EN|RU|UK
 Society, Incidents
  41754
Related materials:

 How Pavlichenko Family Was Framed for Murdering Judge. Exclusive DOCUMENTS & PHOTO

"Watching this disgrace done on behalf of the prosecution in the trial is no longer possible. And this is not just my opinion. Prosecutor's Office has enough honest people (I know how skeptical you perceive this statement, but still - trust me it is so) who would never ruin people's lives with a stroke of a pen."

Censor.NET received a letter regarding the high profile Pavlichenko case. Below is the text of the letter in its entirety. The material contains photos of the crime scene, so women, children and people with weak psyche, should refrain from viewing the contents.

"Hello.

I cannot tell you my name, rank or post, for obvious reasons. In view of the same - I cannot say how exactly I am connected with the Pavlichenko family case. I will only say that I worked on the case (as well as hundreds of other people) and studied its materials.

How it was concocted and from what - any investigator, any prosecutor, even with little experience can tell you. If he is not afraid. Because when the frame up is SO SO stupid and impudent, even inexperienced people can see that it was sanctioned from very high up.

Watching this disgrace done on behalf of the prosecution in the trial is no longer possible. And this is not just my opinion. Prosecutor's Office has enough honest people (I know how skeptical you perceive this statement, but still - trust me it is so) who would never ruin people's lives with a stroke of a pen. But there are others. And there are those who are given a choice without a choice. An offer they cannot refuse. I share the information on behalf of all prosecutors who still have their conscience.

Below I have listed a few failures of the prosecution that do not hold water. Perhaps these are not the most outstanding moments. But these are the things that I can back up with the case files and that can be easily explained without digging into the details too much. Relevant documents are in the archive with photos.

1. The judge was found in a strange way for a person who "just came home from work and was coming up". The investigators obviously did not want to focus on that, but had to explain it in some way. At least partially.

Serhii allegedly stole the pants and shoes from a dead judge and put them on (what a strong psychological state for a child!). The logic is poor: this is supposedly done because Serhii's pants were covered in blood (and at the judges' were all good? After being stabbed with a knife, shot, and dragged across the floor).

However, the investigation modestly refrains from mentioning the fact that the judge also did not have a jacket and a coat. It was March, he just came home, was coming up to his floor - all this is according to the investigation. And Zubkov was found on a staircase in his underwear, socks, and a shirt half taken off. That's all. I do not think anyone knew about it, because I have no doubt that the prosecution is trying to avoid the subject, because even their unlikely version cannot explain his appearance. Photo of the judge at the scene of the crime - files z1, z2

2. Let's talk about prints. 21.03, the day of the murder, at the crime scene in a wheelchair four fingerprints were found. Examination № 21 \ D of 24.03.2011 clearly indicates - it studied the wheelchair itself and found four prints (see file d1).

24.03.2011 Dmytro Pavlichenko detained. On the same day - the decision on re-examination (well, now that it is clear who should be tied to the case) (same file d1).

It is very interesting to read the results of the second examination # 22 \ D. Thus, in file d2 we read - "to transfer the examination of 4 (four) fingerprints."


On the next page of the same expert report we read: Transferred for study is not the object (wheelchair), but ... tape with prints (file d3).

I will explain it in layman's terms: on tape these prints could be taken anywhere. Even in a holding cell. Or even the office of the investigator.

At the top of the page there is a clear question about four (4) prints - whether they belong to Dmytro Pavlichenko?

On the same page we read: the envelope contained five (5) prints (file d3) ... The case was assembled so badly, that even within the same examination we find these inconsistencies, not to mention the inconsistencies between the different materials of the case.

3. "Sneakers covered in blood." According to the investigators, Serhii's pants were bloody so he put on the pants of the victim. They were never found by the way. According to the same version he changed the sneakers for judge's shoes and left them on the first floor ... Why? Were they bloody, too? Is this so evident on black sneakers? And the size fit? Confusing ...

So, at the crime scene they found Serhii Pavlichenko's sneakers, and they had blood on them. This is the version of the investigation. Let's look. Photo of the sneaker's bloody imprint at the crime scene - s1.

But. Here are allegedly Serhii's sneakers, allegedly found almost at the crime scene (on the first floor, hmmm). Look at the file s2.


We notice the blood on them, but is it enough for such a juicy print? No. And the sole - not the same. It is not the one which left the bloody imprint. See for yourself, compare the photos. But the investigation has long been aware of this, and somehow avoids this. The appropriate conclusion of the expertise - in the file s3.

4. This is not all. The same footprint as at the crime scene was found in the street near the house on 12, Kovel str. (file s4).

This also were the dog led from the trail at the crime scene. But the version of the investigation provides a different route - in the opposite direction from the direction that the dog chose, and on which the trace was found identical to the bloody fingerprint at the crime scene.

What we have as a result of items 3 and 4 - the trail of blood on the soles of the crime scene and a trail at 12 Kovel street and the escape route which was found by the dog and where the second imprint was found point to the real killer.

We are also shown sneakers allegedly of Serhii Pavlichenko at that not noticing the discrepancy between the sole shapes of Serhii's shoes and the trace at the scene. Moreover they are ignoring the direction that was pointed by the dog, even though that's where they found another foot print matching the one from the crime scene.

5. And now let's talk about "indisputable material evidence." So, the story with the pants. The pants allegedly belonging to Serhii Pavlichenko were found on the first floor and supposedly proving his presence there.

Voluntary surrender of Serhii, which he described in court as extracted under pressure and threats states: "I was dressed in gray sweat pants." (Picture s5).

Investigators are not fools to make him write something else because gray sweat pants is a description of witnesses and was in the evening's description of the crime aspect.

Two hours after the surrender - interrogation. There on the question "What were you wearing that day?" Serhii says, "Sweat pants, black sneakers, black jacket, gray sweat pants." Yes, twice about sweat pants. This is what happens when you learn bad (see the file s6).

And immediately after the interrogation there was a crime re-enactment. And there Serhii says, "I took off the jeans ..." (File s7).


Ну не носит парень серые спортштаны, тяжело ему запомнить.

6. А вы вот, кстати, знали, что был третий подозреваемый?(Файлы 3-1, 3-2).

Очень хотели третьего, иначе много чего не вязалось. В результате с третьим так и не срослось, поэтому изначальную версию немного подкорректировали, но ее следы можно найти в пресс-конференциях милицейского начальства первых дней. Там говорится о том, что в инвалидной коляске кто-то сидел. А уже в отточенной версии для суда инвалидную коляску якобы Дмитрий Павличенко завез в парадное пустой. Да и орудий убийства было три. Нужен, очень нужен был третий. Однако сейчас в версии следствия никакой третьей, установленной или неустановленной личности - нет.

7. На месте преступления были отпечатки неустановленной личности. Файлы n1, n2 - документы об этом.

8. Еще момент про выброшенные вещи судьи: на допросе(файл k1) "у меня был кулек, и у отца был кулек" (которые они потом выбросили в мусорник).

На воспроизведении - "кулек был только у меня"(k2).

9.The same file, k2 - Serhii says that the concierge was holding his arm and asked what floor he was from. Concierge will confirm that this is what she did but she did not recognize Serhii in court.

10. Here is a playback of the events. Let's stop and take a closer look. Note that playback occurs after the surrender and subsequent interrogation, right after it. Serhii, despite the fact that he was several times forced to say and write a handwritten version of the investigation is still confused in the testimony. Record of the investigative re-enactment is stopped from time to time obviously for instructions.

- Picture vsp1. The investigator asks to see where the feet were and where the head. Serhii: "Head to the window, I think." In photo z1, z2, anyone can see that the judge was laying with his feet to the window.

- File vsp2. The investigator asked to say how exactly they carried the judge. Serhii: "by the hands and legs." The investigator asks "who took the hands, and who took the legs?" Serhii, who had just allegedly showed how his father struck the blows from memory, hoe they were carrying the judge in the stairwell, and where was who standing exactly, cannot remember whether he dragged the judge by hands or by legs a judge.

- File vsp3 - is a gemstone of this collection. Tired investigator for a moment loses control of himself. When asked where Pavlichenko Sr. pulled out his gun from he gets a response from Serhii: "out of his pants." Investigator angrily interrupts him directly voicing the right answer "from his belt, and not the pants!"

 
 
 
 up