Senjak case: more suspects gave statements, not just Milic
Serbian media dispute the prosecution's earlier claim that only Veselin Milic gave a defence statement in the Senjak murder investigation.
- The Higher Public Prosecutor's Office said on May 16, 2026 that of those arrested only Veselin Milic gave a defence statement, while the others remained silent.
- The weekly Radar and the daily Danas report that six or seven suspects gave statements, not just Milic.
- Radar published the statements of Milic and five other defendants charged over the Senjak murder.
- The prosecution did not respond to media inquiries.
The Higher Public Prosecutor’s claim that only Veselin Milic gave a defence statement in the Senjak murder investigation has been called into question. The weekly Radar and the daily Danas report that, contrary to the prosecution’s statement of May 16, 2026, six or seven suspects gave statements, not a single defendant.
On that date the prosecution said that of everyone arrested, only Milic spoke to the investigating authorities, while the rest exercised their right to silence. That was the official picture of the inquiry as presented by the prosecution. According to the two outlets, that picture does not match what is in the case file.
What is known about the statements
Radar published the statements of Milic and five other defendants charged over the Senjak murder, which amounts to six defence statements given before the investigating authorities. If that figure holds, the prosecution’s earlier claim of a single statement turns out to be either wrong or, at the very least, incomplete.
In his statement Milic said he had left the restaurant and gone home shortly before the murder, and that he had been on good terms with Nesovic. That is the only detail of any statement to have reached the public so far, while the other accounts have not been published in full.
Why does the number of statements matter?
The number of defendants who gave statements is not a technicality. It speaks to how the investigation is being run and how its findings are conveyed to the public. The difference between one statement and six or seven changes the impression of how far those arrested cooperated with the authorities and what the file actually contains.
The prosecution did not respond to media questions about the discrepancy. With no official denial or confirmation, it remains an open question whether the original statement was inaccurate or referred to a narrower group of those arrested than could be understood.
Does the public have a right to know the exact number of defence statements in an investigation that has drawn this much attention?
