The murder of Nemtsov: the version of the prosecution



How were the criminals found?

Prosecutor Maria Semenenko built her final speech effectively: showing step by step how the crime was solved. Here is her version.

The investigation immediately rejected the suspicions regarding the driver of the snowplow Budnikov and Anna Duritskaya, having checked their testimony. What this check consisted of, I did not quite understand.

The billing of all phones in the area of Red Square was investigated for the period from 21:00 to 1:00 am (the murder was committed at 23:31). At the same time, they examined all the cells around GUM and found a suspiciously loitering couple on them.

According to the billings, two “combat tubes” were calculated, which connected only with each other. Examining their details, they found that one of their sims was rearranged once (February 24) into another handset. And in that tube (also once, on December 6), the “legal” SIM card of Shadid Gubashev was inserted. True, they confused the year in the indictment a little.


Фрагмент обвинительного заключения по делу об убийстве Бориса Немцова

By detailing Shadid’s “legal” number, they realized that the person with this phone flew on February 28 from Vnukovo to Chechnya. It was not Shadid, but his brother Anzor Gubashev, who was registered on the flight flying to Grozny at that time – he used this number. After watching the video from the Vnukovo cameras, they found two people there, similar to those who repeatedly appeared on the cameras at GUM and in Trubnikovsky (where ZAZ, the killer’s car, was abandoned) on the night of the murder. So they figured out the second one – Beslan Shavanov (how exactly, I didn’t really understand; perhaps, analyzing the check-in for the flight).

A third person was noticed on the video of the airport cameras – he saw them off in a Mercedes 007 car. The owner of the Mercedes turned out to be Ruslan Mukhudinov, who was later named the customer.

All this looks plausible. Then the incredible begins. Semenenko claims that, not yet knowing the rest of the defendants, the investigators found during a search in the Gubashevs’ house in Malgobek telephones with the recorded numbers of Khamzat Bakhaev and a certain Zaur.

“We still don’t know who Zaur is, only his phone number, but we already know from his number that he was with Anzor at the time of the murder.”

But the search in Malgobek, according to the documents, took place on March 7, the day the Gubashevs and all the others were detained. And Dadaev was detained according to the documents on March 6, while he himself claims that in general on the 5th. I never understood how they got to him so quickly. The prosecutor’s version answered this question with frank manipulation. By the way, about Bakhaev – how many phones were in the Gubashevs’ handsets to immediately identify him alone as an accomplice? I’m not talking about the fact that there is still no direct evidence that Dadaev was at the time of the murder on Red Square, and they “already knew it then”!

Further, according to the prosecutor, in the same way, according to Zaur’s billing, they learned that he flew to Grozny on March 1, and they found him on the airport cameras along with Ruslan Geremeev. At the same time, Eskerkhanov‘s phone number (-22-22) was found in Mukhudinov’s connections, about which nothing was known yet. Having started to “develop” Geremeev, they found a man “with a big beard” along with him on a video from the Ukraine Hotel. And only after that, Semenenko talks about searches in the apartments on Veernaya Street and the detention of the “bearded man” there, who turned out to be Eskerkhanov with the phone “-22-22”.

The searches at Veernaya and Kozino took place simultaneously with the arrests in the Caucasus on 7 March. Shadid Gubashev lived in Kozino and, according to lawyers, had temporary registration. They lived there for about 10 years together with fellow villager Bakhaev. Bakhaev, who did not go anywhere, apparently was taken there simply “to the heap”, just in case. And Eskerkhanov was found sleeping in an apartment at 46, Veernaya, bought before the murder in the name of Artur, a relative of Ruslan Geremeev. How exactly they came to Veernaya, I also did not understand. But it was important for the prosecutor to show that their detentions were not an accident, but the result of great efforts.

The moment of the murder

The prosecutor pedaled: “All the fatal shots were fired from behind, the wound to the chest on the left side is not fatal. Dadaev fired this shot while leaving, at the falling Nemtsov.” But this only increased the bewilderment about six shots in 2-3 seconds. If it is a continuous burst, it is still possible, but if at the same time the killer managed to “start to leave”, and then, turning around, resume shooting … Try it at your leisure.

An attempt was made to establish the exact location of the “fighting tubes” at the time of the murder. Semenenko describes the result twice:

  1. “The expert clearly says: the phone was on the Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge!”

  2. “Experts say: Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge is entering the reception area of the base station that recorded the killer’s conversation.”

    These are slightly different things, aren’t they? In fact, in the examination, of course, it is only said about the reception area, which includes the bridge. No expert can accurately point the point.

Personal evidence on the accused

The prosecutor first voiced the theory of “two groups”. According to her, one was Dadaev and Eskerkhanov, the second – the Gubashev brothers, Bakhaev and Shavanov. In the center, the “organizer” Mukhudinov (driver Ruslan Geremeeva) was the link.

The logic of the prosecutor is clear: military officer Dadaev was undoubtedly closer to his former commander Geremeev than to others. Eskerkhanov got into this group due to the fact that he was mainly “under Geremeev.” In addition, he did not communicate by telephone with the Gubashevs and Bakhaev. The rest – the lowest link, the infantry. But Bakhaev stands apart – he did not call anyone from the group, except for his neighbor in Kozino Shadid, there are no traces of him either in their cars and ZAZ, or in the apartments on Veernaya. Everyone else has been there.

The prosecutor explained it this way: Bakhaev is “the biggest communications specialist” (in reality, he once worked in a company installing street payphones). Therefore, “he prefers not calls, but personal meetings. But communication with Shadid is enough for him to receive all instructions through him.”

The logic of reasoning is understandable, but I personally did not see real evidence of this scheme.

The evidence on Khamrat Bakhaev is like that.

1. Charge: on the 27th, on the night of the murder, when “the whole group pulled up on Veernaya”, he was in the same Western District of Moscow, on Ivan Franko Street.

Circumstances: According to his billing and the testimony of his common-law wife Guseva, he met her at the Kuntsevo metro station to go to her apartment at 34 Ivana Franko Street. They used to meet there regularly and lived for several days.

2. Accusation: On February 22, one of the “war tubes” was “spotted” by a base station on the same Ivan Franko street. “In the same place”, the prosecutor said.
Circumstances: the station is at house 4, and the house of Bakhaev’s wife is at 34. Past this station there are tracks with Veerna in various directions. It is impossible to understand whether Bakhaev was traveling from / to Veernaya or to his girlfriend.


Места пребывания Бахаева и их соотношение с Веерной улицей, где жили предполагаемые убийцы.

3. Accusation: Bakhaev ended up in his car twice in the Vnukovo area on the days when the defendants flew from Moscow to Grozny: on January 17 – Geremeev and Eskerkhanov (they returned later), and on March 1 – Dadaev with Geremeev. So, Bakhaev “insured the flight from Moscow.”
Circumstances: Bakhaev was driving along a local highway passing from the back of the airport and could neither observe nor get to the airport. On March 1, he was passing through the same place at the time when Dadaev’s plane had already landed in Grozny. He did not see off any of the defendants from Moscow. Nevertheless, this gave grounds to the prosecutor to assert: “Bakhaev insured their departure.”

4. Accusation: when Bakhaev and Guseva are on Ivan Franko (he usually lives in Kozino), Mukhudinov’s phone is “silent” – it does not connect with anyone.
Meaning: unclear.

5. Prosecution: On February 26, a ZAZ car ended up on the street. Ivan Franko.
Circumstances: This was not stated in court. In the details of the Potok tracking system, to which the prosecution refers, I was unable to find such an entry. It’s most likely just a lie.

Tamerlan Eskerkhanov

As it became clear during the trial, Eskerkhanov, in search of work and benefits, “stuck” to the eminent countryman and former “heroic commander” Dadaev Ruslan Geremeev. Or he fed Eskerkhanov in case of need. He invited him to a restaurant, sometimes allowed him to spend the night in his apartment. It was the dinners with Geremeev that killed him.

Perhaps Eskerkhanov sometimes carried out certain assignments. Especially he had no time: he worked at a construction site and as a security guard for the “golden boy” Guraria, accompanying him on his adventures in bars and girls. Flying to Grozny, Geremeev, according to rumors, left him the keys to the apartment, where Eskerkhanov was tied up by the raiding special forces. Eskerkhanov also refers to the second video withheld from the jury by the court.

1. Charge: On February 26, when, according to Potok, ZAZ was following Nemtsov’s car along Novy Arbat, Eskerkhanov was sitting with Geremeev in the restaurant of the Ukraina Hotel, located not far from the traffic route. So, “Eskerkhanov insured the killers.”

2. Charge: On the day of the murder, February 27, Eskerkhanov was in the Royal Arbat bar, 100 meters from the place where the criminals left the ZAZ (Trubnikovsky pereulok). He himself said this at the first interrogation. So, “he insured the escape from the scene of the crime.”
Circumstances: Later Eskerkhanov remembered: he was in a completely different institution – “Duran-bar”. As early as March 11, 2015, LifeNews published a video from this bar under the heading “Alibi accused of killing Nemtsov confirmed by video.” There Eskerkhanov is seen together with Gurariy, for whom he served as a guard. The court refused to consider this recording and demand it from the publication on the grounds that “its origin is unknown.”

3. Accusation: A frame from the surveillance cameras of the hotel “Ukraine” was found in Eskerkhanov’s phone. On it – Eskerkhanov himself, Dadaev and a certain Khataev, Geremeev was also there. It is known that on the eve of the arrival, Anna Duritskaya discussed with Nemtsov the place of their joint dinner. One of the places discussed was the café at the Ukraina Hotel. So, “Eskerkhanov studied the location of the cells where Nemtsov could be in order to kill him there in the case of option “B”.
Circumstances: It is not explained how the criminals could have learned the contents of a private telephone conversation between Nemtsov and Duritskaya. The photo was sent by someone (unknown) to Eskerkhanov’s phone on February 14th, and the place of the dinner was discussed by Nemtsov on the 26th. Geremeev had previously visited the restaurant of the Ukraine Hotel.

4. Charge: Eskerkhanov was detained in an apartment at 46, Veernaya Street. Important evidence was also found there (in particular, a computer with the words “Boris Nemtsov” entered into the search). The prosecution repeats more than once: “such and such evidence was found in Eskerkhanov’s house.”
Circumstances: The apartment does not belong to Eskerkhanov, but to Ruslan Geremeev, it was bought in the name of his nephew Artur.

5. Charge: After each departure of the defendants from Moscow to Grozny (February 28 – Shavanov and Anzor Gubashev, March 1 – Dadaev and Geremeev), Eskerkhanov called up Mukhudinov (being in various places). This means that “he, like Mukhudinov (who personally drove everyone to the airport), controlled the departure.”

Circumstances. If the prosecution recognized Mukhudinov as the head of the group, then why should he report to Eskerkhanov, busy with his own affairs (or Eskerkhanova to check Mukhudinov)?

Shadid Gubashev

1. Prosecution: At the request of Dadaev, I met Shavanov at Vnukovo on February 26. Shadid does not dispute this, saying that he was simply asked to meet a certain person.

2. Charge: Biological traces of Shadid were found in the ZAZ car.

3. Charge: Shadid was the last of the defendants to leave for Grozny in his car. During the arrest, clothes with traces of gunpowder were found in the car. At the same time, a clearing turned into a shooting range was found near Kozino (the village where Shadid Gubashev and Bakhaev lived) (bullets in trees, cartridge cases on the ground).
Circumstances: Clothing was not identified. The accusation itself gives grounds to assume that the company was having fun shooting in the forest and gunpowder traces on clothes have nothing to do with the murder of Nemtsov.

Anzor Gubashev

The accusation: Pauses in the work of his “legal” number very often coincide with the work of the “fighting tubes” at Nemtsov’s house. He looks like a man who walked around GUM and Trubnikovsky (where they abandoned ZAZ), although the portrait examination could not confirm this for sure, only revealing the resemblance. His biological traces were found in the ZAZ in the driver’s seat. He was the first to leave Moscow after the murder (together with Shavanov).

Zaur Dadaev

Charge: Biological traces found in ZAZ. He was the first to give a confession, which he later retracted. According to the first testimony of witness Molodykh, who saw the fleeing killer, whose height was 170-175 cm (on his testimony in court, where Molodykh made an attempt to “identify” Dadaev, the prosecutor did not focus attention at all). On the hand and behind the ear, 9 days after the murder, microparticles of the products of the shot were found in minimal quantities. He left Moscow with Ruslan Geremeev on March 1.

Circumstances: Videotape with possible alibi ruled “inadmissible evidence.” Claims that he “shot” the weapon when he was dismissed on March 1, regularly participated in military operations. According to the billing, the pauses in his phone numbers, contrary to the allegations of the prosecution, never coincide with the working hours of the “war tubes” (that is, the moments of surveillance of Nemtsov).

Common to all

All the defendants were familiar with each other, everyone talked and called up (except Bakhaev), everyone, except Bakhaev, was in the apartments on Veernaya.

The accusation: “No one speaks in the testimony about the apartment at 46, Veernaya, because nothing was found at 3, Veernaya, and important evidence at 46, Veernaya.”
Circumstances: Ruslan Geremeev lived at 46 Veernaya Street, whom in one form or another all the witnesses and defendants called “the elder” and the most influential of all those involved in the case. Probably, the defendants simply could not “pawn” it.

What’s left behind the scenes

Throughout the investigation, information was obtained not about five, but about ten persons, apparently, who were the main suspects. In addition to the defendants and Mukhudinov, who is being ordered by the customer, these are Shavanov (who died mysteriously during the arrest), Ruslan and Artur Geremeev and Aslanbek Khataev. As a result, the last three were out of the game. The name of Ruslan Geremeev, the prosecutor nevertheless called in passing a couple of times. But there was also a certain Jabrail, who came to the house on the night of the murder, and others who had been there!


Подозреваемые в начале следствия по делу об убийстве Бориса Немцова. К концу некоторые почему-то выпали из списка. Лист из дела.

Portraits of suspects, about whom everyone was interviewed at the beginning of the investigation.

I deliberately did not give additional reasoning and facts. I only analyzed the main theses of the prosecutor’s accusatory speech.

In the title photo: the protagonist of the process – prosecutor Maria Semenenko.

Published in (copy)