четверг, 31 января 2013 г.

Proofs of innocence of the father and son Pavlichenko

Sign a petition here!  http://tinyurl.com/freepavlichenko

This is a translation of the article "Proofs of innocence of the father and son Pavlichenko"

This is not a detective story. This happened today morning. On the way to Parliament (I wanted to visit one of the meetings of the opposition fractions), I got a call from one of the friends. He asked to immediately go to my computer and open email. I will not name this person for ethical reasons. He said that there is a very important information in my email that may help save lives of innocent people. It is about "Pavlichenko case". The only request this man made is to publish the information.

It is difficult to say why I was asked to do it. However, the materials were probably sent to other journalists and opposition members.

As the majority of Ukrainians, I know about this case, concocted by authorities and try to help innocent people. The notion "JUDICATURE AND JUSTICE" never existed for the members of the ruling regime.

I wondered for a long time whether it is fake and weighted all pros and cons. But after studying all the received materials I decided to publish it. It looks too much like truth. I can't deny or confirm the truthfulness of these documents, I have no right to. However, if this publication can help set justice, I will consider that publishing it was not in vain.

Of course, the court will put a period in this landmark case. But, everyone knows what are the Ukrainian "courts" in the times of the rule of Yanukovich's dictatorship. Judges and courts, that are nowadays absolutely subordinate to Bankova, are not trusted by the majority of people. It is proved by sociological researches.

So, this material is for the attention of journalists, experts, specialists, people and relevant authorities. I am sure that there is a considerable share of people in the law enforcement authorities who have not lost the concept of the officer's honor and professional consciousness.

I have no doubts regarding the non involvement of the father and the son of the Pavlichenko family into the murder of the Judge Zubkov. Let everyone study these materials and decide where the truth is, everyone has his own.

The letter (and photo documents) are without changes. Warning! Some photos contain violence.


I can't name myself, rank and position for understandable reasons. In terms of these reasons I can't say how I am connected to the Pavlichenko case. I can only say that I have been working on this case (as hundreds of other employees) and studied its materials.

How it was concocted and out of what - can be told to you by any investigator, any prosecutor officer even with a little experience. If he is not afraid. Because when a case is concocted SO bluntly and SO imprudently, even a non tutored understands that it was approved on a very high level.

I can't stand to continue seeing this shame what is carried out on behalf of the Prosecutor Office in court. It is not only my opinion. There are enough honest people in the Prosecutor's Office (I know, how skeptically you may percept this statement, but please, believe it), who will never go for breaking other people's destinies with their signatures. However, there are other people too. There are also people who were put before the choice without choice. Who are given an offer they can not refuse. I share the below mentioned information on behalf of all employees of the Prosecutor Office who still have some consciousness left.

Below are some blunt mistakes of the case of the prosecution that can't stand any critics. Probably these are not the brightest nuances. But these are the ones I can confirm with the case documents, that can be explained simply without getting deep into details. 

1. The judge was found in a bit strange condition, at least for the one "who just came from work and was getting home". The investigators did not want to underline it, but they had to explain it somehow. At least partly.

Allegedly Sergei (18 year old son of Dmitry Pavlichenko, note of interpreter) took off the trousers and shoes of the judge and wore on himself (what a strong psyco the kid has!!). The logic here "is sadly smoking in the corner": this was allegedly done because Sergei had blood on his trousers (and the judge who was stabbed, shot and pulled allover the floor, probably had his trousers in order).

However, the investigators modestly keep quiet that the judge also did not have a coat and a jacket on him. It was March, he just came home, getting up to his apartment - according to the version of investigation. And he was found near the stairs in underwear, socks and almost taken off shirt. That's all. I am not sure anyone knows about it, as I have no doubt that the investigation is trying not to touch this subject at all, because even their fantastic version can not explain such appearance.

Pictures of the judge at the crime spot.

2. Let's talk about fingerprints. On 21 March, on the day of murder, in flagrant delict, on a wheelchair, 4 fingerprints were found. The Expertise No. 21D dated 24 March 2011 clearly shows it - it studied the wheelchair itself and found 4 fingerprints on it.

24 March 2011 Dmitry Pavlichenko was detained. The same day the decision on re-examination (second expertise) was issued (of course, now it is clear whom to knot to the case).
It is interesting to read the result of the re-examination No. 22D. In file d we read "4 fingerprints were given for the expertise". 

On the next page of the same report of the expert we read: Not the object itself (wheelchair) was given for the expertise, but… the tape (scotch) with prints. I will explain for non-specialists:  you can get fingerprints on the tape (scotch) wherever you want. Even in a cell. Even in the investigator's office.

On the top of the page is a clear question regarding 4 fingerprints - do they correspond to the fingerprints of Dmitry Pavlichenko? On the same page we read: in an envelop there are 5 fingerprints. The case was concocted so badly, that even within this one expertise we find such mismatches, not to mention the mismatches between different documents of the case.

3. "Sneakers in blood". According to the investigators, Sergi had his trousers in blood, this is why he wore trousers of the murdered judge. They were "not found", by the way. He also changed his sneakers according to the same version, changing them to the shoes of the judge and leaving his sneakers on the first floor. Why? Were they also in blood? Is it so critically noticeable on the black sneakers? Did the size fit? Very vague…
So, in flagrant delict sneakers of Sergi Pavlichenko were found, blood was found on them. This is according to investigators. Let's take a look.

Photo of the bloody trace of the criminal.

However, here are the sneakers, allegedly of Sergi, allegedly found almost in flagrant delict (on the first floor).

Do we notice enough blood on them? No. The bottom is different. Absolutely different bottom that left the bloody trace. See yourself, compare pictures. Investigation has known it for a very long time, but somehow it bypasses this sharp corner. The corresponding conclusion of the expertise.

4. This is not yet everything. The same trace, as in flagrant delict as found near the house at 12 Kovelska str. This is where a dog led, tracing from the flagrant delict. But according to the investigation there was absolutely different route - in the opposite side from the direction where the service dog led and where the trace, identical to the bloody trace in flagrant delict, was found.

What we have as a result of articles 3 and 4: the real killer was shown to by the bloody trace of the bottom of a shoe in flagrant delict, the same trace at the 12, Kovelska str., and the route of running away, shown by the service dog, where the second trace was found.

But we are shown the sneakers allegedly of Sergi Pavlichenko, and they do not notice the mismatch of the form of the bottom of the shoe of Sergi and the trace in the flagrant delict. Besides, the direction where the service dog showed is ignored, however in that direction another trace from the bottom from the flagrant delict was found.

5. Now, regarding the "irrefutable material evidence". So, the trousers story. The trousers allegedly of Sergi Pavlichenko, found on the first floor and allegedly proving his presence there.

Voluntary surrender of Sergi Pavlichenko, which he said he gave after having been beat up and threatened - "I was dressed in sport pants of grey colour". Investigators are not fools to dictate different, as the grey sport pants come from the description of witnesses and this finding was sent around in the evening.

In two hours afterr the voluntary surrender - interrogation. In it, to the question "What were you wearing that day?" Sergi says: "Sport pants, black sneakers, black jacket, sport pants of grey colour". Yes, he said twice about the sport pants. It happens when you learn something badly.

After interrogation there was reproduction. And during the reproduction Sergi Pavlichenko says "I took off the jeans". He does not wear grey sport pants, it is difficult for him to remember.

6. Did you know there was the third suspect? They wanted the third one too, as a lot of things did not match. As a result, the third one was not found, so the initial version was corrected a little bit, but its traces can be found in press-conferences of the police chiefs in the first days after the murder. It says that somebody was sitting in the wheelchair. And in the polished version for the court Dmitri Pavlichenko took empty into the front door. And there were three murder weapons. The third suspect was very required. However, now, according to investigation there is no third defined or non-defined person.

7. In flagrant delict there were fingerprints of the undefined person.

8. One more thing about the belongings of the judge thrown away: during the interrogation "I had a plastic bag and the father had a plastic bag" (which they later threw away in a trash can). During the reproduction "only I had a plastic bag".

9. Sergi says that the concierge held his sleeve and asked from which floor he is. The concierge confirms that she did it with the criminal, but she did not recognize Sergi Pavlichenko in the court.

10. Here is the reproduction of the events. Let us look in more attentively. I'd like to note that the reproduction takes place after the voluntary surrender and the following interrogation, at once after it. Sergi Pavlichenko, despite that he was already forced several times to repeat and write by hand the version of investigation, does not follow the track of his testimony, gets confused. The recording of the investigative experiment is regularly interrupted and stopped, apparently, for the gradual instructions given to Sergi (on what to say).

The investigator asks to show where were the legs and where was the head. Sergi "with the head towards the window, if i am not mistaken". On the photos it is seen that the judge was laying with his legs towards the window.

The investigator asks to show how the judge was carried by the suspects. Sergi: "under his arms and legs". The investigator asks: "who held arms and who held legs?" Sergi, who allegedly according to his memory just showed where his father hit the judge, how they were carrying the judge at the stairwell, who stood where with 10 cm precision, could not remember whether he held arms or legs.

This is a diamond of this collection. Tired investigator stops controlling himself for a moment. Asking from where the elder Pavlichenko got the gun, he gets a response from Sergi - "from his pants". The investigator angrily interrupts him, directly voicing the required answer "from out of his belt, not from his pants!"

P.S. The Court of Appeal postponed the case of appeal to the life sentence for Dmitri Pavlichenko and 13 years of imprisonment for his son, Sergi Pavlichenko to 6 Feb 2013. 

Комментариев нет:

Отправить комментарий