Jock Palfreeman

Jock Palfreeman (born 13 November 1986 ) is an Australian who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years in a Bulgarian prison.

Palfreeman was serving in the British Army at the time of the incident.

In 2004, he was named by victims James Atack and Matthew Faunt as the offender in a stabbing attack at a party in Chatswood (a suburb of Sydney).

Police investigated but no charges were laid due to a lack of evidence.

This stabbing incident was raised during Palfreeman's trial.

Monov had a blood alcohol reading of 0.29%.

Zahariev's reading was 0.18%, and Palfreeman's was 0.015% in his blood and 0.026% in his urine.

Among the mourners at Andrei Monov's funeral were head of the Supreme Court of Cassation, Lazar Gruev and members of the ruling Socialist Party, including soon to be Interior Minister Mihail Mikov, and former legal advisor to the President Chavdar Georgiev.

The criminal trial was held concurrently with the crime's compensation case, which is the usual procedure in Bulgaria.

The civil claimants were Antoan Zahariev and Andrei Monov's parents, notary Aksenia Monova and psychologist Hristo Monov.

During the trial, some of the youths and police officers changed their versions of events, claiming there were no Roma and no altercation in the lead-up to Andrei Monov's death.

When the defence tried to show that this contradicted what the youths had told the police first at the scene and police investigators, the civil claimants and the prosecutor were able to prevent examination of those accounts.

In the early hours of 28 December 2007, 21-year-old Jock Palfreeman was involved in an incident during which Bulgarian student Andrei Monov was fatally stabbed.

According to the case file, Monov received a single stab wound to the side of his chest, while 19-year-old Antoan Zahariev received a slash wound to the side of his torso.

Palfreeman was injured after being hit in the head and arm with pieces of concrete pavement tiles.

Monov and Zahariev had been out with over a dozen other youths.

Palfreeman claimed he saw the group chase two Roma.

When he saw the group start attacking one of the Roma, he ran across a downtown square to help the victim.

When the attack then turned on him, he pulled a knife from his pocket and waved it around to scare the youths away.

However, instead of running away the youths continued to attack him as he tried to move the group away from the Roma.

Palfreeman admitted carrying a large butterfly knife when he went out drinking in Sofia.

After being arrested, Palfreeman told the police that he was living in a sack in Borisova Gardens and that he didn't know the name of the English couple he had been with that night.

In fact, he was living at their house at Madjare, 60 km from Sofia.

This allowed Lindsay Welsh, who had been present at the murder, to leave the country the next day.

She was never questioned by police nor did she appear at court.

Palfreeman did not provide the details until told by Graham Saunders that Welsh had left the country.

When Welsh made a statement about the events that night, she claimed she had seen nothing as she was helping someone recharge the credit on a mobile phone.

Graham Saunders spoke to Palfreeman before he was interviewed by the police, and claims he had left his girlfriend with Palfreeman and gone to a hotel for the night.

He therefore claimed he hadn't seen anything or had any involvement.

Palfreeman pleaded not guilty based on self defence.

Prosecutor Parvoleta Nikova argued that Palfreeman attacked the group of youths for no reason.

In an interview given to 24 Chassa before the trial began, she claimed Palfreeman was guilty as charged and should receive a life sentence.

The event in Bulgaria was not the first time Palfreeman had been accused of a stabbing.

On 3 December 2009, the Sofia City Court found Palfreeman guilty and sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment.

Palfreeman's friends and family supported his case since the initial incident and organized a rally ahead of his appeal.

The defence asked the appellate court to allow further examination of traffic recordings, which it argued supported the sequence of events put forward by Palfreeman and witnesses.

The defence also asked for a review of the forensic evidence.

Both requests were rejected.

However, the court allowed re-examination of some of the witnesses who had changed their versions of events at trial.

A change in law meant that civil claimants were no longer able to block the defence's use of original witness statements in its questioning.