The tragedy “Petrohan“ continues to raise serious questions about the investigators' version of what happened. After the last press conference of the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Interior, at which data on the cameras, weapons and gunpowder particles were presented, many questions continue to remain unanswered. What was not fully stated… National security expert Assoc. Prof. Dr. Asen Peychev, lecturer at the Southwestern University “Neofit Rilski“, speaks to FACTI.
– Mr. Peychev, after the last press conference of the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Interior, at which the version of foreign intervention was rejected, has your assessment of the case changed in any way “Petrokhan“?
– After the briefing of the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Interior (rather the briefing of the experts), not only do I not change my assessment, but I am firmly convinced that this is an execution. Why? Because the expert reports are not finished, and without them any categorical conclusion is hasty and perhaps incorrect. As for the completed expert reports, the way they were presented shows that they are manipulative and brutal, with the aim of compromising the victims. A bitter aftertaste of distrust and incompetence towards the investigators remains in society. Political motives were introduced at the press conference in order to link a certain presidential candidate couple to the “Petrokhan” case. Such accusations can only be circulated after the court pronounces the guilt of the individuals and it is not legal for the experts to speak out at the press conference. The situation has become especially aggravated after information emerged that one of the experts was had a conversation with a leading politician.
– The prosecutor's office presented data on the cameras, weapons and gunpowder particles, but admitted that some of the expert reports are not yet ready. What remained unclear after this briefing?
– The data presented by the prosecutor's office on the cameras, weapons and gunpowder particles cannot be used as evidence. For example, it is known that most of the cameras were destroyed by the fire, and that there was interference with them by the first persons who arrived at the crime scene (according to information from the mayor of Gintsi - SANS employees). There are also striking discrepancies in the expert report on the gunpowder particles, and as for the weapons and the permits issued for them, it would be interesting for the public to know which head of the RPU of the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued the permits and on what grounds? And who petitioned for the issuance of permits for such a type weapons?
– How do you assess the fact that the institutions presented a certain version of what happened before all the expert reports were completed? Could this affect the investigation itself?
– The fact that the institutions presented a certain version before all the expert reports were completed means that the investigation is being influenced and directed in a certain direction in order to serve someone's interests.
– You have raised the issue of possible external interference several times. Is there a specific fact in the publicly known data to date that requires this version to remain on the table?
– I continue to claim that there is external interference in this case. There is not a single reliable fact from the investigative bodies that would reject my version. The reason is that all the expert reports of the investigators can be questioned.
– What do the expert reports have to show in order to categorically distinguish the suicide version from the murder-suicide version?
– As the question is asked, the key to this answer lies in the expert reports: ballistics, trajectory, gunpowder particles, traces on clothes and objects, smoke print (if there are such experts in Bulgaria). While these things are not clear, the versions are only assumptions, and the evidence is easily refuted.
– The press conference paid considerable attention to the allegations of a sect, pedophilia and the behavior of some of the deceased. Is it possible that such details will divert attention from purely forensic issues - weapons, trajectories, time and sequence of events?
– Yes, these allegations that are inserted by the investigators - about a sect, pedophilia and other sensational elements - are intended to shift the focus, to compromise the victims, to instill in society a negative attitude towards them, their relatives, as well as political figures associated with them. The investigation should be based on clear facts and evidence, not on details that sound good in the yellow media.
– What significance does the fact that some of the cameras did not work or were destroyed in the fire have for the investigation? Can the missing information from them be compensated for with other evidence?
– The missing cameras and recordings cannot be replaced and these gaps will not be able to be filled by the investigators. This fact leads to the assumption of the deliberate erasure of traces by the perpetrators of the execution and their accomplices. Because some people, who themselves decided to end their lives, would not set out to erase traces in this way – it would simply not matter to them.
– In your opinion, is there enough data to completely reconstruct the movement of the three people between “Petrohan“ and Okolchitsa, or is it precisely here that there are still significant gaps?
– In my opinion, there is enough data to completely reconstruct the movement of the three people between “Petrohan“ and Okolchitsa, but there are significant gaps on the part of the investigators. Why do I think so? The investigative authorities have the entire toolkit in their hands: cameras from the RIA, cameras on the roads of private individuals at their homes, reading the camper's GPS, a satellite phone, extracting traffic data from the mobile phones of the people who were riding in it. All of this data was collected quite manipulatively and is interpreted in a way that is convenient for the investigative authority.
– There were also calls for an international expertise with independent specialists due to the low level of trust in the institutions. In such a sensitive case, would such an independent check be useful?
– In my opinion - as an expert in the field of national security and knowing about the low level of trust in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor's Office, it is mandatory to assign the case to external experts. Personally, I recommend that the investigation be assigned to the MOSSAD or the FBI in view of their effectiveness in revealing such cases.
– What is the question that the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Interior have not yet answered, and where do you think is the key to understanding what happened in “Petrokhan“?
– The most important question that the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Interior have not answered is whether the investigation was objective and impartial? Are there political interests and political interference in the case and are the facts and circumstances surrounding the murders being concealed because of it? Why was this press conference scheduled at the beginning of the campaign to elect a new president? From these answers we will understand whether real reforms will be forthcoming in the judicial system and in the Ministry of Interior, or whether we will simply replace the places of some “our people” with other “our people“.