Guest article: Lie to Me (Borislava Latinova vs Nelly Varbanova)

Initially, the case did not arouse much interest. No more than any other similar story. Interest in the case came after Lyuba Kulezich's interview with Nelly Varbanova and the widespread opinion of lawyer Milen Shopov, advisor to Minister Bakalov.

What impresses?

Lyuba Kulezich's material was more than manipulative. More than it should be – “oversalted food”. An impartial journalist, unless he aims to suggest something, should not present things in a similar way – the first part of her material is a frank “processing of the audience” (“enchantment”) for what is about to be seen in the second – the interview with police officer Varbanova. The audience is already biased and whatever they see, they will see it biased.

Then came the opinion of lawyer Shopov, disseminated by a number of electronic media under titles such as "Bakalov's advisor presents the truth about the Latinova case" (I paraphrase, summarizing the semantic implication of the titles). The opinion itself is more emotional than impartial. The analysis of the information we know is imbued with logical errors. This opinion reads as follows: "Borislava was such and such, she lied so and so, therefore we don't believe her, therefore we believe Varbanova" - that's it.

All this is happening against the backdrop of constantly emerging in the media "curious facts" from the personal life of Borislava Latinova, presenting her as a failed girl. Information also appears about the life of Nelly Varbanova. We read them too, without being surprised by their content and messages. Known from somewhere as a practice, right ...

Let's return to the comment of lawyer Shopov. Let's focus on several theses launched by him, bearing in mind that his argumentation is generally ad hominem and with logical assumptions that are not correct:

• Borislava lied about her boyfriend and probably made up the whole story (that was her motive)! No such conclusion can be drawn here. Nothing follows from the fact that she lied about her boyfriend. The thesis is launched that she lied about her boyfriend so that her father wouldn't find out and from there the whole supposedly made-up story. However, Borislava has (or had – at the moment I'm writing this, I don't have access, I don't know for what reasons) a Facebook profile, in which she named herself in a typically "teenage" way "Borislava Halacheva" (after her boyfriend's last name - Halachev), which contains photos from which one can draw a conclusion about her relationship with this man. In my opinion, Borislava presented things with her boyfriend that way because it wouldn't look good for her boyfriend to be a "heavy contingent". I even assume that this happened on the advice of her father (after all, he is more experienced and may have assumed that a boyfriend with the label "heavy contingent" is a reason for ad hominem arguments against her, as it turned out in the end). However, the father's knowledge or cooperation does not matter here. The conclusions drawn from this "lie" are incorrect.

• Borislava behaved calmly in the 4th police station, therefore nothing had happened to her before that (this is not how a “victim of violence” behaved)! Such a conclusion cannot be drawn. She is not a “victim” of rape, found in a secluded place with her abuser, but a “victim” of a “routine police check” (whatever that means and whatever it includes; below I will dwell on the moment of the check in a little more detail) and is in the police station.

• Borislava refused a lie detector test, so she is afraid of failing! There is no such logic. Not for an impartial professional seeking the truth. In the current situation, I am convinced that even lawyer Shopov would forbid his client from taking a polygraph, no matter how convinced he is that the truth is on his side. Latinova's situation with regard to the polygraph is lose-lose. If she does not take it, then she is lying. And what happens if she takes it and the polygraph shows that she is lying? There is no such thing as an unmanipulated polygraph test, and at the moment the entire state has mobilized to defend the policewoman against the "drug addict thief" (both media and public, that is, supposedly "independent" resources are being mobilized). The case is important for the reputation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the latter has already shown unequivocally that it has taken sides. "We will defend her" - says Milen Shopov in response to a statement to the same effect from Varbanova's boss.

We conclude with the peculiar analysis of the colleague's opinion and will continue with what is missing there, which is an analysis of the statements in the versions of the Ministry of Interior and Varbanova. The colleague accepted them with 100% credit of trust. We could hardly do so, because they are full of extremely many loopholes that cannot be explained:

• The Ministry of Interior claims to have camera recordings at the location where the inspection was carried out. It could have shown them and the public unrest over the case would have ended. Instead, the Ministry of Interior shows recordings from cameras in the district, where Borislava “does not behave like a victim who has suffered violence”. There is no explanation why some recordings are not an “investigative” secret, while others are (if we assume that this is the Ministry of Interior’s motive for not showing them). That is, there is an explanation. It is called “controlled leakage of information”. A manipulation technique. I admit another reason why some recordings are shown and others are not. That is what they have judged for the moment. The recording from the RUP does not have such a direct relation to the investigation, while the other one does (if there is one at all, and it is not some bluffing on the part of the Ministry of Interior). The latter in no way cancels the reasoning regarding the RUP recording. They remain valid, and the attempts to draw conclusions (in my opinion unfounded) from them are sufficient cause for doubt.

• Police officer Neli Varbanova talks about an "upside-down pocket" on Borislava's pants. She noticed this during the check. According to her and the police profession (I paraphrase her words, said in the interview with Lyuba Kulezich), this was quite suspicious and could mean that a person had just thrown something out of there ... Unspoken, but contained in what was said, is that this could mean that a person had taken something out of there to put it somewhere else (he didn't necessarily throw it away, he could decide to hide it better). "Front left pocket on the pants" (quote from the interview with Lyuba Kulezich). Instantly fired (I see this on the recording). It would have taken me at least a second or two to make sense of whether it was left or right (and to think of "front"). This means that the version was learned in advance. Such a detail, so quickly recited... Let's recall that the company is made up of "drug addicts", "criminals" (it's no secret to anyone, no matter how disgusting it sounds, where the drugs are hidden - exactly where they are allegedly mixed) and they have been stopped in an operation to search for a murderer! When asked about the pocket, Borislava replies that she has no idea why it was turned over. The police officer is clearly satisfied with this explanation. He no longer deals with the pocket, with this "suspicious circumstance". Varbanova no longer wonders whether there was anything there and where it is at the moment. Is it? At the police station, where everyone went later, the topic of the turned over pocket has already been exhausted. Does he believe the girl ("a thief and a drug addict", driving with a "heavy contingent" in an area where a murder has just been committed), or has this issue already been checked? Where and how has it been checked, if it is the latter? Lyuba Kulezich is not curious about this, or has not made an impression on her, and does not “dig” into her pocket in this direction. Instead, she asks a question (one of the questions in connection with this moment): “You did not allow yourself to touch her?” This is an answer, not a question. A pre-answered question. Kulezich does not ask, does not search, but cooperates.

I took the trouble to watch and listen carefully (several times) to the recordings of the interviews of Latinova and Varbanova. With the caveat that I am not a psychologist and an expert in the matter of body language and facial expressions, but I need to have an idea of these things. The work of a lawyer is such that we need to recognize at least basic things and signs.

From Varbanova's interview it is clear that the question "You didn't allow yourself to touch her?" is followed by a raised eyebrow. The double - "No! No!" at this moment, in my opinion, betrays anxiety and some kind of stress. The reaction is similar when asked whether it is true that expressions such as "get down", "get down". Here there is no direct answer - "no", and instead the answer is "there is no such thing", followed by "that's just... simple". The reaction of the body (of the head in particular) is an instinctive retreat. Compared to the reactions from the rest of the interview, such reactions at least arouse suspicion. A person in principle, and Varbanova herself in the interview in question, answers with a simple "no". Then she can embark on explanations. Neither the double and startled (in my opinion) "no" nor "there is no such thing" (followed by a mumble) is a normal, honest reaction.

Conclusions can also be drawn from the overall behavior, gestures, posture, reactions, intonation of the voice, etc. of the interviewees – the boy and Latinova with Milen Tsvetkov and Varbanova with Lyuba Kulezich. No gestures are noticed in Latinova that contradict what she is currently saying with Milen Tsvetkov. No such gestures are seen in the boy either. On the contrary – the body language “speaks” in complete synchrony with the verbal language. This is not the case with Varbanova. The posture in which she stands the entire time is “protective”. One can see a repeated pressing of the lips at certain sublime moments. This is a sign that something remains unsaid. The reason for this may be another – there is an investigation and probably some details should not be disclosed.

It would be interesting to see a more competent opinion (of a behavioral psychologist?) on the latest issues raised related to the nonverbal broadcast in the targeted interviews, because a polygraph and documents ("evidence") in this case cannot convince anyone of the Ministry of Interior's version.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!