LOWER Romerike District Court (VG) The DUI defendants ‘Shall We Dance’ profile Egor Filipenko acknowledges having drunk but denied having driven a car.
Filipenko is this year a judge in TV2′s “Shall We Dance” after he spent several years has been dancing partner during the show.
Today he met in Lower Romerike District Court on charges of drunken driving 2, 38 parts per thousand. Drinking and Driving should have happened in January, when Skedsmo Akershus, and police pulled out after being called by a concerned witness who had seen a very drunk man put himself into a car.
Filipenko explained that he had eaten little the day before he went to a party, and that he drank champagne on more or less empty stomach. Filipenko also explained that it was then “shottekonkurranse” at the party.
– There was much “shotting”. It is one of the last I remember. The first thing I saw there was light in the car. The next thing I remember was that I was standing right in front of the car, I remembered talking on the phone, do not remember who I talked to.
Lest this ? Filipenko: I am accused of something I think I have not done
– It was brutally many black Filipenko on the judge’s question about how many units of alcohol he had ingested.
– Not touched the car
Filipenko explained that he left the party to vent. Then he saw his car standing halfway down a slope, with the lights on.
– I thought that no one would see me, it was embarrassing, there were many people. I would bleed me and possibly vomit. It was a short distance from the road to the house.
The accused denied that he has run the car.
– I have not touched the car, other than that I was and retrieved my cell phone there.
Filipenko were also asked who he believes drove the car.
– Unfortunately, I can not say anything about it. I woke up only on smooth cell, I did not understand why I was there.
Requires prison
LAST: The prosecutor Tone OAG believes it is important to react strictly in this matter and laid down a claim unconditional prison sentence in 36 days, fined 52,000 and the loss of leading the court for three years.
Filipenko lawyer Reidar Steinsvik tried in his closing argument to so doubt it actually was Filipenko who drove the car, and put questions of the witness statement.
– The booklets doubt on the witness’s explanation, said Steinsvik in court.
Doubts will cause the defendant is acquitted, said Steinsvik.
In his final remark from Filipenko said he included the following, after the prosecutor påstånd of punishment.
– Mister I tag for three years, I lose too job.
This has happened today:
Filipenko shook his head and said nothing on his way into court. He did not want to give any comment to VG before the case started.
Filipenko pleaded not guilty on charges little after nine o’clock Monday morning. He thinks he could have driven the car.
Prosecutor Tone The Office presented the prosecution’s version of events in court. She explained that a witness had called the police and set a very drunk man put himself into a car. The car drove according to the witness almost immediately into the ditch, police turned out three minutes later as the witness kept in contact with the operations center. The person appeared to be very drunk and that he claimed politicize history had difficulty to explain who he was and what had happened.
The Office explanation explained Filipenko in court.
– Would admitted
Filipenko spoke clearly that he is a strong opponent of DUI and that one must be an idiot to get behind the wheel in alkholpåvirket condition.
DANS PROFILE: Egor Filipenko who dance partner Venke Knutson in “Shall we dance »
Photo: Mattis Sandblad , VG
– It is difficult for me to understand that I chose to put myself into and run when I could at any time ask for a ride home. At worst, I could gone home, he explained.
– You opposes drunk driving, is that why you think it could be you who sat behind the wheel? asked the prosecutor.
– It’s one of the things yes, definitely, responded Filipenko.
In court today explained Filipenko that he would have admitted it if it was he who drove the car.
He believed, however, it was unlikely that someone else at the party had keys to the car.
After Filipenko explanation was the Witness who called the police who gave evidence to the court.
– I saw a man come walking, very drunk. It was as far as he managed to stay upright. I saw he approached a car, opened it, and climbed in. Then I was very worried, the witness explained.
– Extremely intoxicated
The police officer who detained Filipenko also testified in court. He explained that the police were on site approximately three minutes after the message from the operations center came from a concerned witness.
– He was extremely drunk. He spoke on the phone and explained that he needed help because of a traffic accident. He dismissed us, was so intoxicated that he saw that we were from the police, explained the policeman.
– When I asked if he had driven the car, he thought long about and replied: – I have not run.
The policeman explained that they found the key to the car in Filipenko pocket, and that he was very uncooperative.
– He said we treated him like Breivik said he was taken only because he was a foreigner.
According to the policeman was Filipenko intoxicated at he failed to blow the alcohol meter.
The next day the policeman explained that Filipenko said he did not remember anything. On the prosecutor asked whether there were others present policeman answered debilitating.
Filipenko did not want to be photographed outside or in the courtroom.
defense had called In Filipenko colleague as a witness. He explained that he talked with Filipenko, but that he did not get the impression that he had driven the car. Colleague perceived dance profile as “in good shape”.
No comments:
Post a Comment