[ad_1]
Lubomir shot Krassimira in front of one of the children, TrafficNews reported. After the shooting, he moved the body of the 21-year-old mother, as well as the murder weapon. Immediately afterwards, he compromised the video security system in his home.
We remind you that Krassimira was found dead in the town of Begovo on September 11. The 21-year-old mother’s husband, Lyubomir Petrov, was arrested on September 18. The initial version was that the young woman ended her life alone with a shotgun. Subsequently, however, investigators found numerous inconsistencies between Petrov’s testimony and the facts. The family had two young children. Krassimira and Lubomir have lived together for several years, but recently the relationship between the two has become strained. According to relatives of the couple a week before the tragedy, the two had separated.
Subsequently, Lubomir was charged with reckless manslaughter. But now there is new evidence that the 20-year-old killed the mother of his children in cold blood and deliberately. He was charged with new charges, namely a crime under article 116 of the Penal Code. It turns out that according to researchers, it is a case of cruelty when taking the woman’s life, as there is evidence of systematic domestic violence by the 20-year-old against his partner.
It turns out that right after the murder, Lubomir also erased his prints on the rifle. He cleaned it and moved it. However, during the investigation traces of his bullets were found in the box with the bullets, as well as those of his mother and Krassimira herself.
Video cameras were examined next to the property of the mother with two children. The images show Petrov’s actions: how he jumps the fence and enters through the back entrance. We remind you that a week before the incident, Lubomir was evicted from Krassimira’s house. The latter had closed the door and the key was in the lock.
Shortly after the first intrusion, Lubomir left the house and began to walk around it, at the same time calling 112. This circumstance entered the defensive position of Petrov’s lawyers during the hearing in the Court of Appeal, where he considered preventive measure.
According to Lubomir’s defense, he did not have time to kill Krassimira. And before the appeals court, the lawyers continued their theories that it was a case of suicide, and not of premeditated murder for special cruelty.
“So far, efforts have been made in the case only to collect evidence in the sense of an accusatory thesis, and the circumstance of collecting evidence against it has been neglected, justifying the thesis. The version of the financial motive disputed by the district court is insolvent. The prospect of being left without a home, money, children and a relationship, in our opinion, is no reason for him to have a motive to commit this murder, for which he has been charged. For these data, the court only extracts evidence and grounds from the interrogations carried out on the victim’s family. Cousins and aunts were questioned, without cross-examining the witnesses we requested, who would give a more adequate and realistic image of the relationship between them.
As to whether the victim shot himself in the chest, we do not agree with the court’s conclusion that this version is objectively impossible and unproven in life, as the relevant trial court panel says. In this sense, our motives focus on the only expert reports prepared in the case. First of all, this is the conclusion of a corpse’s expertise. From its conclusion, it was established that bruises were found on the lower limbs on Krassimira’s body, abrasion of the second toe of the right foot. From this expertise, it clearly establishes that these signs that have been identified are characteristic of self-harm. From the complex experience of the conclusion of this experience, it is clear that the anatomical condition of the victim at the time of the shot in the body is upright. And at the time of the shot, the rifle was in an almost vertical position. From this we conclude that there are grounds to affirm that the self-injury was committed by the victim himself, ”said the defenders in the room.
They also presented DNA evidence, according to which only material from Krassimira was in the bullets and the rifle.
However, according to the prosecution, the lack of traces is due to the fact that, after the murder, Lubomir cleaned his traces of the weapon.
He himself admits that after his death he tried to erase the evidence, erasing the traces of the air rifle and taking it to another place, there was also a recording device. There is conflicting evidence, which is refuted by complex experience, inspection of the scene, and findings. The suicide version is refuted both by his testimony and by his own behavior. Witnesses testify to the lack of motive for the suicide, and vice versa, motive related to jealousy, as well as economic, given the relationship that existed between them and its termination at the initiative of the victim. Without a doubt, Petrov’s life would have changed negatively as a result of his separation at the initiative of the victim ”, are the arguments of the Prosecutor’s Office.
Furthermore, it was clear in the courtroom that many of Krassimira’s relatives were afraid of Lubomir and his family.
Petrov’s aggression was fierce after his wife kicked him out three days before she shot him.
Lubomir was also subjected to a lie detector test. The polygraph showed that the man was lying about his complicity in Krassimira’s murder.
Plovdiv Bulgaria
[ad_2]
