The prosecutor will announce what punishment he wants for Rusakov for the death of actress Golub

The Nikulinsky Court of Moscow appointed a debt of the parties on a resonant criminal case against Alexei Rusakov on August 2, the alleged culprit of the accident , in which the famous actress Marina Golub died, reports RAPSI . During the debate, the state prosecution will voice what punishment, in his opinion, deserves the accused.

During the interrogation in the Moscow court, Rusakov himself said on July 29 that he did not plead guilty. He told the court that he had not even seen the car Golub until the moment of collision with it, and ran away from the scene in a shock state, not understanding what happened.

“I admit that I became a participant in the accident. Moreover, I can only assume that my car collided with the car in which Marina Golub was located, because I did not see any cars and I don’t know where it (the car) came from,” RIA Novosti quotes the alleged culprit of the accident.

Rusakov also claims that he was not drunk at the time of the accident and crossed the ill -fated intersection of Vernadsky Avenue with Lobachevsky Street to the yellow signal of the traffic light. And in general, he does not understand the essence of the charges, the defendant said.

"It is not clear to me what they blame me for, it is not clear what number the accident occurred in the end - 9 or 10, as well as Article 125, how can the corpses be left in the dangers?" - Rusakov explained his position. He added that his rights throughout the process were infringed and he is obvious to the court's desire to pass the conviction.

Giving testimony, Rusakov, refused to answer the questions of the prosecutor and lawyers of the victims, referring to the 51st article of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which allows not to testify against himself, and answered only the questions of his new lawyer Alexander Vershinin (he expelled the former Rusakov for "carrying nonsense" ), as well as selectively for questions of the judge.

Two articles

His lawyer, on his part, stated that the prosecution is absurd and far -fetched. “It is not clear where the 5th day of the 00:03 minutes came from, if the victims died 9, and why is the accusation for the 10th anniversary for the 10th anniversary. What dates are we defended from? Rusakov’s accusations are incomprehensible, so he cannot answer, guilty or not,” the defender said.

Before the interrogation of Rusakov, he stated a discharge to the judge and the state prosecutor. “Both officials are personally or indirectly interested in the outcome of the case. I am sure that the impact is impact to achieve an indictment. And the judge is biased,” the Komsomolskaya Pravda defender quotes.

Vershinin also demanded to return the materials of the criminal case to the prosecutor's office. In his opinion, the indictment itself does not meet the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "The case was initiated under Article 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation" Violation of the rules of the road and the operation of vehicles. "In this case, the indictment contains the charge of committing a crime under Article 125 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (leaving in danger). The criminal case was not instituted under this article," Gazeta.Ru quoted the words of a lawyer.

However, the court rejected his petition for the withdrawal and return of the case to the prosecutors.

Ran "in shock", fearing reprisals

Rusakov himself also told in court that he had disappeared from the scene of the accident, because he was afraid of the revenge of other motorists.

“I was in shock. Pillows of safety worked, because of them I didn’t see what happened to another car. Without understanding what was happening, I went towards the metro and called my civilian wife Vika. On the way, drivers stopped and asked: I was not the driver whom everyone was looking for and“ want to beat. ”I was afraid and replied that this was not me,” the defendant quotes.

Later, according to Rusakov, he met with Vika and asked him to take him out of town, where they broke up on the Mozhayskoye Shosse, and he went to the Ryazan region on a way. “I was afraid,” said Rusakov. “I myself did not understand where I was going, the main thing is to get on the road and voted.”

At the same time, he assured the court that he did not know that they were looking for him: he did not watch the TV, did not read the newspapers and even sold his mobile phone, so relatives could not call him and inform about it.

He came

Rusakov returned to Moscow three days later, and when he contacted his wife, it turned out that she was in the police. And then he immediately went to give up and wrote a confession himself, said Rusakov.

“I don’t understand why I should idle here for seven hours,” Rusakov was indignant. “I already forgot what to sleep, I have, I went to the bathhouse for the last time in May. Because I was taken to court just on a bath day.” After that, his interrogation was completed on this day.

The expert invited by the defense announced the errors of the investigation

Also, at this meeting, the court interrogated expert Alexander Nagaytsev based on the materials of the private examination by him, paid by the defense of Rusakov. He stated that the investigation errors do not allow to objectively establish the culprit of this accident.

According to Nagaytsev, who has long served in the expert center of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, specializing in automotive technology examinations, inspection of the scene and collecting data on accidents were made with gross violations, due to which the speed of the encountered cars, their trajectory and inhibition measures, as well as the operation of the light at the crossroads.

"The driver of Cadillac (Rusakov) for technical reasons could not see Hyundai (the car in which the pigeon was located), since it was in the" dead zone, "the expertRAPSI quotes.

"The speed of the Rusakov car is set at the moment after the collision, it is fixed on the computer of his car, however, due to the idle pressing of the gas pedal after the collision, this indicator could exceed the actual speed of movement," he explained.

At the same time, Nagaytsev refused to give his conclusion about the guilt or innocence of Rusakov.

An eyewitness confirmed the version of Rusakov

In addition, at the meeting, the witness invited by the defense of Rusakov testified, who said that he saw Rusakov at the scene of an accident, RIA Novosti reports. “I personally talked with Rusakov and I can say that he was absolutely sober. Rusakov stood with me from the moment of the accident until the moment they began to pull the victims from the car,” the eyewitness said.

He also expressed the opinion that Rusakov was unlikely to go to the red traffic light. "On this road section there are old -style traffic lights. After the green light caught fire, yellow blinked only for a second, and when Rusakov touched, the traffic light switched to red," the witness said.

The accident in which Marina Golub died happened on the night of October 10, 2012 at the intersection of Vernadsky Avenue and Lobachevsky Street. According to the police, Cadillac Rusakova drove to the red traffic light and rammed the Hyundai car, in which the actress was located and the driver Dmitry Turkin brought it up. Both died on the spot.