Terzic: state leadership knew of Senjak murder
Lawyer Vladimir Terzic told N1 Direktno that the very top of the state knew about the Senjak murder from day one and that the investigation was deliberately delayed.
- Lawyer Vladimir Terzic told the N1 Direktno programme that the very top of the state knew about the Senjak murder from day one.
- In his assessment, the two to three day delay in uncovering the crime handed an advantage to the defence.
- Terzic believes the aim of the delayed inquiry was to protect Veselin Milic.
- He also commented on differences between the prosecution's statement and reporting by the weekly Radar.
Lawyer Vladimir Terzic said on the N1 Direktno programme that the very top of the Serbian state knew about the Senjak murder from day one. In his view, the two to three day delay in uncovering the crime was no accident, but worked directly in favour of the defence.
Terzic made the claim plainly, without qualification. “I am completely convinced that the very top of this state knew about this criminal act from day one,” he said on air. With that, he shifted the suspicion of a cover-up from the level of an individual police error to the level of political responsibility.
What does the defence say about the delay?
The central point of Terzic’s argument is the time gap. The two to three days that, by his account, passed before the crime was uncovered is enough to lose valuable material and to reshape the picture of events. The lawyer described that window as an advantage gained by the defence, not as a technical oversight.
In his assessment, the aim of that delay was to protect Veselin Milic. Terzic stressed that it is impossible for so senior a police official as Milic not to inform someone above him. It is precisely on that premise, that the information could not have stayed trapped at one level, that the whole thesis about the state leadership’s knowledge is built.
What comes next in the Senjak case?
Terzic also commented on the differences between what the prosecution announced and what the weekly Radar reported. That discrepancy, as presented, further feeds the suspicion that the public was not offered a complete picture. For now these are the claims of one lawyer on a television programme, not a court finding, and that line should be kept clear.
The question that remains open concerns responsibility above the operational level. If Terzic’s assessment of how information travelled proves accurate, the focus of the case shifts from the perpetrators to those who, by that logic, must have known.
Do you believe the Senjak investigation will reach beyond the immediate perpetrators?
