The Bulgarian Justice System and the Trial of 'Australian Stabber' Palfreeman

“I have experienced the greatest possible grief – the death of my only son... The perpetrator stands to be punished... But the real culprit is named Simon Palfreeman, the perpetrator’s father, and cannot be sentenced by this court... Yet, you, sir, are to suffer the greatest shame because you will be declared the father of a murderer...”

These words were stated before the Sofia City Court on December 2, 2009, by Hristo Monov, the father of 20-year-old Andrey Monov, who died of a stabbing wound on December 27, 2007, in the very downtown of Sofia.

Hristo Monov’s statement came a couple of hours before the Sofia City Court issued a 20-year prison sentence to Australian Paul “Jock” Palfreeman for stabbing Andrey Monov on the fatal night.

Andrey Monov’s friends – a group of a dozen boys – have alleged that Palfreeman assaulted them in a fit of rage with a 30-cm knife; the Australian claims he was trying to stop a group of football hooligans from beating two Roma near the Serdica Metro Station in Sofia. Who is right? What caused the violent death of the young Andrey Monov, and should the 23-year-old Palfreeman spend much of the rest of his life in jail? Is there any right answer in this tragedy?

There must be. But it appears that the Bulgarian court – and prosecution for that matter - seem ill-equipped to find it.

To start with – something worth just mentioning – the case has already dragged on for almost two years; it has been put off a number of times. And it doesn’t really seem that the longer time period has actually added up to an efficient investigation that would eliminate the many remaining question marks.

Prosecutor Parvoleta Nikova has based the accusation on the claims that Palfreeman attacked a group of a dozen guys with a knife in a random fashion dispersing them, dealing deadly blows, and chasing some of them in order to kill them. According to the prosecutor, the sole aim of the raging Australian was to kill.

One can’t help but wonder what rational motive Palfreeman had for that... He was found totally sane by the Bulgarian psychologists (who also said he had a heightened sense of social justice), he was not under the influence of any substances. So according to the accusation, he just figured he should hunt down a couple of Bulgarians that night. I am no lawyer but that seems a little weird to me.. what motive did this 'sane' man have to start stabbing people?

Another important moment is the fact that the prosecutor’s arguments are based almost entirely on the testimonies of the group of a dozen boys who were together with Andrey Monov, i.e. his friends. These boys are known to have given inconsistent and conflicting testimonies over time as the trial dragged on.

But there is one more important thing to be pointed out. The whole group of Bulgarian youngsters was pretty wasted when the incident happened that late night at the end of December 2007.

For example, it is safe to say that the victim – Andrey Monov – most likely hardly felt that he was stabbed and dying – he is proven to have had a blood alcohol content of .29. Just for the record, the level of anaesthesia is about .35. The rest of the company was probably in a similar condition.

I saw those guys in the courtroom, Andrey Monov’s friends. Generally, nice young people. But I have also seen what young men like them are capable of when they get drunk, and especially when they are in a nice circle of other “soccer fans” singing songs, smashing trash bins and street signs, and destroying whole stadiums and everything. So the story that Palfreeman saw them beating a couple of Roma beggars is totally plausible. It is also well known how prone to violence groups of football “fans” are...

The two incidents in which the young men attacked two gypsies within about 50 meters of one another are proven by blurry CCTV footage – which according to the defense was totally mishandled and failed to be used properly by the court.

The defense had other important points to make, though, in addition to the CCTV footage use. The Bulgarian authorities have failed to find the two Roma that were allegedly beaten by the group of Monov’s friends, and to whose rescue the Australian came.

That is something that makes no sense whatsoever. There are about 30 000 Roma in Sofia, and most of them live in clans, so it really should not be that hard to get to the ones in question, had the investigators had done their job properly, using the right means.

Then, according to the defense, the prosecution totally failed to account for the testimonies of a number of witnesses – including people who were accompanying Palfreeman and security guards in the nearby buildings. Some of the guards were actually not interrogated at all, and some were questioned only several months later.

And finally, the defense says a number of the guys from Monov’s group were also carrying knives that night, and that the conclusion of the medical examination about Monov’s wound has cast a doubt on whether Palfreeman’s knife was the actual crime weapon...

I have no way of telling whether Palfreeman is guilty or not as I am no witness. It is for the prosecution to investigate and for the court to decide. Provided, of course, that they are able to do that properly.

One thing, which is somewhat on the side, does bother me, though. What if the young Monov was stabbed by some of his wasted comrades? What if Palfreeman is not guilty, and the Bulgarian court sends him to jail for the better part of his life because a group of drunk soccer hooligans were having fun beating gypsies in downtown Sofia? I don’t know whether that is the case but the prosecution has not convinced me as a citizen and journalist that they have investigated the case properly.

But if that was the case, why were those 20-year-old guys hanging out late at night attacking other Bulgarian citizens in a state of utter drunkenness some one hundred meters from the buildings of the Bulgarian Presidency and government? If that was the case, why did it take a kid that came all the way from Australia to try to interfere? If that was the case, who is the actual father of a killer?

Has the nice Bulgarian family – because they do seem like really nice people – who suffered the terrible tragedy of losing its only son – raised that son in a way that he would enjoy getting drunk beyond recognition and beating Roma people?

My aim here is not to defend anyone, or to issue any verdicts as I am not entitled to do that. I am just raising some questions.

My one and only argument is that in the particular case of the “Australian stabber”, the Bulgarian judicial system does not seem to have done its job properly and that there are so many unknowns left yet that it is just not right to place a man for 20 years in jail based on these “evidence”. The case does seem to require a lot more thorough investigation. Hopefully, the court to which the case will be taken after it is appealed will manage to uncover the truth with a greater certainty.

And this is not a case in which Bulgaria’s international image is at stake. This is a case in which one young man has died, and another young man has been sentenced to life behind bars for 20 years. It is a case of basic but badly needed justice.

We need your support so Novinite.com can keep delivering news and information about Bulgaria! Thank you!