In Transbaikalia, a trial began in the case of the death of the head of the police department for the Kirinsky district of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia “Akshinsky” Alexandra Aksenova. The investigation regarded the incident as a hunting accident. Like, a former policeman accidentally got into Aksenov Evgeny Piklovsky. However, all the facts and circumstances indicate that a planned murder took place. How the employees of the ICR turned a blind eye to the obvious things in the material Rucriminal.info.
On August 11, 2022, the investigator of the Akshinsky MSO of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Trans-Baikal Territory Lonshakova V.A. criminal case No. 12202760006000032 was initiated on the fact of inflicting a gunshot wound on August 10, 2022 by an unidentified person on Aksenov Alexander Nikolaevich – the head of the police department for the Kirinsky district of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia “Akshinsky” – on the grounds of a crime under part 1 of article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (causing death by negligence).
As a result of the initial investigative actions, it was established that the gunshot wound of Aksenov A.N. received on the night of August 09-10, 2022, when leaving for the hunting grounds together with his friends Evgeny Mikhailovich Piklovsky, Alexander Sergeevich Simonov.
Aksenov A.N. was taken to the State Health Institution “Kyrinsk Central District Hospital” on August 10, 2022 at about 13:00 in a serious condition, after providing medical assistance at about 05:30 on August 11, 2022, he died from a penetrating gunshot bullet wound through the abdomen, which was complicated by the development of hemorrhagic shock.
Initially Piklovsky E.M., Simonov A.S. argued in their testimony that Aksenov A.GN. received a gunshot wound as a result of uncovering his firearm (mark OP SKS caliber 7.62×39 No. 7738), which was in the car when they (Piklovsky, Simonov) went to get water to the stream. During the interrogation, as well as subsequently, when checking testimony on the spot, during the inspection of the scene of the incident, Piklovsky and Simonov indicated the route of movement from the moment they left the village. Kyra for hunting, a place of rest, as well as the place where Aksenov was shot.
On August 23, 2022, the criminal case was withdrawn from the proceedings of the Akshinsky inter-district investigative department and transferred to the third investigative department for investigating especially important cases of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Trans-Baikal Territory.
According to the results of the examinations carried out within the framework of the criminal case, it was established that the gunshot wound to Aksenov was caused by a weapon (ORS brand, model SELR No. 1014M, caliber 6.5×55) belonging to Piklovsky.
On November 12, 2022, Piklovsky was detained in accordance with Articles 91-92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
During the investigation, it was established that Piklovsky, being together with Simonov and Aksenov, in the area located in the Baldzhikan forest area of the Kyrinsky district of the Trans-Baikal Territory, using personal firearms (ORS brand model SELR No. In the presence of Simonov, he fired a shot at Aksyonov at close range, inflicting a penetrating gunshot wound through the abdomen with damage to the soft tissues of the abdomen, the peritoneum of the small intestine, the sigmoid colon, the bladder, and the soft tissues of the thigh, which are regarded as causing serious bodily harm, on the grounds of danger to life.
According to the interlocutor of Rucriminal.info, Piklovsky, realizing that the victim, as well as the witness Simonov, who was an eyewitness to the crime, can report on his above criminal actions, in order to further mislead witnesses (medical workers, law enforcement officers) about the actual circumstances of what happened, through verbal communication, had an impact on Simonov and Aksenov, who was in a helpless state, thereby inducing them to tell other people the version of Aksenov’s allegedly careless self-inflicted gunshot wounds from his own weapons (brand OP SKS caliber 7.62×39 No. 7738).
Also, Piklovsky, together with Simonov, hiding the traces of the committed crime, got rid of material evidence – a 6.5×55 cartridge case, with which Piklovsky fired a shot from his firearm (ORS brand model SELR No. 1014M, caliber 6.5×55) at Aksenov made other manipulations both with firearms owned by Piklovsky (brand ORS model SELR No. 1014M, caliber 6.5×55), and with firearms owned by Aksenov (brand OP SKS, caliber 7.62×39 No. 7738), thus giving credibility to the above false version of circumstances of causing grievous bodily harm and death of the victim Aksenov.
In the course of the criminal proceedings, the main investigative actions were carried out on the interrogation of witnesses, inspections of the area, expert examinations were appointed and carried out to establish the circumstances of the crime, evidence was collected that refutes the version of Piklovsky and Simonov that they were not involved in the commission of the crime.
On November 13, 2022, Piklovsky was charged with a crime under Part 4 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; on November 17, 2022, Piklovsky was given a preventive measure in the form of detention.
On January 26, 2023, the criminal case was withdrawn from the proceedings of the senior investigator of the third department for the investigation of especially important cases Anudarieva B.B. and transferred for further investigation to the second department for the investigation of particularly important cases of the Investigative Committee of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Trans-Baikal Territory.
On February 1, 2023, based on the petition of the accused Piklovsky, he was additionally interrogated in the criminal case. During the interrogation, Piklovsky acknowledged the partial unreliability of the previously given testimony, and told a new third version of the infliction of a gunshot wound to Aksenov on August 10, 2022. During the interrogation, he indicated that earlier in his testimony he correctly described the route of movement, the situation and circumstances that preceded the infliction of a gunshot wound to Aksenov, and his actions after them. However, he stated that the gunshot wound of the victim occurred when he was transferring his weapon (ORS brand model SELR No. 1014M, caliber 6.5×55) from the back seat of the car to the luggage compartment. Allegedly, at the same time, the trigger of the weapon caught on an unidentified object, a shot was fired, as a result of which the bullet hit Aksenov, who was standing nearby.
It should be noted that both Piklovsky and Simonov, getting acquainted during the investigation with the results of investigative actions to verify their testimony (expertise, interrogation of experts), which refuted the testimony they had previously stated, changed them, coming up with new versions about their actions that preceded the wounding of Aksenov. , about the circumstances of the infliction of a gunshot wound to Aksenov and the subsequent events (testimony regarding the case of Aksenov’s weapon, the time of the events, the sighting of the weapon, Aksenov’s actions, etc.).
On February 6, 2023, the Ingodinsky District Court of Chita extended Piklovsky’s detention by 1 month 2 days, i.e. until March 11, 2023.
On February 10, 2023, Piklovsky’s actions were reclassified to part 1 of article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – causing death by negligence.
On February 15, 2023, by the appeal decision of the Trans-Baikal Regional Court in connection with the reclassification of Piklovsky’s actions as a crime of minor gravity, Piklovsky’s preventive measure was changed to a ban on certain actions.
On February 22, 2023, I was notified of the end of investigative actions.
According to the results of familiarization with the case materials in the manner prescribed by Art. 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, representatives of Aksenov established:
1. The time, place, method and other circumstances of inflicting a gunshot wound on Aksenov A.N., set out in the charge brought against Piklovsky E.M., based on the testimony of the accused, do not correspond to the actual circumstances established by other evidence in the criminal case, the preliminary investigation was carried out not completely;
2. Significant contradictions in the testimony of Piklovsky, Simonov with other evidence in the criminal case (testimony of witnesses, the results of inspections of the scene of the incident, inspections of objects recognized as material evidence) have not been eliminated;
3. All persons who are aware of the circumstances relevant to the investigation and resolution of the criminal case have not been identified;
4. Information about the telephone connections of Piklovsky, Simonov, Loginov during the period of the crime was not requested and not investigated;
5. An investigative experiment was not properly conducted to verify the testimony of Piklovsky, Simonov, in which the situation and circumstances of the crime were not accurately reproduced;
6. An internal check was not carried out on the fact of improper taking of the necessary measures by officials after receiving a report on a crime;
7. The place where the crime was committed has not been established;
8. There is no petition filed by lawyer Prokhorov A.N. in the interests of Kartasheva N.N. in the criminal case dated 11/14/2022 on sending medical documentation to the regulatory authorities through the healthcare system.
9. Psychophysiological studies with the use of a polygraph were not carried out for Piklovsky, Simonov, Loginov. It has not been established whether Piklovsky’s high blood pressure during the study, which did not allow the use of a polygraph, was a temporary state of health, or is permanent due to existing diseases among medical specialists.
Aksyonov’s representatives also draw attention to the following details of the case:
1. From the resolution on the involvement of Piklovsky E.M. as an accused dated February 10, 2023, it follows that the scene of the crime is a plot of land with the coordinates 49016’59 “north latitude and 110026’0” east longitude, located in the forest area of the Baldzhikan locality of the Kyrinsky district of the Trans-Baikal Territory.
Meanwhile, the fact that this area was not a crime scene, but was arbitrarily chosen by Piklovsky E.M. and Simonov A.S. in order to mislead the investigating authorities, harboring the commission of Piklovsky E.M. crimes, hiding the real crime scene, several objectively established facts testify.
So, the protocol of the inspection of the scene of the incident dated August 11, 2022 (volume 2 pp. 73-80), the protocol of the inspection of the scene of 02/12/2022 (volume 2 pp. 127-134), within which the above area was investigated , it was established reliably (using special technical means) that at the place indicated by Piklovsky, Simonov, as the place of infliction of a gunshot wound to Aksenov A.N., no traces of Aksenov’s blood and fragments of a bullet from a gunshot wound were found (according to the conclusion of expert No. 937 on the body 1 inlet and 7 outlets from a gunshot wound – therefore, fragments of a bullet detected by special technical means, traces of blood from a wound), signs of a stop and stay of vehicles and people should have remained at the wound site.
From the interrogations of Piklovsky, Simonov, it follows that they arrived at the site of the production site of the Baldzha prospectors’ artel (the trailer of the Three Whales prospectors’ artel) at about 10 pm on August 09, from the place of rest in the trailer of the prospectors’ artel to the place of the alleged hunting they left at 04 on the morning of August 10, 2022.
Meanwhile, from the interrogations of witnesses Emelyanov D.Yu., Saveliev A.The. it follows that Piklovsky and his friends arrived at the above place at about 1 am on August 10, 2022, and left at about 2 am. At the same time, from the interrogation of Savelyev, it follows that he did not see Aksenov, whom he knows, with Piklovsky, and the description of the person (a plump fair man) who brought a canister of water into the trailer does not match Simonov’s appearance. Yemelyanov saw two people unknown to him. From this it follows that the identity of the people who, according to the testimony of witnesses Emelyanov and Savelyev, arrived at the production site of the Baldzha artel with Piklovsky was not established and was not established by the investigation.
The contradictions between the testimonies of witnesses Emelyanov, Savelyev and Piklovsky, Simonov have not been eliminated.
At the same time, the testimony of Simonov, Piklovsky in this part, as well as in the part about the location of the crime, should be taken critically in connection with the following:
Based on the data of investigative experiments (volume 4 pp. 42-61), the distance and time on the road is:
from the trailer of the prospectors’ artel “Three Whales” (the production site of the miners’ artel “Baldzha”) to the place where Aksenov A.N. was shot, indicated by Simonov, Piklovsky – 24.7 km, travel time 1 hour 07 minutes;
from the place where Aksenov A.N. road 57 minutes.
Accordingly, from the trailer of the prospectors “Three Whales” to the place of the Dianovs’ parking – the distance is 33.6 km, the travel time is at least 2 hours.
The reliably established time of Piklovsky’s call to Loginov about inflicting a gunshot wound on Aksenov and the need to provide medical assistance is at 04:57 on 08/10/2022.
Thus, indicated by Piklovsky and Simonov, the time of departure from the camp of the prospectors “Three Whales”, the place where Aksenov A.N. do not correspond to objectively established other evidence in the case.
I assume that the reason for reporting false information to the investigating authorities by Piklovsky and Simonov is their artificial construction of a false crime scene and the method of its commission in order to hide the true circumstances of the criminal act.
So, I assume that Piklovsky and Simonov, having agreed in advance to conceal the true circumstances of the crime, in order to inform the investigating authorities of non-contradictory testimony, chose a place near the stream as the place of inflicting a gunshot wound to Aksenov A.N., in order to give credibility to knowingly false information that they, having made a stop near the stream to wash and get water, moved away from the car, and at that time Aksenov, as a result of careless handling of weapons, inflicted a gunshot wound on himself.
From the conclusion of the expert No. 937 (volume 5 pp. 112-119) it follows that on the body of Aksenov A.N. 8 wounds were found, of which 1 is an inlet from a gunshot wound, 7 others are exit holes of bullet fragments located on different parts of the body (in the suprapubic, pubic, inguinal region, 1 on the front surface of the thigh).
From the conclusions of experts No. 3222/4-1, 1590/2-1, 1633/2-1, 1722/2-1 it follows that Aksenov A.N. (two jackets, shorts, two pairs of trousers, a jumper, a T-shirt) have one input (intermediate) damage, formed as a result of one shot by a monolithic projectile (bullet). No other damage to clothing was found.
Thus, the testimonies of Piklovsky, Simonov about the circumstances of the crime, contradict the fact that the localization of 7 exit holes from a gunshot wound on Aksenov’s body by 7 (seven) bullet fragments that exited Aksenov’s body in different parts of the torso and left thigh do not match with the localization of damage to Aksenov’s clothes. Couldn’t bullet fragments have gathered under Aksenov’s clothes back into a monolithic projectile (bullet) and form one input (intermediate) damage to several layers of clothing?
Logically, the only possible conclusions that can be drawn from these objective facts are:
1. At the time of the infliction of a gunshot wound to Aksenov A.N. he had no outer clothing;
2. Damage to clothing was not caused by a gunshot wound to A.N. Aksenov, but as a result of a separate shot from the same weapon, in which the bullet did not break;
3. This was done to artificially create untrue circumstances of the method of committing the crime, to mislead the investigating authorities, to give credibility to the deliberately false testimony of Piklovsky, Simonov about the circumstances of the crime;
4. These conclusions explain the discrepancy between the direction of entry and exit injuries on Aksenov’s body (somewhat from back to front), and the direction of entry and exit injuries (holes) from a shot on his clothes (from front to back);
4. Interested in the distortion, concealment of the true circumstances of the crime are Piklovsky, Simonov, possibly third unidentified persons;
5. Taking into account the above circumstances, it is necessary to verify the version that the scene of the crime, infliction of a gunshot wound to Aksenov, is the production site of the Baldzha miners’ artel;
6. The artificial creation of untrue circumstances of the crime took time for them, which delayed the provision of medical assistance to Aksenov, and, possibly, influenced the fact that the doctors could not save Aksenov’s life.
7. These circumstances indicate the need for a critical assessment of the testimony of Piklovsky E.M., the results of the investigative experiment with his participation dated February 01, 2023. An investigative experiment should also be carried out to verify the testimony of Piklovsky, which was carried out with significant violations – Piklovsky’s height is significantly lower than 185 cm (the height of the extras who reproduced Piklovsky’s actions is 185 cm), to reproduce the circumstances of the incident, an “Ors” rifle was used without a thermal imaging sight, as well as fixation by technical means the results and conditions of the investigative experiment were not carried out.