Ms. Kuzmenko convinced him otherwise. The idea that people do not discuss something on Facebook, fearing that “law enforcement agencies will document it in the established manner” is not just crazy, but also does not add to the reputation of law enforcement agencies.📽️ 📰


🪲 Ms. Kuzmenko and Ms. Antonenko have joint photos (dated later than 21.07.2016). The evidence against Ms. Kuzmenko is the fact that after the news of the murder of Pavel Sheremet appeared, she searched Google to find out who he was.📽️ 📰

No comments.


🤥🪲 Yulia Kuzmenko planned to shell Kyiv with Grad missiles and kidnap Marusya Zvirobiy's children in 2019 to create chaos in the country. This proves the motive for the murder of Pavel Sheremet.📽️ 📰

This is a complete lie. These telephone conversations are in the nature of fantasies and this has been confirmed by experts from the prosecution. But two other things are more important. First, if you carefully analyze the content of the conversations, Yulia Kuzmenko is not the author of these ideas and does not support any of them, she listens rather passively to her interlocutors, to whom the frightening words actually belong. Second, there are no permits for this “wiretapping” in the case, and if there were, the use of such discrediting materials that have no relevance to the case (Pavel Sheremet was not killed by Grad and the children of Marusya Zvirobiy have nothing to do with it) is expressly prohibited Article 88 of the CPC Ukraine.


🤥 A geotag was found in Yulia Kuzmenko's iPhone XS Max, indicating that on July 19, 2016 at 3:56 a.m. she was near the crime scene, which is suspicious and contradicts her testimony that she was at home on Urlivska Street (the other bank of the Dnieper).📽️ 📰

The so-called geotag was not found in the phone (!), and its time is not the moment of the crime (20.07.2016 2:40), but a day earlier. The place is sporting goods store (2 km from the crime scene). This is probably the time of the corresponding point of interest entry on Apple Maps (in the California time zone UTC-8). Phone connection data confirms that Ms. Kuzmenko was at home at the time, as she actually said during interrogation. 📽️ 📰


🤥🪲🤞 Antonenko refused to undergo an investigative experiment and undergo a polygraph examination. Kuzmenko refused to undergo a polygraph and undergo a simultaneous interrogation with Antonenko. Dugar refused to undergo a polygraph, undergo a forensic psychiatric examination, and measure height.📽️ 📰

This is almost all a lie. Antonenko did not refuse the investigative experiment, the latter was disrupted through the fault of the investigation. The investigation did not make repeated attempts to conduct it. Antonenko did not refuse the polygraph, although he demanded that he be given the choice of a polygraph examiner.📽️ 📰

Yulia Kuzmenko also agreed to take the polygraph, but when she found out that the charlatan Irkhin would conduct it, she refused. 

Yana Dugar passed a polygraph, which confirmed the truthfulness of her testimony. Antonenko is prevented from passing the polygraph only by his imprisonment. Yana Dugar did not refuse to be “measured in height”.


🤥🪲 The defendants are closely related to the Hryshchenko family, who in turn are accused of a similar crime - the attempted murder of businessman Chekurak in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, where they used an explosive device, similar the one with which Pavel Sheremet was killed📽️ 📰

Everything is a lie, absolutely. As of 2016, none of the defendants knew who the Grishchenkos were. The case of the latter is extremely dubious, and certainly has nothing to do with Sheremet; the Grishchenkos were not even questioned as witnesses in it. There is no common feature between the explosive devices, except for the presence of magnets, which, by the way, are also different. Antonenko is not familiar with Vlad Grishchenko and once took a selfie with Inna. 📽️ 📰


🤞🤥 Mr. Antonenko had a different beard in different years, which refutes the defense's claim that he had a different beard shape on July 20, 2016..📽️ 📰

What matters is not what kind of beard Mr. Antonenko wore in different years, but what kind of beard he had between July 19 and 21, 2016. There are photos from those dates, and the beard does not look like the one the attacker has in the video. This did not prevent the prosecutor from showing the 2012 photo in court, signing it “2016.” 📽️ 📰


🤥 Yana Dugar's alibi is refuted by the testimony of 50 servicemen.📽️ 📰

This is a blatant and undisguised lie. Yana Dugar's alibi is confirmed by five people whose testimonies have not been refuted. The prosecution questioned not 50, but 223 servicemen (see witness list from No. 40). The fact that most of them do not remember Ms. Dugar, and in some cases even the hospital where they were hospitalized, does not in any way refute the alibi. Some witnesses even reinforced it with testimony about her inability to leave the place of service at that time.


🤥🪲🤞Yana Dugar often went on a rampage and was able to mislead people because she once did not admit to the military police that she was a soldier.📽️ 📰

Yana Dugar never went on a sabbatical, which is confirmed by her commanders. The reason for the manipulations was that in 2018-2019, her superiors released her for training by verbal order, without a written order (this is common practice). But regarding the events of 2016, she could not leave the front-line hospital in Pokrovsk. It was a tense period then, as many wounded were arriving and her colleagues could not help but notice her even a short absence. As for the funny conversation that the prosecutor demonstrated in court and which made many present smile, in it Yana says that while rushing to classes at the institute, while in civilian uniform, in order to avoid unnecessary questions, she deceived a military policeman. This can hardly be considered evidence of complicity in murder, and as noted above, the use of characteristics for such purposes is prohibited by law.


🤥🪲🤞 Yana Dugar falsified entries in four medical histories from July 2016, because she actually completed them later (retroactively) in November 2016📽️ 📰

This is an insinuation based on two examinations of the aging of ink on documents. The first claims that one the entry (not four) “novocaine / (-) nega m/s Dugar” on one medical record of inpatient No. 1499 was made by Yana Dugar, but later than November 2016. Another expert opinion regarding the same document states that this entry was made before November 2019. If we discard the considerations about the error of the research methods, manipulation of reference ink samples and believe these conclusions, then the entry was made between 01.12.2016 and 01.11.2019. Therefore, this information is absolutely irrelevant, that is, it has no relation to the subject of evidence and in no way refutes the fact that Yana Dugar was at the place of service throughout July 2016. The defense did not refer to this document and did not try to prove anything with it. If Yana Dugar really made it after December 1, 2016, it cannot be considered a forgery - it is her own signature and her own action. And the second examination of the prosecution clearly confirms that the recording was made before the suspicion was raised, that is, there is no question of deliberate distortion of evidence after the arrest.


🪲🤞During a search at the military unit of Yana Dugar, the book “Military Intelligence” and the brochure “Intelligence and Search Measures” (listed in the section “Characteristics of the Accused”) were seized. 📽️ 📰

These books are natural for every soldier to have. Instead, they were seized not from Yana Dugar, but from the interns' office of a military hospital. They are training manuals for soldiers and sergeants of the army and do not relate to covert activities and operational intelligence such as camera photography. 📽️

What the prosecutor wrote but didn't say

The prosecutor sued written version of his speech, which partly differs from the speech he gave. In particular, it says (p. 4) the following:

  • In addition, the TV channel "Channel 4" broadcast an interview with citizen Yermilov O.S., who categorically confirmed the fact of Antonenko's stay in his house in the city of Vorzel on the night of July 19-20, 2016. However, during the interrogation as a witness, Yermilov O.S. was confused in his testimony and as a result, he suggested that he had made a mistake in the dates and himself refuted his statement about Antonenko's stay at his house that night.


This is recorded in a written document, although it was not heard in court. The defense repeatedly stated that Antonenko himself never supported Yermilov's version of events, as he stated back in first interrogationThe defense attorneys interrogated Mr. Yermilov three weeks before the investigators and found out that he was providing false information.

On pages 5-6 the prosecutor noted:

  • As for the "irrefutable", according to the defense, proof of the innocence of the accused is their height. The defense attorneys, trying to sway public opinion to their conclusions, depicted both in court sessions and on social networks a demonstration of measuring the accused and comparing them with the persons depicted in the video. At the same time, the defense attorneys limited themselves to public appeals, without involving experts, as provided for by criminal procedural legislation, turning to dubious specialists.
  • Instead, at the stage of the pre-trial investigation in the specified proceedings, measures were constantly taken to establish all the circumstances relevant to the proceedings. Thus, in August 2016, experts from the Kyiv City Scientific Research Expert and Forensic Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine conducted a phototechnical examination, which established the height of the accused in planting the explosive device: man 172 cm +-5.16 cm (166.84 - 177.16 cm) woman 166.5 cm +- 4.98 cm (161.4 - 171.4 cm). On February 28, 2020, a habitological examination at the Kyiv City Clinical Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination measured Antonenko, whose height is 179.7 cm (a difference of only 2 centimeters), Kuzmenko - 166 cm.
  • The accused Dugar refused to be measured, but her lawyers posted a photo on the social network Facebook showing her height as 174-175 cm. It should be noted that in September 2019, experts from the Kyiv City Scientific Research Expert and Forensic Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine found that the height of the female spy was 167-174 cm..

Defense attorney Kruhovyi carefully explained why the height examinations fully prove Mr. Antonenko's innocence. 📽️ 📰

Regarding Yana Duhar's height, the prosecutor resorted to a little trickery, writing down "174-175 cm", although the photo actually shows a height of at least 175 cm without shoes. According to the experts, the height of the "spy" does not exceed 174 cm with shoes (more precisely, one conclusion gives the upper limit of 174.4, the second - 171.4, so we should take the lower of them - 171.4 cm).

Which is not in the case, but was voiced by the prosecutor.

  • Despite the claim that Ivan Birch's involvement was legal, the case lacks the English original of his opinion, information about the translation or translator, a document about his involvement, as well as payment for his services (which should be paid from the State Budget).
  • The case does not contain any data about the so-called “Gryshchenko case.” All that is available is a famous copy of Inna Gryshchenko’s post and some analysis of telephone traffic, which confirms that the persons involved in these cases had no contact before 2019. The 60% briefing of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was devoted to the Gryshchenko case on 12.12.2019.
  • The prosecutor falsely stated that a trial had been held in the case. 95 examinations. In indictment (section of costs for expertise) 47 expertises are listed, one of which (the main identification of Antonenko) is omitted. That is, the prosecutor lied about 95 expert opinions, because he presented 48. One could assume that he also meant expert opinions in the case of "searching for customers", but there would be no arithmetical coincidence there either. 
  • There is no hint in the case of searching for other motives for the murder and evidence to exclude them. Therefore, the information voiced in the opening speech is empty chatter. Also, the words about the titanic work “from door to door”, the extraction of video from 227 CCTV cameras from the crime scene, the investigation of millions of calls - all this is not in the case and the reference to these circumstances is inadmissible.
  • There is no data from laboratory tests conducted by the FBI, whose involvement the prosecutor loudly announced. At the defense's request, the prosecutor and the court denied the defense access to these materials.
  • The case lacks all the permits of the investigating judges to conduct the NSRD. The disclosure of the relevant decisions to the defense is possible only if the prosecutor proves that he did everything possible to submit them for inspection in a timely manner. Otherwise, all evidence obtained on the basis of these decisions (and derivatives thereof) will be considered inadmissible according to the principle of a poisonous tree. In particular, these are Mr. Antonenko’s conversations about “hiding” the mine case, surveillance of individuals in order to obtain reference videos, and accordingly, all further “expertise” and “movement analysis” have no evidentiary value.
  • There is also some other evidence that the prosecutor believes is available, but it is missing from the case. They probably just forgot to include it, but it was included in the reviews and speeches.

What is in the case that the prosecutor forgot to mention?

  • The prosecutor forgot to say that there is a conclusion of a semantic-linguistic examination in the case, which states that Yulia Kuzmenko's conversations are of a fantasy nature and are not related to any intentions to shell Kyiv or kidnap anyone's children.
  • The speech did not mention Yulia Kuzmenko's ex-husband, who confirms her alibi. 
  • The prosecutor ignored the fact that, according to the investigation, Antonenko's phone was on Starovokzalna Street until 11:24 p.m. on the evening before the events, which is typical for him at night. Therefore, attention was not focused on the fact that Starovokzalna Street 7B, and not O. Gonchar Street, was Mr. Antonenko's permanent residence. 
  • The prosecutor did not mention that at the time of the murder on the morning of July 20, 2016, a person with a print on his back was watching Sheremet's car (this was recorded on the video presented by the prosecution), but Antonenko has an alibi for that time.
  • The prosecutor did not indicate that the mine casing found on 13.12.2019 near Antonenko's apartment was seized without a proper decision of the investigating judge for search, inspection, and temporary seizure of property. There are two retrospective decisions in the case dated 17.12.2019, but they do not meet the requirements for decisions of this type, being issued for the future and not based on an immediate request from the investigator.
  • The prosecutor kept quiet about the fact that the portrait examination did not identify Mr. Antonenko and Ms. Kuzmenko. Expert of the 5th (lowest) qualification class Ruslan Demyanenko, the only one who identified Yana Dugar as a “spy”, had previously concluded that the video of the “spy” was unsuitable for comparison. The same expert concluded that it was impossible to measure the height of the criminals in the video. This conclusion justified Mr. Antonenko’s long imprisonment.
  • The prosecutor did not mention that another person was being prepared for the role of Yana Dugar, whose photos, personal data, secret surveillance videos, and phone numbers for unknown reasons ended up in the case, in particular, with comparative height examinations that completely refute Yana Dugar's involvement.
  • The prosecutor probably does not know that among the telephone traffic records available in the pre-trial investigation materials, personal data of public figures who have no relation to the case (for example, Serhiy Sternenko or Lenur Islyamov) were removed. This data was probably illegally used to illegally collect information about these individuals. All the investigators' motions, the decisions of the investigating judges, and some of the traffic records themselves are at the disposal of the defense.
  • The investigation materials contain 12 conclusions of “psychological examinations” that were probably not conducted, and the acts of their delivery and acceptance were probably forged. The authors of the forgeries are experts Irkhin and Semenets in collusion with investigator Podoliak.
  • These same experts made conclusions on the psychological identification of the accused, although Irkhin later said that this was not an identification. 
  • In the written and audio versions of the opening speech, the prosecutor forgot to mention that Mr. Irkhin and Mr. Semenets were held disciplinary accountable for such identification, and importantly, the identification methodology does not exist and is not under development.

Source: Sheremet's murder. Where is the prosecutor lying? All the facts in a nutshell