Bezulic crime

He comes to the finish direct trial of the activist of the nationalist opposition by Daniil Konstantinov, accused of murder on the basis of the hostility of the previously unknown to him by A. Temnikov. The murder occurred on December 3, 2011 during a fight at the exit of the metro station "Academician Yangel Street". Since then, the difficult work of the investigation and the court has consisted mainly in evading evidence in the case. Evidence of both guilt and innocence of Konstantinov.

There is only one evidence of guilt: the testimony of A. Sofronov at that moment, along with the killed acquaintance of his acquaintance,, who recognized in Konstantinov one of the young people who were accidentally met and carefully attacked on them. In the case there is a report of the Chertanovskaya ORCH operatives of December 21, 2011, which states that Daniil Konstantinov may be involved in the existing operational data. On what this is the operational data, they are obtained during external observation, listening to the phone or anything else, there is not even a hint in the case. As on how Konstantinov was in the field of view of the "organs". In court, the investigators interrogated at the request of the defense talked about information from a single -classified source, but Judge Türkina categorically rejected the demand to request this information for a closed meeting.

To questions of protection and the accused, whether investigator Yakovlev had any grounds (except for the unfounded report) to check Konstantinov for involvement in the murder, he answered in court that, apparently, he had, but which, now he did not remember. This investigator Yakovlev conducted the case of Konstantinov until March 2012, after which he immediately quit from the "organs". Apparently, he tried to forget his work in them as a nightmare.

Be that as it may, but he began to check the involvement of Konstantinov, although not immediately. On February 4, 2012 (!), A repeated interrogation of the witness Sofronov is carried out, during which a photograph of Konstantinov was presented to him for identification. Where the investigator came from this photograph, of course, does not remember, and in the case there is nothing about it. But there are photos of two statists, with whom Sofronov presented a photograph of Konstantinov. From the very beginning, Sofronov claimed that the alleged killer was 23-25 ​​years old, a dense physique, either shortly cut, or shaved naked. In both photographs of statists, people are much older, other complexion and hair (the rules of identification require that the statists do not differ from the identified by these signs). Naturally, Sofronov pointed to a photograph of Konstantinov, although she was not like a photobot compiled by him in hot pursuit (December 4).

Only on March 13, 2012, the Chertanovsky District Court at the request of the investigator authorized searches in apartments at the place of actual residence of Konstantinov (at the wife) and at the place of registration (for parents). The searches were carried out on March 22. After them, Konstantinov was detained. In court, investigator Yakovlev asked the question why he did not take measures to detain the suspect in a serious crime for so long. The investigator explained this with a high workload and a lack of people to conduct search measures. And he had information that Konstantinov is rarely at home.

And this refers to a person who actively participated in the public policy, which was then formed in the then numerous general optical councils and committees, the official applicant of rallies, who was delayed by the police during the mass protests of December 2011. When he was detained on December 5, 2011 on pure ponds, employees of the EC not to recruit him. In response to his refusal to cooperate, one of them, introduced by Markin, but for some reason, who looked like a trench , warned: "Where I appear, or a corpse, or a long time." Returning to the camera, Konstantinov told about this conversation to other detainees. Two of them confirmed this in court.

But back to March 22. When Konstantinov was delivered to the Chertanovo Yuzhnoy police department, his repeated recognition by a witness Sofronov was immediately conducted. Already live. And again, both statists were sharply different from Konstantinov in age, and in complexion, and in hairstyle. Repeated identification of the same identifier to the same identified by the same signs is directly prohibited by Part 3 of Art. 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The identification was attended by operatives, which is also prohibited. To put it mildly, they exerted psychological pressure on the witness when he hesitated. The court ignored all the protests on the illegality of identification.

Witness Sofronov, confused in the testimony and has repeatedly changed them, is a separate story. In the main specialty, he is a ten -ry-rescuer. Already under state defense as a witness in the case of Konstantinov, he committed at least 10 new (!) Thefts with a hacking in the group and was sentenced for this to a conditional (!) Dates. Not the first time was convicted. Can anyone believe that it can be without special interest in influential structures at all? Can anyone except Judge Türkina consider that Sofronov deserves trust?

Meanwhile, Sofronov’s testimonies remain the only evidence of Konstantinov’s guilt. There are no material evidence at all. Unless, of course, not to consider such a drawing (!) Knife made according to the description of the witness. It was dark, and the witness himself was at that time under a hail of blows. Nevertheless, he saw and remembered the knife with which the alleged killer waved to Temnikov, well enough for the drawing made according to his description was listed in evidence.

Neither the investigation nor the court did anything to work out some other version of the murder. Including the assumption lying on the surface that Temnikov and Sofronov were no coincidence at that evening by the metro and it was no coincidence that they met the company who had attacked them. That they were familiar. The personal belongings of the murdered (including his mobile phone) were somehow mysteriously lost by the investigation.

By all means, the investigation and the court purposefully evaded verification of evidence of Konstantinov’s non -involvement in the murder, namely, his alibi. At the time of the murder, he was at the other end of the city, celebrating his mother’s birthday in the restaurant. This is confirmed by the certificates of the feast participants. A recording in the journal of the restaurant made by the father of Daniel, who ordered a table for six people on that unfortunate evening. Photos taken by Daniel's mother during a feast.

The study on the polygraph testimony of the feast participants was refused. The Konstantinov family had to order an independent examination for their money. The trial of this examination (99% for the veracity of the testimony) the court "took note", but does not consider evidence. Still, not a drawing of a knife! The original cash receipt of dinner for six people was not requested in the restaurant’s accounting department. But in the case is a kind of printout from the computer about paying dinner for four persons. This is enough for Judge Türkina to not consider Alibi Konstantinov as proven.

The investigation did not give an exhaustive assessment of Alibi. It was not at all investigated whether the relatives and friends of Daniel were in the restaurant that evening, and if they were, then at what time and in what quantity. Was Daniel among them for at least some time? If it was, did you go away? It’s just a pompirer Ilyin mutters in an indictment: “The accusation believes that at 19 hours 20 minutes Daniil Konstantinov was in an underground crossing at the metro station" Ul. The academician of the Youngel. "The metro observation cameras did not record him, the" stream "system did not find the movement of his car. But he still thinks the accusation. But Judge Turkin does not consider it necessary to check something. She believes that" the evidence is presented from the prosecution, as it was finished on the part of the defense. "The judicial investigation must be sent out.