Has she breathed or did not breathe the truth while the state burns

Two days ago, I published a few lines about the mysterious death of the mother of a European prosecutor who refused to investigate a case related to the country’s energy and national security, as well as with Peevski, who (according to her) wanted a bribe of BGN 20 million. Yesterday, the prosecutor’s opinion was issued in the media.

By some coincidence, eight years ago, I wrote a novel with a crime story related to such death, and I had to read textbooks on forensic medicine, criminology, pathology and more. I am not a detective or a court doctor, I have no expertise, just as a writer I follow an elementary deductive logic. Here’s what she is:

In cases like this, an autopsy of the corpse is made. Autopsy sought soot and acute inflammatory changes in the respiratory tract. Sometimes this is impossible because of burning. Therefore, it is most secure to seek the presence of one compound (carboxyhemoglobin) in the blood. And blood is taken from the deep blood vessels, from the femur, from the sinuses of the hard brain sheath.

1) If carboxyhemoglobin is detected at autopsy, it means that the victim was breathing during the fire. This means she was alive. Which means that death occurred during or after the fire.

However, if:

2) This compound is not found in the blood, so the victim did not breathe during the fire, which means that she was already dead or was not there during the fire. Therefore, death did not occur during the burn.

That is. The most important thing to know about the death of a 75-year-old woman is whether she was breathing or not breathing during the fire.

Everything else follows from this – if she did not breathe before the fire, why she did not breathe, how she died (heart attack, sunstroke, stroke, etc.) If she was breathing during the fire, it could mean that she was asleep while the cigarette fell, the stove gave short, etc.

And now the interesting thing: yesterday in the official position of the prosecutor’s office, distributed on all media, it is written that a content of alcohol and Metoprolol, which is prescribed for heart disease, was found in the blood of the victim. And this leads to the conclusion that the victim is a victim of an accident caused by herself. It says that « no traumatic injuries are detected and traumatic cause of death are excluded; there are no damage to the soft tissues around the thyroid and ring cartilage, ie there was no effect / pressure / in the neck area. » /?!?/ Clear, not strangled. And it must be so. It also writes that there are « testimony to confirm that the dead showed negligence when smoking at home. »

(And not a word on the important issue of carboxyhemoglobin.)

So the message at the moment is: probably the victim is a casual and drunk smoker with heart problems, and this led to her death in a home incident. So much.

Whether or not this is the case, I don’t know. It may be.

Whether the death of a 75-year-old woman is linked to her daughter, Prosecutor Georgieva, who may have hung at a criminal dealer of influence (P. Euro) to lobby for her appointment at the European Prosecutor’s Office, I do not know.

Whether Peevski has anything to do with all this, I don’t know.

And I don’t care. I’m not an investigator, I don’t get into my job.

But my truth comes into workS

And the question is:

Are there institutions, professions in this territory, are there any people who are professionally engaged in establishing and defending the truth?

To whom their truth comes into work?

Or is everything a matter of money?

Has this woman breathed or did not breathe while the house is burning, this is the question.

Because in time we will ask ourselves:

Has she breathed or did not breathe the truth while the state burns.

Has the truth alive, or no longer?

***

PS Additional and re -expertise has been appointed. What will she show?