Niki Zlatkov's mother - Ralitsa Asenova, provided the media with the forensic examination of the three found dead in the camper under Okolchitsa Peak, according to which they were alive for days after the tragedy in the "Petrohan" hut.
They died on February 5-6.
We are publishing a statement to the media by Ralitsa Asenova without editorial intervention.
PRESS RELEASE
On behalf of Ralitsa Asenova – mother of Nikolay Zlatkov
After the press conference held this week by the prosecutor's office, which did not provide answers to the most important questions in the case of the death of the six men near Petrohan and Vratsa Balkan, I am obliged to publicly state the following.
All relatives of the deceased - including the relatives of Makulev and Kalushev - submitted requests for the provision of documents from the investigation.
The materials provided to me are in an extremely limited volume: A report for the inspection of the crime scene from 8.2.26 and a photo album with black and white photos, a photo album from an inspection carried out on 9.2.26, but not the report itself, an undated medical certificate prepared by a forensic doctor in Vratsa.
The materials provided are of extremely poor quality - black and white copies of photographs printed on a regular printer, which practically do not allow for adequate analysis of the information contained in them.
From the documents provided, it is clear that there is a serious discrepancy in the dates, which casts doubt on the accuracy of the documentation and the conclusions made by the expert who prepared the CME of the corpse of Nikolay Zlatkov /and probably also of the other two corpses from Okolchitsa/. Thus, the expert concludes that death occurred 2-3 days and nights before the autopsy was performed, and in making this conclusion, the expert explicitly took into account the low temperature of the atmosphere. The only thing that cannot be clarified is when the autopsy was performed, given that the protocol does not contain such a note, but on the other hand, it is noted that according to the investigating police officer who ordered the examination, the body examined by the expert was found on 9.2.2026. The forensic doctor himself participated in the initial examination, which, however, was on 8, not 9 February.
This information was not reported at the press conference, although it is of key importance for the timeline of events.
Such a contradiction - discovery of the bodies after the examination - is obviously impossible and poses a significant problem for the entire chronology of the investigation and, above all, - to determine the time of death, expanding it by a whole day.
I, as a victim, despite the request made to the competent authorities, have not been provided with key materials:
ballistic expertise,
trasological expertise,
clear conclusions regarding the weapon used.
The forensic medical expertise of Nikolay Zlatkov states that two different metal projectiles were found in the skull. It does not indicate fragments of the same ammunition, but two projectiles. The expertise does not contain any data on whether and how these “finds” were seized, and we have not been provided with a copy of the examination of the body, prepared according to the relevant procedural order, which is the only one by which this evidence could have been seized, respectively – examined and subsequently - used. For this reason, answers are still needed as to whether projectiles from two different weapons were found in Zlatkov's body or whether they were different parts of the same ammunition and, if the latter - for what reasons the expert allowed himself to record that there were two projectiles. If these "finds" were not seized according to the relevant procedural order, the relevant conclusions should be drawn.
The same expert report describes abrasions on the lower legs, which are determined to be postmortem, that is, occurred after death.
This means that after death there was a physical impact on the body - moving, dragging or other manipulation. Who, when and for what reasons caused them - We are looking for answers, as this fact raises serious questions such as whether the scene of the accident was found in its original form.
The forensic medical examination shows that Nikolay Zlatkov's death occurred approximately 2-3 days before the discovery of the body, which means around February 5 or 6.
The press conference of the prosecutor's office left a number of important questions unanswered:
why was it not reported when the death occurred;
why was it not reported that there were two metal projectiles in Nikolay's head;
why was it not reported about the postmortem abrasions on his lower legs;
How can the presence of blood outside the camper, as well as the shooting of the camper's tray, be explained, given that at the press conference the representative of the General Directorate of the National Police described a mechanism for the shooting of Kalushev, which casts doubt on the possibility of the bullet exiting through the ceiling of the camper.
Why did the prosecutor's office not officially announce that there were no traces of semen in Zlatkov's body and not refute its own earlier statements?
Why are the victims' relatives not given full access to the materials so that they can exercise their right to request the collection of evidence, while at the same time information is provided to other persons and institutions for unclear reasons?
The pre-trial investigation authorities treat the victims as if they were defendants, hiding information from them and creating serious or insurmountable obstacles for them to exercise it.
Why has the investigation not been assigned to the National Investigation Service so far, as the investigations were assigned to the cases with the ATV – the Sunny Beach case, the “ Semerdzhiev “ case, the “ Siyana “ case and many other cases with one scene and one act of crime.
Why were the two pre-trial proceedings merged only a month and a half, and that – after my appeal to the Appellate Prosecutor's Office? The statement of the so-called “ briefing “ on this issue sounded layman's. Just for information – from the first day it is known that the two cases are inextricably linked and from the first day it is known that a large part of the actions in one case will be repeated in the other. A month and a half later for the prosecutor's office to assess this fact that was obvious from the first day is frivolous and insults the intellect of the ordinary person. A month and a half after the case was filed, it sounds ridiculous to consider that they should be merged for convenience - just for the record - 99% of the interrogations of all identified witnesses have already been conducted - in both cases separately, and the same applies to the appointment of expert opinions. That is, - the motives presented by the prosecutor's office at the moment are frivolous. This fact is extremely important because it provides another explanation for the stated inaction, which is in line with everything presented so far.
Just for completeness - exactly a month after the first requests and a day after the deadline for responding to a complaint filed with the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor's Office expired, I still do not have an answer to all the questions and to all the requests. What greater proof of institutional inaction?
The forensic medical examination was prepared by only one doctor, given that this is an unprecedented case with six victims.
Ralitsa Asenova,
mother of Nikolay Zlatkov