How a witness was made from a bloody killer

The Telegram channel of the Cheka-OGPU and Rucriminal.info continue to talk about the gang Mikhail Mikhailov nicknamed Don’t Budi. We recently introduced readers to the materials that are currently investigating two criminal cases of “exploits” committed by members of Mikhailov’s gang.

One criminal case No. 137629 against A.M. Drozdov, a close friend of “Ne Budi” and a key member of his gang. (detained in April 2022, since 2010 – on the federal wanted list) is in the production of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Moscow Region, the investigator – Ablaev Seyran Borisovich.

Another criminal case – No. 9941 against Mikhailov M.V. and Gumnikova A.S. is in the production of SO in the city of Lyubertsy of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia in the Moscow Region, the investigator – Sinitsa Nikita Evgenievich.

On the wanted list Drozdov A.M. was announced on July 14, 2010, and he was charged in absentia with banditry, the murder of 3 (three) people, illegal arms trafficking and 2 (two) robberies. Incl. for the murder of Danilin V.M. in criminal case No. 140752, initiated on 09/03/2009 (we previously said that Danilin V.M. was killed in 2007 by members of the gang, by drowning, in order to sell his apartment). UD No. 140752 was initiated solely on the basis of the testimony of the right hand of “Ne Budi” Mikhail Sadovsky, who had previously made a deal with the investigation. From the testimony given by Sadovsky M.A. follows: that the information about the possibility of taking possession of the apartment Danilin V.M. came precisely from Drozdov A.M., and also that Drozdov A.M. was directly involved in causing the death of Danilin V.M. On the video recording of the conversation between Sadovsky M.A. and Marchuk N.A. we also see and hear that Sadovsky M.A. claims that Drozdov A.M. received funds from the sale of the apartment of the victim Danilin The.M.

Also Drozdov A.M. charged in absentia with the murder of V.Yu. Ostrovsky. committed on August 31, 2004 (UD No. 311204). The testimony of M.A. Sadovsky also served as the basis for the prosecution in absentia. From these testimonies it followed that Drozdov A.M. personally, in complicity with Gumnikov A.S. inflicted bodily injuries incompatible with life with unidentified objects, the victim Ostrovsky The.Yew. From which the latter died at the scene. It should be noted that from 2004 to the present, Drozdov A.M. is the owner of part of the office space, because of which, according to the investigation and the court, V.Yu. Ostrovsky was killed. In his testimony Sadovsky M.A. indicates that the motive for the murder of Ostrovsky V.Yu. was precisely the desire to take possession of the office space. In a previously published video (conversation between Sadovsky M.A. and Marchuk N.A.), Sadovsky M.A. tells how, to whom and under what circumstances the same office space was registered).

However, at present there are sufficient grounds to believe that the preliminary investigation authorities are trying to make Drozdov A.M. witnessed the murder of Danilin V.M.

In addition, as Rucriminal.info established, Drozdov A.M. charged in absentia with the murder of an unknown man in complicity with Mikhailov M.V. in 2004. Again, the accusation in this murder is based ONLY on the testimony of Sadovsky M.A. The investigation concluded that the testimony of Sadovsky M.A. enough to be charged with a particularly serious crime. From the testimony of Sadovsky M.A. it follows that Drozdov A.M. offered to take possession of an apartment located on Varshavskoye Highway in Moscow. Sadovsky M.A. describes the method of killing the victim and the place where the corpse was left in the Orekhovo-Zuevsky district of the Moscow region. And this is where the “strangeness” begins. Sadovsky M.A. claims that Drozdov A.M. and Mikhailov M.V. the victim was beaten, then stabbed to death, and already dead they burned in a dumpster. At the same time, from the protocol of the inspection of the scene, it follows that the corpse was found in the forest and was partially burned. From the conclusion of the SME (forensic medical examination) it follows that the victim was first strangled and then burned in the same place. The distance from the place of the murder indicated by Sadovsky M.A. about a kilometer to the place where the body was found. Traces of dragging the corpse, neither post-mortem nor intravital, the examination did not find. This is taking into account the fact that, according to Sadovsky M.A. he was a direct witness to the events he describes. In fact, it turns out that, the testimony of Sadovsky M.A. completely disagree with the data on the location of the discovery of the corpse and the method of murder.

By the verdict of the Moscow Regional Court dated 06/30/2015 Mikhailov M.V. was acquitted of the murder of “an unknown man, in connection with his non-involvement in the commission of this crime.

But that was in 2009 and 2015. respectively. And here’s what’s happening these days. Currently Drozdov A.M. confirms the murder that took place in the fall of 2004, names the personal data of the victim and the motives for the murder. Well, of course he says that he did not want to kill, these were force majeure circumstances. Lyrics. Drozdov A.M. says that the victim was shot and then completely burned in a dumpster. Mikhailov M.V. confirms these statements! Mikhailov M.V. who in 2015 was acquitted for “this” episode.

Has a molecular genetic examination been carried out on the remains of the discovered corpse in the forest with biological samples of the relatives of the victim, whose personal data are named by Drozdov A.M. – unknown. Currently, a number of circumstances indicate that the corpse found in 2004 in the forest of Orekhovo – Zuevsky district of the Moscow Region, according to the testimony of Sadovsky M.A. and the victim about which Drozdov A.M. speaks in his testimony. they are two different bodies. A reasonable question arises to the “witness” Sadovsky M.A., what kind of corpse did he speak about in his testimony and the source of his knowledge?!?! So far this question remains unanswered!

This is taking into account the fact that the testimony of the “witness” Sadovsky M.A. formed the basis of 2 (two) convictions of the Moscow Regional Court. In these same testimonies, the “witness” Sadovsky M.A. told in detail how Drozdov A.M. killed Ostrovsky V.Yu., Danilin V.M. and an unknown man. About how Drozdov A.M. received funds from the sale of real estate of the murdered victims.

But it is possible that the “witness” Sadovsky M.A. during interrogation in the near future he will tell the investigation that he was mistaken in his earlier testimony. In fact, he did not mean A.M. Drozdov, but someone else. Perhaps someone who is no longer alive. Well, the person was mistaken, well, who doesn’t happen to?!

And there is another option, more modern. Drozdov A.M. will now conclude a pre-trial cooperation agreement (hereinafter DOS). He will tell the investigation what is needed, and vice versa, he will not tell what is not needed. As a result, the criminal case of Drozdov A.M. on the merits will be considered without examining the evidence. Accordingly, the testimony of the “witness” Sadovsky M.A. (neither old nor new) will not be examined in court. So that they do not contain and no matter how radically they differ in semantic content. Paper will endure everything.

Currently, there are reasons to believe that the investigating authorities want to make Drozdov A.M. witnessed the murder of Ostrovsky V.Yu., Danilin V.M., and possibly an unknown man. He (Drozdov A.M.) in his testimony says that he did not want to kill, this is all Mikhailov M.V. guilty. Who knows, maybe the investigation will believe Drozdov A.M.

Well, now let’s move on in detail to the “witness” Sadovsky M.A.

Rucriminal.info has a video recording of M.A. Sadovsky’s conversation. and Marchuk N.A. (ex-wife of Mikhailov M.V.)

In this entry, Sadovsky M.A. says that for more than 3 (three) years he used the documents of the murdered Akinshin S.V. In previous publications, we talked in detail about this episode of the crime. According to the testimony of Sadovsky M.A. Akinshin S.V. was killed was for what he said to Mikhailov M.V. ask him (Sadovsky M.A.) to return him (Akinshin S.V.) his documents. Documents of Akinshina S.V. used Sadovsky M.A. therefore not legal. Do you feel the logic? Sadovsky M.A. used other people’s documents for more than three years, and Mikhailov M.V. killed a man for these documents! This is taking into account the fact that in all interrogations the “witness” Sadovsky M.A. told the investigation how he was afraid of Mikhailov M.V. It should be noted that other people’s documents Sadovsky M.A. used for their own purposes and interests.

Recently, in the TDF in the city of Lyubertsy, Mikhailova M.V. visited by employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. Namely: Mogilin Vitaly Viktorovich (presumably an employee of the Main Directorate of Criminal Investigation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation) and Goryacheva Natalya Nikolaevna (title and position unknown). In the course of a conversation with the indicated employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Mikhailov M.V. reported on the circumstances known to him of the murder in 1995 of a native of the Chechen Republic on the territory of the city of Lyubertsy, possibly committed by Sadovsky M.A. According to Goryacheva N.N. she found a criminal corpse in the archive, discovered in 1995 with injuries similar to those reported by Mikhailov M.V. Whether any verification activities have been carried out so far on this fact is unknown.

Criminal case No. 9941 on the fact of the murder of Senichkin V.V. in 2007, which is being investigated by the investigator of the SO for the city of Lyubertsy of the Main Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the MO Sinitsa Nikita Evgenievich. Earlier we talked in detail about the circumstances of this crime. Recall that the investigation in this criminal case was resumed as a result of writing by Mikhailov M.V. confession and giving them consistent and detailed testimony on the circumstances of the crime committed. In his testimony Mikhailov M.The. says that the following were also involved in this murder: “witness” Sadovsky M.A., Drozdov A.M., as well as Bogdanov Nikolai Vasilievich, General Director of JSC Liftremont Firm (TIN 5026001657). In addition, Mikhailov M.V. indicates that at the time of the direct murder of Senichkin V.V. the killer was actively resisted by the girl who was in the car together with VV Senichkin. It is not known whether the girl who resisted the killer was identified. Accordingly, it remains unknown whether Drozdov A.M., Sadovsky M.A. were presented to her. and others for identification as possible accomplices in the murder of Senichkin V.V.

At present, Bogdanov N.V., Drozdov A.M. as defendants under UD No. 9941 was not involved, the reasons are unknown.

“Witness” Sadovsky M.A. naturally, steadily continues to be a “stable witness”. This is already a matter of course.

Recall that Mikhailov M.V. and Gumnikov A.S. transferred from the colonies to the pre-trial detention center. In relation to them, there is a court verdict that entered into force on March 25, 2016. Within the meaning of the Law, a convicted person in respect of whom there is a verdict that has entered into legal force, within 10 (ten) days from the date of notification of the entry into force of the verdict, is transported to the place of serving the sentence (part 1 of article 75 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation). They are currently facing charges in a new criminal case. Investigative actions are carried out with their participation. wherein the measure of restraint in relation to Mikhailov M.The. and Gumnikova A.S. has not been elected to date. At the present time they are kept in SIZO-6 of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Ministry of Defense on the basis of an investigator’s decision in accordance with Article 77.1 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation. This provision of the Law provides for the stay of convicts in a pre-trial detention center for a period not exceeding 2 (two) months. The specified period for the implementation of the preliminary investigation in full, taking into account the stage of the investigation at the present time, will be insufficient. Accordingly, after a 2-month period Mikhailov M.The. and Gumnikov A.S. will be transferred to the colonies. After that, they will be transferred to the pre-trial detention center again. Conveyance from one institution of the Federal Penitentiary Service to another is an exhausting process for the person being transported. Mikhailov M.V. in September – November 2022, he was already transported along the route SIZO – colony – SIZO in connection with the described casuistry. This is called putting it on wheels.

In this connection, the accused are deprived of the opportunity to fully develop a line of defense for themselves and are preparing for the trial on the merits, as a whole.

According to Rucriminal.info, in a conversation with one of the accused, investigator Sinitsa N.E. said that he was too lazy to go to court with a request for a preventive measure for Mikhailov M.The. and Gumnikova A.S. Locations of Mikhailov M.V. and Gumnikova A.S. during the preliminary investigation, “on wheels” can negatively affect their correct understanding of the plot of the charge, deprive them of the opportunity to fully develop a line of defense in court, and also cause other significant violations of their rights. Interestingly, is the investigator just too lazy to go to court?!

The catchy Latin expression says: “Dura lex, sed lex”, which in Latin means: “The law is harsh, but it is the law.” But for some “unknown” reasons, the ancient Latin saying does not apply to stable witnesses and respected people.

On Friday, it became known that on January 12, 2022, Mikhailov M.V. An employee of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Colonel Linkov Dmitry Viktorovich, came. Interested in Linkov D.V. Is it true that the rent for the part of the office space, which belongs to Drozdov A.M. (for which Ostrovsky V.Yu. was killed) receives Marchuk N.A.?! This is true, the relevant data confirming this are at the disposal of the Cheka – OGPU. Also Linkov D.V. said that he knew for sure that the verdict of the Moscow Regional Court dated June 30, 2015 (based on the testimony of the “witness” Sadovsky M.A.) against Mikhailov M.V., Gumnikov A.S. and others are definitely not going to change or cancel. But most of all Linkova D.V. interested in publications on the Cheka – OGPU about the circumstances of this case, who, why and for what it writes.