Previously, the assessors essentially agreed with the conclusions of the investigation, according to which the lady became the victim of a domestic conflict that suddenly broke out between lovers based on jealousy. The defense believes that the first, acquittal verdict made by the jury of another panel was fair, however, the prosecutor’s office deliberately “broke” it by connecting the operational capabilities of the law enforcement system to its arguments.
The trial was interesting because the assessors studied the ideal murder.
According to the Investigative Committee, Kulakov in an unclear way (how exactly has not been established) agreed on a night meeting with Isaenkova. At night he left the house through the fire exit and walked to the appointed place. However, he was not caught on any surveillance cameras. In a forest belt, Kulakov strangled Isaenkova and hid her body on the floor of her car. After which he returned home unnoticed. The motive for the murder has not been established with certainty. Allegedly strangled in a fit of jealousy. And this despite the fact that Isaenkova and Kulakov dated for many years, often fought, broke up, but then resumed their relationship. The man and woman had a wife and husband who knew about the relationship of their “halves” on the side.
Traces of Kulakov were found on Isaenkova’s body. But, given that Andrei and Evgenia were in a close relationship, this evidence is not very convincing.
The Investigative Committee primarily relied on the testimony of a classified witness, who assured that Kulakov confessed to him of the murder. But the “witness” is Kulakov’s cellmate, who works for law enforcement officers. Jurors are usually skeptical of such testimony.
It is not surprising that in such situations Kulakov was the first to be acquitted. However, law enforcement officers have already begun canceling inconvenient jury decisions, which has long cast doubt on the very institution of juries.
“ВЧК ОГПУ”