Nearly half a year after the detention of three suspects in the resonant case of the murder of Ukrainian-Belarusian journalist Pavlo Sheremet, the evidence presented by Ukrainian prosecutors hasn’t grown any less confusing or more convincing, even after the initial version was changed and scandalous presumed motives of “cultivation of greatness of the Aryan race” removed. On the contrary, investigative journalists had recently accused them of doctoring evidence to make their version more convincing.
Promises to solve a resonant murder case
Sheremet was assassinated on 20 July 2016 in central Kyiv. The car he was in blew up when an explosive device was detonated remotely. The car belonged to his common law spouse Olena Prytula, editor-in-chief of the online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda. Petro Poroshenko, during his tenure as president, stated many times that he was willing to involve foreign investigators in the case. Former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko had announced significant progress in the investigation. But no progress has been visible. At the same time, journalists of Slidstvo.info found indications of involvement of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) in the murder. This detail has been overshadowed even until now. Coming to power Zelenskyy’s government put a so-called “turbo mode” in place and promised quick results. Sheremet’s case was also included in the list of priorities. Completing the Sheremet investigation was considered a test for then-new Prosecutor General Riaboshapka and for the Minister of Internal Affairs Avakov (who has held his position from 2014 to the present).The presented completion of the investigation severely lacked evidence
Zelenskyy’s responsibility
Almost six months after the police press conference, Zelenskyy held his own press conference (20 May) to mark the one-year anniversary of his presidency. He was asked about the Sheremet matter and whether he felt political responsibility for any influence he may have had on the outcome. The president was vague in his statements and ambivalent regarding his influence. On the one hand, he said that if the investigation was faulty he was ready to make “serious staff conclusions.” On the other hand, his statements revealed that he did not understand - or was willfully ignorant of - the significance of his presence at the December 2019 police press conference. Seeming perturbed by the question regarding his possible influence, Zelenskyy retorted:“I was told - the probable killers were found, and I was dragged into it. That's right, no big deal. I'm not afraid of anything. I'm really curious - so they found the probable killers. I came. They showed me tthe materials, just as with you. I looked at them. But these are the findings [of the investigation]. And the decision is the court’s to make. Let the court decide. Or else, you’re creative! … Make me responsible for the process. Go ahead! I’m ready.”Immediately after the press conference, the Office of the Prosecutor General replaced the entire group of prosecutors in the case.
Initial version laid off for lack of evidence
Prosecutors accused of doctoring proof in new version
The current version of events, according to police, lays out a different course of events. First, the unidentified persons who killed Sheremet had decided to find accessories to the crime among army volunteers. Criteria for these accessories were the "propensity of individuals for violent traits to commit violent actions" and "low moral and psychological qualities.” Allegedly, Antonenko, Kuzmenko, and Duhar agreed to the action. Next, Duhar conducted reconnaissance for the planning of the assassination. Later, the “unidentified persons” produced an explosive device and provided it to Antonenko and Kuzmenko, who then planted it in the car. On the morning of 20 July 2016, an unidentified woman in a wig and sunglasses arrived in the vicinity. She entered an abandoned building to change her clothing, then returned to watch Sheremet’s house until he left and got into the car. She then returned to the abandoned building and detonated, remotely, the explosive device. The police examination describes this phase of the killing clearly, while all the other phases, as well as the motives of the three suspects, are confused and diffuse. The suspects' lawyers found numerous inconsistencies in this police version. Antonenko's defense team demonstrated that their client is taller than the killer (caught on CCTV). Duhar's defense insisted she has an alibi confirmed by documents and witnesses, and that the examination on which the suspicion is based is incomplete and biased. Kuzmenko’s defense team also criticized the examination, pointing out that at the time of Sheremet's murder, Kuzmenko and Antonenko had only been in contact a few times, and Duhar had not met either of them at all. On 25 May, Kyiv's Pechersk District Court granted the prosecution’s motions and changed the “preventive measure” for Duhar from house arrest to a bail of UAH 168,000 ($6,232) and wearing a GPS-tracking ankle monitor. Duhar and her lawyers appealed to the public to help collect the bail money. Within three hours, the funds were raised from about 500 individual donors.
