Leaked voice note: did Kristina Spalevic hide the dog's death?
The Pink.rs portal has published a voice note it presents as proof that Kristina Spalevic first told a different story about the dog's death, while she casts herself as the person who exposed the affair.
- The Pink.rs portal published a voice note it presents as proof that Kristina Spalevic first told a different story about the dog's death.
- In the note she allegedly says they gave the dog a painkiller and that by evening it was as good as new, then describes it as nearly dead.
- Kristina casts herself as the person who exposed the affair and who first published the footage of the injured dog.
- Pink frames the removal from Red Television as a matter of principle and positions her as an accomplice.
The Pink.rs portal published on July 27 a voice note it presents as proof that Kristina Spalevic first told a different story about the dog’s death than the one the public knows today. In the recording attributed to her, she allegedly says they gave the dog a painkiller and that by evening it was as good as new, only to describe it as nearly dead later in the same message. The portal reads that contradiction as a sign that the real cause of death was first left unsaid.
It is only the latest twist in an affair that has gripped the region for days. It all began when footage surfaced in which Kristijan Golubovic allegedly kills the family dog, after which Zeljko Mitrovic permanently removed both of them from their positions at Red Television. Now, instead of one story, two collide over the very same event.
Two versions of the same story
Kristina paints herself in an entirely different light. By her account, she is the one who exposed the affair, not the one who hid it. She points out that she was the first to publish the footage of the injured pet and that she reported the abuse, insisting it was her decision to come forward with the material that set the whole case in motion. From that angle, the voice note Pink cites is not proof of concealment but a fragment of correspondence torn from context.
On the other side stands the portal’s narrative, which reads the same note as an admission that she first offered a softened version. So the same Kristina appears in one story as the person who revealed the abuse, and in the other as someone who first hid the cause of death. For now the two images cannot be reconciled, because they rest on different readings of the same recording, whose full authenticity and context no independent authority has confirmed.
Why does Pink place Kristina alongside Kristijan?
What makes this episode delicate is that the media house publishing the note is not a neutral observer. Pink frames the removal from Red Television as a matter of principle, as proof that the owner will not tolerate what the footage shows. In that story Kristina is not a victim who spoke up but an accomplice who was part of the scene, so her removal is justified by the same moral yardstick as Golubovic’s.
Golubovic, for his part, rejects the accusations and announces evidence of his own, claiming the dog died under circumstances different from those being shown. So around a single dead pet, three people are now bound together with three different versions, each convinced their own recording will clear them. Guilt has not been established for anyone by a final ruling, and the case remains in the hands of the authorities.
Through it all, it is hard to shake the impression that the truth is being pushed into the background while each side picks the part of the correspondence that suits it. Do you believe the version in which Kristina exposed the abuse, or the one in which she first hid it?
