We return to the topic of the death of the head of the police department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia 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 new Rucriminal.info material.
On August 10, 2022, Alexander Aksenov, head of the police department of the Kyrinsky district of the Trans-Baikal Territory, was mortally wounded while hunting. The wound was inflicted while hunting (the exact location of the investigation has not been established) by a former police officer, and now the head of the security service of one of the local mines, Evgeny Piklovsky. An eyewitness or an accomplice in the crime was Piklovsky’s friend Alexander Simonov.
Aksyonov was shot in the abdomen and died in the hospital. It was established by expert examination that the shot came from a weapon belonging to Piklovsky.
However, Piklovsky, as well as his accomplice, immediately informed the investigation that Aksenov had wounded himself by negligence with his own weapon. They told the same in the district hospital, where Aksenov was taken.
Piklovsky and Simonov adhered to this version until the results of a ballistic examination became known that the shot came from Piklovsky’s weapon, and the nature of the wound precludes its independent infliction to the victims.
It is also noteworthy that Piklovsky got rid of the spent cartridge case, that is, from the most important evidence. And before the investigators examined the car, they completely washed it from all traces, in their opinion.
The following is also important: Piklovsky, having reached the place where there is a connection, did not call the police or the hospital, but his friend, the chief doctor of the district hospital Ivan Loginov. An eyewitness to the conversation told the investigation that Piklovsky asked not to tell anyone about the incident.
The head physician Loginov, knowing perfectly well how to act in such cases, did not register the call and did not report to the police. Both Loginov and Piklovsky knew that a helicopter had to be called in to rescue the wounded. Instead, Piklovsky and his comrade drove the wounded man along a broken road for about six hours. An ambulance moved towards them, secretly sent by the head physician Loginov. Moreover, it is not clear for what purpose Loginov replaced the ambulance driver on duty Ustyuzhin with another – with Zhuravlev. Apparently absolutely loyal. Since he never left the village of Kyra, the driver Zhuravlev never left.
It wasn’t until about six hours later that a helicopter was called.
Thus, the behavior of Piklovsky, Simonov, as well as the head physician Loginov, indicates that, most likely, they did not need Aksenov to survive. In order to then put forward and defend the version of the accident.
A criminal case was initiated by the investigative department of the Investigative Committee for the Kyrinsky district of the Trans-Baikal Territory under article 109 of the Criminal Code – causing death by negligence.
However, then the case was withdrawn to the third department for especially important cases of the regional Investigative Committee, which qualified Piklovsky’s actions under Article 111 of the Criminal Code – intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, resulting in the death of the victim. The investigation established that Piklovsky deliberately fired a shot at Aksyonov from a personal firearm in the presence of Simonov. As a result, Aksyonov was inflicted with a penetrating gunshot wound through the abdomen, from which he died. Piklovsky was taken into custody.
And Simonov’s actions were qualified under Article 316 of the Criminal Code – harboring a serious crime.
Piklovsky during the investigation, under pressure from evidence, changed his version of events – the alleged gunshot wound occurred when Piklovsky was transferring his weapon from the back seat of the car to the luggage compartment. Allegedly, the trigger of the weapon caught on some object, which is why the shot occurred. By negligence.
The totality of the facts indicated that, most likely, a planned murder had taken place. Otherwise, why change versions, destroy evidence, hide the incident from registration and create conditions for the death of the victim?
But then strange things began to happen with the criminal case.
The case was withdrawn to the second department for especially important cases of the IC of the region, where, for unknown reasons, the investigation considered Piklovsky’s second version plausible. His actions again began to qualify as causing death by negligence. Moreover, the investigators of the third department did not make a reasoned decision to stop the prosecution under Article 111 Part 4 of the Criminal Code. Apparently there was nothing to motivate.
In order to give Piklovsky’s version a plausible appearance, the investigators conducted an investigative experiment, during which Piklovsky, in an environment allegedly close to that which took place, showed how the wound occurred when the weapon was transferred from the back seat of the car to the trunk.
Any sane person understands that to carry out such an action was a pointless exercise. After all, the person involved, knowing for a long time all the conclusions of ballistic examinations, including the approximate distance from which the shot occurred, easily coordinates his version with the conclusions of the examinations.
And then the investigators took a completely ridiculous step – repeated examinations were appointed, the experts were asked whether Piklovsky’s testimony during the investigative experiment was plausible. And the experts, realizing that it was not their competence to determine the question of whether a shot was fired intentionally or arbitrarily, answered in the manner necessary for the investigation and Piklovsky.
As a result, the criminal case went to court under Article 109 of the Criminal Code (Causing death by negligence), and against Simonov, the criminal prosecution was generally terminated.
The prosecutor of the region, despite all the odiousness of reclassification from a serious crime to a crime committed through negligence, approved the indictment.
The actions of the chief physician of the district hospital, Ivan Loginov, did not receive any assessment at all. But in the normal course of the investigation, many questions should have arisen to him.
The victims filed statements addressed to the Prosecutor General Krasnov and the Chairman of the Investigative Committee Bastrykin demanding the need for an additional investigation by the federal center.