Posted 1 сентября 2020,, 10:27

Published 1 сентября 2020,, 10:27

Modified 24 декабря 2022,, 22:38

Updated 24 декабря 2022,, 22:38

Expert: to establish the truth in the case of Mikhail Yefremov is easy as shelling peas

Expert: to establish the truth in the case of Mikhail Yefremov is easy as shelling peas

1 сентября 2020, 10:27
Deciphering the electronic memory of the car in which Mikhail Yefremov was traveling will not help to ascertain the driver's name, but if the sensors in the car objectively say that the driver was alone in the car at the time of the accident, then the driver's name will become obvious.

Technical expert Yuri Antipov calls on the court to conduct a simple examination, which will allow to establish the identity of the person who was driving that ill-fated evening.

Yuri Antipov

I'll start this article from afar and at the beginning a little history.

In 2008, there was a resonant accident that shook the whole country. In Moscow, two cars collided on Leninsky Prospekt near Gagarin Square. Almost forehead. A Mercedes car, in which the Vice President of the Lukoil Company was, and a small Citroen C3 car, in which two female doctors were traveling to work, collided. Olga Alexandrina was driving the Citroen, and a world-class doctor Vera Sidelnikova was sitting next to her. Both women were killed in a car collision.

Then, in spite of the fact that the fatal traffic accident occurred practically in the center of Moscow and on the government highway, all the cameras aimed at the place of the collision of cars (and there were more than 20 such cameras) suddenly turned out to be "blind". And nothing was recorded.

Such a strange "blindness" of numerous cameras allowed the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Moscow to shift the blame for this accident on the dead women.

Then the rigging by the police began immediately after their arrival at the scene of the fatal accident. For example, one of the patrol cars that arrived at the scene of the accident (and there were a lot of them there then) immediately ran over and covered the place of dust and dirt from the colliding cars with its body. And thus, the main sign of the place of the collision of "Mercedes" and "Citroen" was hidden from everyone present, including from the journalists.

And these unauthorized actions of the guardians of the law, together with the experts under their control, allowed then to publicly call the cause of this fatal accident that the Citroen with doctors, moving along a completely free road in its direction to the region, crossed the dividing strip and collided with a Mercedes Lukoil, slowly trudging in a traffic jam, which was at that moment in the direction of the center of Moscow.

But numerous technical facts then stubbornly spoke of the opposite. That it was Mercedes, not wanting to stand in a traffic jam and going around it, taxied into the oncoming lane and collided with a Citroen, which after the collision, having flown to the side, remained standing in its lane.

But, nevertheless, the Gagarinsky Court of Moscow legalized the opinion of the Main Internal Affairs Directorate, having found the driver of the Citroen guilty.

Many will ask - so what, it was a long time ago and what does this have to do with today's events? And the most direct.

As it is already clear, despite the fact that the accident with Mikhail Yefremov's car occurred in the very center of Moscow, and even near the Foreign Ministry building, for some reason there is no data from a huge number of cameras in this area of Moscow. It would seem that show step by step the entire short trip of the killer car, and everything will immediately become clear - who was driving, who was getting in (or not getting into the car), and that's it. And the end of these lawyer's dances with a tambourine on the bones of a dead person. The trial would have ended long ago and, according to its verdict, the guilty person would have already been convicted.

But…. It turned out that there was no video from the cameras. And this circumstance gives rise to the continuation of the judge's tent, debating the same two questions many times: who was driving, and who else was in the killer car.

And how do you get answers to these questions? After all, it is already clear that some witnesses say that Yefremov was driving, while other witnesses right there in court claim that Yefremov was not behind the wheel, which means that he was not alone in the car. It would seem a dead end. A dead end for a judge, and a dead end for a fair legal judgment.

But no. There is no dead end in this case, if we take into account the "testimony" of a completely impartial "witness". And this witness was in the car from start to finish.

And further information in this article will be more for a judge, and not for PR advocates, who also do not have technical knowledge.

And again I will return to the accident at Leninsky. In this criminal case, there is an examination made by specialists of the Citroen firm. They decoded the electronic memory of a cheap Citroen ("EEPROM"), and, thus, recreated the last moments of the life of the destroyed Citroen. See photo # 1.

And here, just by the way. In an expensive "Mercedes" of a representative class, such an electronic unit, as stated by the investigation, was not installed ...

But back to the expertise of specialists from the Citroen firm. The data from the C3 "black box", in spite of all the statements of the police department, impartially showed that "Citroen before and after the collision moved ONLY FORWARD, turning after the impact and he did not jump back, as the investigation claimed. And while he stayed in his lane. See photo # 2.

I think that now many have already guessed why I made an excursion into the past and connect these two accidents-road accidents at Leninsky and the current one at Smolenskaya Square.

The JEEP car "Grand Cherokee", on which Mikhail Yefremov rode "is among the leaders in terms of the security systems installed in it. Up to the point that the electronic brains of this car can themselves command the car's braking system to start braking if the driver does not take any action in the event of obstacles on the road.

The same is with the electronic memory of this machine. It records a lot of parameters at the time of the event associated with the accident, and can give an unambiguous answer whether there was anyone else in Yefremov's car, except the driver.

It is clear that the decoding of the electronic memory will not be able to name the driver's surname, but if the sensors in the car objectively say that the driver was alone in the car at the time of the accident, then the driver's surname will become obvious.

And what is needed for this? Nothing special. The judge simply makes a request to read data from the memory of Yefremov's machine. Naturally, within the framework of an official investigation. And this can be done not only in the distant homeland of the manufacturer of this machine, but also in our country. And if such an examination is made in our country, then the work on removing the information will be carried out within one day. And that's all. And the circus in the courtroom immediately stops its work, and the judge issues a verdict based on objective data. Well, clowns from the deserted circus will be able to continue their performance outside the walls of the court, without trivializing justice in Russia by their actions.

PS In the next article I intend to publish a few more facts that shed even more light on this accident, and even without decoding "EEPROM" so far.