ㅤㅤinformational guide on the academy maniacs
ⓘ This is purely an educational archive documenting the facts of the case and does not condone, glorify, or support any of these violent actions in any way.
Artyom Alexandrovich Anoufriev’s Biography
Artyom Alexandrovich Anoufriev entered the world on October 4, 1992, in Irkutsk, a major Siberian city in Russia known for its harsh winters and industrial character. From the outset, his family situation was fractured. Raised without a father figure present in the household, Artyom grew up under the primary influence of his mother, Nina Ivanovna Anoufrieva, who worked as an accountant in an insurance company.
Childhood accounts paint a picture of a boy who was intellectually capable but emotionally turbulent. He performed well academically in subjects like literature and English, participated in school competitions, and showed an early interest in music, taking lessons in guitar and double bass for about five years. He even played in a local music group that eventually disbanded when its organizer left the city. However, social integration proved challenging. From first grade onward, Artyom was often an outcast among his peers, a status that lingered until his later school years when classmates matured and became more accepting. Despite this eventual shift, his academic performance dipped in the 10th grade, and he graduated with merely satisfactory results.
His home life added layers of complexity. According to school administrators and later court testimonies, Nina exerted a profoundly negative influence. She reportedly instructed her son to harbor hatred toward others, frequently intervening in school matters by writing complaints against teachers for perceived psychological pressure or for noting poor grades only in diaries rather than more formally. This led to significant disruptions, including one physics teacher refusing to continue teaching a class that included Artyom. These dynamics contributed to a psychologically difficult upbringing, fostering resentment and isolation.
Post-graduation, Artyom enrolled at Irkutsk State Medical University while taking a job as an auxiliary worker at a local art museum. This period marked continued personal struggles. His mother later recounted an incident where he was beaten and possibly sexually assaulted by a group of Armenians, allegedly after provoking a conflict online by insulting someone’s family. A criminal case was opened but resolved through reconciliation, with the family receiving compensation. Artyom reportedly became more unbalanced afterward, deepening his sense of grievance against the world.
Artyom’s social world was narrow. He briefly associated with white power skinhead groups, earning the nickname “Fashik-Natsik” in some circles, and participated in the 2010 Russian March in Irkutsk. However, he found their ideology too passive and was not deeply embedded. His primary, and often only, close connection was with Nikita Lytkin. Their bond became all-consuming, with mutual dependency. Neighbors later reported hearing outbursts from his apartment—shouts of “I hate everybody!” accompanied by sounds of physical aggression against walls or objects—suggesting escalating inner turmoil in the months before the crimes.
Psychologically, Artyom was described as having a misanthropic worldview, influenced by online explorations of notorious criminals and extremist materials. He idolized figures like Alexander Pichushkin, creating online groups in his honor, and expressed sympathies for others involved in violent acts. This fed into a desire for notoriety and a belief that they could “decide who lives and dies.” Despite later claims during investigations and trial, forensic psychiatric evaluations deemed him sane and accountable though revisitations suggest he had symptoms of antisocial personality disorder.
Nikita Vakhtangovich Lytkin’s Biography
Nikita Vakhtangovich Lytkin was born on March 24, 1993, also in Irkutsk, making him slightly younger than Artyom. His family background mirrored Artyom’s in key painful ways: an absent father of Ossetian ethnicity who left early in Nikita’s childhood, returning sporadically only to disappoint further. This instability was compounded by tragedy in the family—Nikita had a younger half-brother who died by suicide after his mother’s death, adding to the father’s depression and erratic presence. The last contact with his father came when Nikita was 16, leaving lasting emotional scars.
Outwardly, young Nikita appeared quiet and calm, with exemplary early behavior. He excelled in elementary school, participated in creative contests, earned commendations, and enjoyed video games. However, social acceptance eluded him. In mathematics class from 2004, peers reportedly rejected him. A friendship with Artur Lysenko provided some adaptation but was one-sided, with Lysenko dominating. Meeting Artyom at Lysenko’s birthday party proved pivotal; depressed and isolated, Nikita confided in Artyom, who offered support. This friendship gradually supplanted others, as Artyom’s unfriendly demeanor rubbed off, leading Nikita to view prior relationships as superficial. Bullying intensified, earning him the mocking nickname “Jimbo” from The Simpsons. He struggled to assert himself, often yielding to offenders.
Educationally, Nikita’s path diverged negatively. He began skipping school in eighth grade, leading to expulsion after nine classes. Attempts at college—in energy and then construction—failed due to poor performance, conflicts, and a burglary incident where he stole from a bullying classmate’s home (his mother filed then withdrew a police report). He disengaged entirely from formal education.
Creatively, music became an outlet. With Artyom, he formed the punk rock band “Evil Gnomes” (Злые Гномы), releasing an album Black Streaks of Blood in 2008. They later created the noisegrind project “Dismembered PugachOva” (Расчленённая ПугачОва), known for deliberately offensive, violent, and shocking lyrics inspired by bands like Anal Cunt. Themes centered on hatred, violence, and extremism; one release was dedicated to a local violent gang. Few knew of this side, as Nikita showed no overt aggression publicly.
Family and personal life deteriorated. Early church attendance with his mother faded; he rejected it, abandoned other hobbies like painting and kickboxing for social media, and developed shame toward his mother, avoiding her. Psychologists noted developmental lags and advised more freedom, but his depression worsened, insomnia set in, and isolation deepened. Like Artyom, he explored extremist ideas and serial killer lore, finding resonance in misanthropy.
Influences to Commit Murder
The pair’s descent into violence stemmed from a toxic mix of personal failures, social isolation, online radicalization, and deliberate emulation of notorious killers. Both harbored profound misanthropy—hatred of humanity at large—exacerbated by family dysfunction, bullying, and perceived injustices. Artyom’s mother’s alleged teachings of hatred and his skinhead associations (though limited) contributed, as did Nikita’s dependency and shared echo chamber.
Key influences included exposure to serial killers via media. A 2007 TV program on Alexander Pichushkin (“Bitsa Park Maniac”) captivated them; Artyom created fan groups online. They mourned Andrei Chikatilo online and fixated on the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs (Igor Suprunyuk and Viktor Sayenko), known for brutal hammer attacks and recordings. Locally, sympathy for the “Blood Magic Gang” and leader Konstantin Shumkov was overt, with dedications in their music and online groups. A book resembling “Born to Hate” resonated with their psychological states.
Motives centered on notoriety, fame through infamy, thrill, and a god-like sense of power over the vulnerable (“deciding who lives and dies” — Artyom Anoufriev, 2011). They targeted the weak, drunk, or isolated, viewing attacks as “training” or entertainment. Skinhead ideology played a role but was secondary to pure hatred. Their music and online activity amplified these fantasies into action. Investigators noted a desire for attention, with the pair locked in mutual reinforcement—Artyom as ideological driver, Nikita as eager performer, though roles blurred in confessions.
Their crime spree in Irkutsk’s Akademgorodok (university district) ran from November 2010 to April 2011. They patrolled routes from public transport stops in evenings/nights when mothers worked, seeking vulnerable victims. Weapons included hammers (mallets), knives, baseball bats, air guns, and screwdrivers. Attacks were brutal, often from behind, involving repeated blows and post-mortem mutilation. They sometimes robbed victims and documented acts.
Early incidents included non-fatal attacks: November 14, 2010, on 18-year-old Anastasia Markovskaya (head smashed, she survived by pretending to be dead); November 24 on a 46-year-old woman (robbed). December 1 saw another failed attempt before they killed 12-year-old Danil Semyonov, a former school acquaintance. Nikita struck first with a mallet; Artyom continued with a bat. Nikita stabbed the temple. Initially ruled an accident, it was their first kill—“training.”
Subsequent murders: Olga Pirog (69, December 16, 2010); an unidentified homeless man (early 2011); Alexander Maximov; Roman Faizullin (March 10-11, 2011); and Alevtina Kuydina (63, April 3, 2011). In total, six murdered, nine injured. Attacks involved extreme violence—dozens of blows, stabbings, mutilations. They filmed Kuydina’s corpse desecration. Victims were often elderly, homeless, or children—chosen for weakness. Robberies provided minor gains (e.g., buying more weapons). The spree terrorized the community, with initial investigations missing connections.
The pair’s dynamic: joint planning, shared execution, post-crime discussions. They planned more attacks on arrest night. Confessions varied, with mutual blame-shifting, but evidence (videos, witness IDs, forensics) was damning.
On April 5, 2011, suspicion fell after facial composites circulated. Nikita’s uncle Vladislav, visiting the home, found a camera with a tape showing Nikita mutilating Kuydina’s body. He alerted police. Both were arrested quickly. Artyom was calm, quoting Pichushkin dramatically.
"As one hero said, give me a glass of whiskey and a cigar—and you will learn so much new about this life that your hair will begin to move on your head."
Nikita admitted several crimes. They were calm initially, with plans foiled. The video spread, sealing the case. Extensive investigation followed, involving experiments and volumes of evidence.
Pre-trial detention was tense. Both in Irkutsk facilities, separated for safety. Trial (2012-2013) was lengthy, emotionally draining, with 49 case volumes. Witnesses fainted; Artyom showed cynicism then breakdowns, self-harm (neck and stomach cuts), and blame-shifting. Nikita was more withdrawn. Charges: murders, attempts, robberies, corpse abuse, extremism. Artyom partially confessed; Nikita mostly did but rejected extremism.
Sentencing on April 2, 2013: Artyom life imprisonment; Nikita 24 years (reduced to 20 on appeal in October 2013, considering age). Civil suits awarded compensation to victims (millions of rubles, unlikely paid). Appeals and complaints followed, with Artyom alleging mistreatment.
Post-sentencing, Artyom transferred to Ognenny Ostrov (strict regime), youngest inmate at the time. Interviews showed little remorse; he claimed writing a book, and studied law remotely. Nikita in Correctional Colony No. 7, Angarsk. He produced statements, faced psychiatric issues.
By 2015-2016, Nikita was serving his 20-year sentence in the Kemerovo Region. He had been moved to Federal Penitentiary Institution No. 41 (FKU IK-41), a correctional colony in the town of Yurga. Prison records and later court testimony painted a consistent picture of his behavior there: he was withdrawn, uncommunicative, and did not take part in any of the colony’s social, educational, or work activities. Officials placed him on a special preventive watch list because they saw him as someone at risk of suicide and possibly trying to escape. He kept to himself and had few if any real interactions with other inmates.
For medical reasons, Nikita was sent for treatment at another facility (IK-5) and then returned to IK-41. Medical staff recommended he stay in the medical unit of the colony. This placed him in a ward with other inmates receiving health care, including a disabled prisoner known in court documents only as Victim B. (to protect his identity). B. was older, physically weak, and moved around on crutches due to his disability. He posed no threat to anyone.
On the morning of May 31, 2016 (the events began late on May 30), Nikita carried out a premeditated and brutal attack. While both were in the medical unit’s administrative building, Nikita waited for B. to go to the toilet. He followed him in, armed with a metal scoop (sometimes described as a cleaning shovel or scoop used for maintenance). Approaching from behind, he began striking B. forcefully on the head with the sharp edge of the tool. He delivered at least eight powerful blows. B. was completely vulnerable, on crutches, unable to run or fight back effectively.
B. immediately felt intense pain, especially to the back and top of his head. He fell to the tiled floor near the toilet, screaming for help. Even after B. was down, Nikita continued hitting him—at least two or three more times while B. was seated on the floor. Blood poured from the wounds. Other convicts in the medical unit heard the cries and rushed into the toilet. They pulled Nikita away, stopping the assault before it could become fatal. Nikita dropped the scoop and walked away. B. received immediate medical help for multiple head wounds, including cuts to the parietal, parieto-occipital, and occipital regions. Forensic examination later classified the injuries as abrasions and wounds caused by a hard blunt object, but they did not cause lasting harm to his health.
Nikita’s stated motive, according to his own earlier statements during the investigation, was coldly calculated. He wanted to get a new criminal conviction—specifically for attempted murder—so that his overall sentence would increase and he could be transferred to a different prison. He hoped this would send him to a facility where he could be with his old accomplice Artyom Anoufriev. He picked B. precisely because B. looked sick, weak, and unable to resist. Nikita later admitted he felt completely indifferent to who the victim was; B. was simply the easiest target available. He chose the method—repeated blows to the head from above—because it reminded him of how he and Artyom had killed their first victim years earlier with a hammer. There was no personal quarrel, no argument, and no prior conflict between them.
When investigators and colony staff first questioned him right after the attack, Nikita openly confessed. He described following B. into the toilet, striking him at least six times from behind, then hitting him two more times while he was on the floor. He acknowledged seeing the blood and knowing what he was doing. He signed a voluntary confession written from his own words, with no signs of pressure.
At the later court trial (around 2017), however, Nikita changed his story. He pleaded not guilty to the full charge of attempted murder. He admitted he had hit B. with the shovel several times but claimed he never truly intended to kill him. According to his new version, he only wanted to create enough trouble to get moved to an isolated cell or a different facility for his own comfort. He said he planned to hit B. about five more times and then stop on purpose. He insisted he knew the injuries could not be fatal. He also tried to discredit his earlier confessions, claiming he had only given them out of fear of violence from other inmates while in pre-trial detention.
The court carefully examined all the evidence and rejected Nikita’s trial testimony as unreliable and self-serving. They found his original confessions, the detailed testimony of Victim B., statements from prison staff and witnesses, forensic reports on the injuries, and the overall circumstances far more credible. B.’s own account matched the physical evidence: he described the surprise attack from behind, the repeated blows while he was down, the fear for his life, and how other inmates pulled Nikita off him. The chief of Nikita’s detachment in the colony also testified that Nikita openly told him afterward that he chose B. because he was weaker and could not fight back, and that the goal was to get a life sentence or transfer to be near his accomplice. There was no evidence of any personal feud or provocation from B.
The court concluded that Nikita’s actions were a clear case of attempted murder committed out of hooligan motives. His behavior showed open contempt for public order, human dignity, and moral standards. It happened in a shared prison medical facility—a public space within the institution—and was done with cynicism and a desire to dominate a helpless person. The judge recognized some mitigating factors: Nikita’s partial admission of guilt (at least initially), his young age at the time, and his health conditions. But these did not outweigh the seriousness of the crime.
The Sentence for the 2016 Attack
On the basis of Part 3 of Article 30 and paragraph “i” of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Russian Criminal Code (attempted murder with hooligan motives), Nikita Lytkin was sentenced to 11 years of additional imprisonment. This was to be served in a special-regime penal colony. He also received one year of restriction of liberty after his main sentence, requiring regular check-ins with authorities, limits on changing residence, and restrictions on leaving the municipality without permission.
This new term was added to his existing 20-year sentence. The attack reinforced his reputation as a dangerous and unpredictable prisoner. It highlighted ongoing issues with his mental state, lack of remorse, and continued willingness to use extreme violence for personal gain—even years into his incarceration and far removed from the original street crimes in Irkutsk.
On November 30, 2021, at age 28, Nikita Lytkin died by suicide in prison, slashing his wrists at Correctional Colony No. 7 in Angarsk. Discovered early December 1, he had served about 10 years. Reports cite neglect by guards. His death ended a sentence that might have seen release around 2031. It marked a tragic close to a life defined by isolation, violence, and unaddressed mental health struggles.
Artyom remains imprisoned, serving life. The case highlighted flaws in early investigations, impacts of online radicalization, juvenile extremism, and societal neglect of troubled youth. It was notable as one of the first forensic resolutions of violent extremism in Irkutsk Oblast. Media coverage was intense, with podcasts, documentaries, and online discussions keeping it alive. Victims’ families sought justice and compensation; community fear lingered.
