The father of 23-year-old Sydneysider Jock Palfreeman, who was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment by a Bulgarian court, has harshly criticized the verdict and the investigation that preceded it.
“The sentence was delivered following an investigation, marred by a number of procedural violations,” Simon Palfreeman told journalists after the hearing.
The Sydney pathologist flew to Sofia to support his son and made a direct appeal to the court....
University law student Andrei Monov, 20, the son of a prominent police psychologist, suffered a stab wound and died.
-Read son of a very rich and senior ex- BKP member and someone who knows everyone down the MVR ....and a spoit brat son of the nomenclatural that thought he could do what he liked cos "daddy" had connections
"Read son of a very rich and senior ex- BKP member and someone who knows everyone down the MVR ....and a spoit brat son of the nomenclatural that thought he could do what he liked cos "daddy" had connections"
So in your eye it's ok to go out and kill the children of ex-BKP members. Interesting.
No, just seen personally how disgusting the children of the MVR nomenkaltura are...drug dealing, fights, getting straight sixes at school yet being illiterate and obtain a driving license at week after their 18th birthday...some are real scum
Clearly this trial was rigged. I can't defend the Australian boy since he killed the Bulgarian guy. Let's hope that Australia will want to extradite him and let's hope he gets pardoned. He looks like a nice kid. As for the communist kopele who got killed--good riddance to bad garbage. I hope his communist father is very depressed.
"Clearly this trial was rigged. I can't defend the Australian boy since he killed the Bulgarian guy."
The trial was rigged to such an extent that what I fail to gather is "Did he actually kill the bulgarian guy?" Is there proof that it was his knife that was used. This is not mentioned anywhere. Presumably he did kill him, even if accidentally. But the next question is why is no one else in court for knocking the Australian guy out and almost beating to death a gypsy? Seems like it's OK to do that.
And why are witness statements not admitted in court? What kind of quackery of a system is this? The EU needs to kick BG out of its precious club. This is not the law of a modern civilized society.
They need to take this to the European Court of Human Rights - although it probably doesn't have jurisdiction in this case, sadly.
"The trial was rigged to such an extent that what I fail to gather is "Did he actually kill the bulgarian guy?" Is there proof that it was his knife that was used. This is not mentioned anywhere. Presumably he did kill him, even if accidentally."
He killed him, that's out of the question and undenied. The only question is if it was self-defence or not.
"But the next question is why is no one else in court for knocking the Australian guy out and almost beating to death a gypsy? Seems like it's OK to do that."
We don't know what happened, since none of us was there. But when there was someone he protected, where is this person? Or is it not more probable that he invented this person in order to look like a hero instead of a criminal? I don't know the answer, just asking.
"And why are witness statements not admitted in court? What kind of quackery of a system is this? "
Which witness statements were not admitted? The one's in favour for P.? The problem for him is that there are none to his favour, and not that they were not admitted.
"The EU needs to kick BG out of its precious club. This is not the law of a modern civilized society."
The juridical system of Bulgaria is far from being perfect. But as far I can't see that you have any justification based on factual processual errors in this case for your strong statement.
"They need to take this to the European Court of Human Rights - although it probably doesn't have jurisdiction in this case, sadly."
You are wrong because the European Convention of Human Rights protects any person against any breach of the convention by any signatory state (all European countries except Belarus). It is not necessary to be a national of a signatory state to be protected.
Furthermore it should be noted that P. has first to appeal within the next 15 days to next higher court against the verdict. Only when all legal means in Bulgaria are exhausted, he could appeal to the Constitutional Court in Bulgaria who would then bring the case to the European Court of Human Rights when there is evidence that there were serious procedural errors and that he didn't have a fair trial.
In general I would think it more appropriate to let the courts do their job. Only in cases where it is obvious that the defendants rights were violated such a strong media campaign seems to be justified. So far I can't see that P.'s rights as defendant were violated and that he didn't have a fair trial.
Two observations, if I may:
1. Whether the knife was his or not is irrelevant. Many people have been shot with smeone else's gun.
2. This case looks like another Shields debate coming up. A British subject killing someone and protesting innocence in spite of evidence to the contrary in a Bulgarian court. If the conviction stands on appeal, I wonder how much chance Australia will have of getting him home to "serve out his sentence"?
The gypsy witness whom P. was trying to defend was the one of the witnesses not allowed to testify. P. was railroaded because his father is bribing and threatening the judge and the jury. This case needs to go to an impartial court that is fair and balanced. P. can't get a fair trial in Bulgaria. The case should go to a higher court, and then even a higher international one.
Anyway, if he got 20, he will be out in 10. And who is to say that this incident didn't save his life? He might have been deployed to Afghanistan and got killed. At least he will be safe in a BG jail. I don't think the gypsy boys are going to mess with him, this one is a tough customer.
Come on, does any one in BG get a fair trial - especially when the son of the a senior ex-BKP is the victim?
It's not for nothing that BG is being slammed left, right and center for it's judicial system.
"We don't know what happened, since none of us was there. But when there was someone he protected, where is this person? Or is it not more probable that he invented this person in order to look like a hero instead of a criminal? I don't know the answer, just asking."
This is simply not true. We don't in court what happened because they won't allow witnesses to testify. It mat be that the reasoning for not letting them testify is legal in the eyes of the BG law, but it is still a joke. And of course if we don't know what happened - how can there be a conviction???
"Which witness statements were not admitted? The one's in favour for P.? The problem for him is that there are none to his favour, and not that they were not admitted."
This is also wrong.
Read this on novinite:
"But in their original witness statements, the arresting police said when they first got to the scene their colleagues told them that the gang had been attacking gypsies and a foreigner had intervened."
"Jock’s defence included CCTV footage showing the Romas being chased and beaten by a large group of men, and ``independent witnesses’’ including a security guard who saw the fight, according to Spencer. "
I am not saying he is innocent or guilty. Look like he did kill the hooligan (who by the way was beating up him as well as someone else). Question is was it in self defense, by accident or how? I don't believe he has had a fair trial in the eyes of an orderly society. That's all. In the eyes of BG law it may all have been legal, but then we all know what to think of BG law.
It is very clear what happened. P is a good Samaritan who came to the aid of a minority. He was attacked and acted in self-defense. He is a hero, not a killer. he should get a Stara Planina and a pat on the back, not 20 years.
This is a very fine example of the saying: " No good deed goes unpunished."
The Bulgarian "victims" lied through their teeth. The one who survived his wounds is already counting the money he is going to get out of this incident. Greedy, deceitful imbeciles.
The trial was rigged from the get-go. On technicalities alone this case should be thrown out of court. Key evidence was not considered, key witnesses were not interrogated. In addition, the judges are corrupt and they should be serving time for corruption and nepotism.
P. should sue the Bulgarian judiciary for corruption and for illegally jailing him for two years. He is the victim in this case, not the perpetrator.
For a foreigner used to a more sensible judicial system (not one created out of some communist version of justice) the problem with these cases (and others but these come to light because they involve foreigners) is the absurdity of the law. It's designed in such a way that, if needed, it can be bent to serve whoever has most influence. And so the problem is not really whether the guys did it or not. It is whether they were given a fair trial. Otherwise why bothering with a judiciary at all. let's just save a bunch a money and get rid of all the lawyers if they anyway do bend the law to their own desires.
For what it's worth I think Michael Shields was guilty (although hard to prove 100%) and why on earth he got pardoned is beyond me (probably to win a few votes in Liverpool).
P. has obviously killed someone, but did so whilst defending a gypsy being beaten up and subsequently whilst defending himself. I don't believe he just pulled a knife and stabbed someone out of boredom - which is essentially what the prosecutor is trying to claim in seeking a full life sentence. Further the question has to be asked: why are none of the gang being prosecuted for beating up a gypsy (which had been caught on CCTV and witnessed by others).
Yeah that story is completely objective. Except not.
One, they start calling the group a "gang" from the get go. There is no evidence that this was more than a group of friends, however good or bad they were.
Two, the constant use of the derogatory "gypsy" by the journalist and Palfreeman.
Three, Palfreeman keeps changing the reasoning as to why he went near the group. First, he claimed he knew they were attacking a Roma guy and he, being the great Samaritan who doesn't approve of racism against "gypsies", now he didn't know it was a Roma person but found out later (probably after the question of how he could tell an ethnic Bulgarian from a Roma was raised).
Four, the alcohol level is thrown there as a big thing but the fact is if the victim was so drunk that can mean that he was either more dangerous or less dangerous than a sober person.
Five, a big knife is not the same as pepper spray and is nowhere near a reasonable alternative. Also, his own friend denies that the knife was his (the friend's).
Six, both sets of parents are OBVIOUSLY going to defend their kids. So the reaction of Palfreeman-father in making his son out to be an angel and that of Monov-father in calling his friends are understandable. This act of a person with connections calling up people to try to get help happens everywhere. It happens in Australia, in the US, in the rest of Europe Europe and in Bulgaria.
I can go on and on but that doesn't change the fact that yes, Bulgarian justice is a joke; yes, he killed a person with a big fck-off knife that he was carrying around; and no, no one here and no one who was not at the scene (including Aussie mommy and daddy) knows exactly what happened.
50% more Chinese Tourists in Bulgaria
Potentially Defective Aluminum was used by All Car Manufacturers in Japan