The Todor Lapkov Case: Murder, Self-Defense or Something Else?

The case involving 21-year-old Mitko Dimitrov and former police officer Todor Lapkov has shaken Saedinenie and the entire country, sparking a fierce public debate. One side sees a serious intentional murder. The other speaks of self-defense following an alleged attack. Between these two versions stand the investigation, the court and the question of where a person's right to defend their home ends.

On August 12, 2026, 21-year-old Mitko Dimitrov from Nayden Gerovo went missing. Several days later, the investigation led to a property in the Tochilartsi neighborhood of Saedinenie. The young man’s remains were found there. Sixty-three-year-old Todor Lapkov was charged with the murder. He is a former Interior Ministry employee who took up animal husbandry after retiring.

The case quickly moved beyond the framework of an ordinary criminal offense. The reason is simple. Two powerful public issues collide in it: the right to self-defense and the limits of the law.

What happened on August 12?

According to the prosecution, a conflict arose between Lapkov and Dimitrov at the former police officer’s property. The two had known each other for years. According to the investigation, they had a friendly relationship, and the young man sometimes helped on the farm.

Nevertheless, an argument broke out between them. According to the charges, Lapkov fired two shots from an illegally possessed hunting rifle. Dimitrov was fatally shot in the chest. The body was then dismembered, and the remains were placed in bags and hidden in a shaft.

This part of the case is among the most serious circumstances presented by the prosecution to the court.

How was Mitko Dimitrov found?

The young man was declared wanted nationwide on August 13 at his father’s request. Police began checking various theories about his disappearance.

On August 18, investigators reached Lapkov’s property. Dimitrov’s remains were found there. The accused then confessed and identified the place where the remains had been hidden. According to the prosecution, Lapkov had previously given no indication that he was connected to the disappearance.

What does the prosecution claim?

The prosecution’s main theory is intentional murder. At this stage, the prosecution does not accept the claim that Lapkov’s actions constituted lawful self-defense. It is important to stress that the motive has not yet been conclusively established.

Prosecutor Vanya Hristеva said that, at present, none of the theories under discussion can be confirmed, including Mitko’s father’s claim concerning money. This is an important detail.

Many of the claims circulating in the public domain are accounts offered by witnesses, local residents or the defense. They should not be regarded as established facts.

What does Lapkov’s defense claim?

Here, the story appears different.

Lapkov’s lawyers insist that he acted in self-defense. According to the defense, Mitko was at the farm at night intending to commit an unlawful act. A version was presented to the court that the young man took an axe and attacked Lapkov. The former police officer then took his rifle.

The defense claims that he first loaded it and warned that he would shoot, but the attacker did not stop. Two shots followed. However, this is the defense’s version, not a fact established by the court. Proving this sequence of events will be crucial to the case.

What does “self-defense” mean?

Bulgaria’s Criminal Code permits self-defense in the event of an immediate unlawful attack. The defense must remain within necessary limits. The law defines exceeding those limits as a situation in which the defense is manifestly disproportionate to the nature and danger of the attack.

This means the court will have to answer several very important questions.

• Was there a real attack?
• When did it begin?
• What weapon or means did the attacker use?
• Did he pose an immediate danger to Lapkov’s life?
• Was there a danger at the moment the shots were fired?
• And most importantly: were the two shots necessary defense or an excessive response?

The answers will not be determined by public opinion. They must be established through evidence.

And what happened after the shooting?

This is one of the most serious questions in the case. According to the prosecution, Mitko’s body was dismembered and hidden after his death. The defense explains the actions as stemming from fear of the young man’s relatives’ reaction and concerns about retaliation.

However, this does not automatically resolve the question of the shooting itself. The court must separately examine the circumstances surrounding the death and the actions that followed.

Why do some people in Saedinenie and across the country support Lapkov?

This is where the case becomes particularly interesting. Public reactions in Saedinenie are not unanimous. Some local residents openly defend the former police officer. Local media have quoted people who describe Mitko as someone who committed numerous thefts, assaulted elderly people and subjected them to systematic harassment. There are also accounts of cases in which elderly people became victims of attacks, abuse or robberies.

The mayor of Nayden Gerovo has also given a positive assessment of Lapkov as a member of the local community. He said Lapkov had helped people and was not known as an aggressive person. Thus, in the eyes of some local residents, a divide has emerged.

On one side is a man they know as a former police officer and animal breeder. On the other is a young man whom local people claim had a criminal past.

But does that justify murder?

No!

And this is one of the most important boundaries in the case. Even if Mitko committed thefts, even if he attacked people and even if he unlawfully entered someone else’s property, that does not automatically mean that every method of defense is lawful.

The law does not permit a private individual to punish someone. It permits protection against an immediate attack under certain conditions. This distinction will be decisive for the court.

And are there arguments supporting the self-defense theory?

Yes! And they should not be ignored.

• The first is the claim that Dimitrov was at the farm at night.
• The second is the claim that there was a conflict between the two men.
• The third is the theory that the young man used or reached for an axe.
• The fourth is the fact that the defense claims there was an immediate danger to Lapkov.

If these circumstances are proven, they could be of enormous importance to the legal assessment of what happened.

There is another fact.

Lapkov is a former police officer. He has professional experience and probably knows the law and procedures better than an ordinary citizen. This may be considered by the court when assessing his conduct, but in itself it does not prove guilt of murder.

Weaknesses in the defense’s version

There are serious questions here as well.

First and foremost is the illegal weapon. Lapkov has also been charged with possessing a firearm and ammunition without the required permit.

Second are the actions after the shooting. If a person acts solely to defend themselves and the attack has ended, the subsequent concealment of the body cannot automatically be considered part of the self-defense.

That is precisely why the actions following the death will be an important part of the evidence. They may be relevant to the overall assessment of what happened.

Does it matter that Mitko had a criminal record?

It matters for the context. But not as an automatic justification. According to the investigation, Mitko had a criminal record and had been convicted recently. Local residents also describe numerous thefts, assaults and systematic harassment.

These circumstances may be important if the attack theory is being proven. But the victim’s past does not give the perpetrator the right to kill him. The court must establish what happened on that particular night.

There is another side as well: the victim cannot be put on trial after death

This is the uncomfortable part of the public conversation. Labels such as “thief,” “repeat offender” or “dangerous person” can easily appear online. But the criminal proceedings against Mitko are not the subject of the present case.

He is dead.

He cannot give his version.

He cannot explain why he was at the farm.

He cannot say whether he had an axe.

He cannot recount what happened between the two shots.

That is why all claims about his behavior in the final minutes must be verified by evidence.

Society has already delivered its verdict

This is one of the most dangerous tendencies surrounding the case. Both unequivocal defenders of Lapkov and people demanding severe punishment have appeared in the public sphere.

There have also been extreme reactions.

After the other serious murder in Plovdiv, for example, public calls emerged for exceptionally harsh punishments, showing how strongly society reacts to such crimes.

In the Saedinenie case, however, the reaction is more complex.

Some people see Lapkov as a man who defended his property. Others see a former police officer who illegally used a weapon and then concealed the body. Still others believe that both sides of the story should be examined before a verdict is delivered.

This last position is precisely the one closest to the principle of justice.

Lapkov’s behavior in the courtroom

At the hearing on the measure of restraint, the defendant unexpectedly said that he did not want to be released. He said he feared retaliation. According to him, there was a risk of an attack around the farm, and his relatives were taking care of the animals there. Lapkov said he preferred to remain in detention. This behavior prompted further reactions.

For some, it shows fear. For others, it is a sign that the defendant understands the seriousness of the situation. For still others, it has no bearing on whether he is guilty. Legally, the last point is the most important. Behavior in the courtroom cannot, by itself, prove either murder or self-defense.

The court remanded him in custody

The Plovdiv District Court imposed the most severe measure, “detention in custody”. The court is considering the issue of the measure of restraint, not making a final determination of guilt.

This is a significant distinction.

At this stage, the court must assess whether there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed and whether there is a risk that the defendant will abscond or commit a crime.

Lapkov remains in custody.

The charges

The main charge is under Article 115 of the Criminal Code – intentional homicide. Under the law currently in force, the punishment is 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment. In certain aggravating circumstances, the law provides for harsher sanctions, including life imprisonment.

Lapkov is also charged with the illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. The precise legal course of the case will depend on the evidence and on the final legal classification that the prosecution will maintain at trial.

The central question in the case

This will likely be one of the central questions in the case. If it is proven that Lapkov was subjected to an immediate unlawful attack and fired in order to protect his life, the legal assessment could be fundamentally different.

If it is established that the immediate danger no longer existed, the situation changes. If, on the other hand, it is proven that the defense was manifestly disproportionate to the attack, the question of exceeding the limits of justifiable self-defense may arise.

This will not be decided by television studios or beneath social media posts. It will be decided by the evidence.

The key evidence

A number of questions remain to be clarified.

The weapon

The rifle will be examined. It will be established whether it was the weapon used in the shooting. The traces from the shots and the ammunition will be examined.

The forensic medical examination

It may show the trajectory of the shots and the distance between the weapon and the victim. These data could be decisive for the self-defense theory.

Signs of a struggle

If there was a physical attack with an axe, it should have left traces. The traces on Lapkov’s body, his clothing, the weapon and the scene will be important.

Cameras and phones

If video recordings exist, they may show Mitko’s movements before his disappearance. Phone data may also help reconstruct his final hours.

Witness testimony

This will be particularly important regarding the claims that Mitko had spoken about an impending theft or a “big score.” But these accounts must be verified. The fact that someone heard certain words does not automatically mean that the subsequent actions took place exactly that way.

What do we know for certain, and what do we still not know?

As of August 29, the picture looks like this.

We know, that Mitko Dimitrov disappeared on August 12 and was reported missing on August 13.

We know, that his remains were found on August 18 in the area of Lapkov’s property.

We know, that Todor Lapkov has been charged with intentional homicide and illegal possession of a weapon.

We know, that he made confessions and indicated the location of the remains.

We know, that the court remanded him in custody.

We know, that the defense claims justifiable self-defense.

But we do not know definitively why the conflict arose.

We do not know whether the claim of an attack with an axe will be corroborated by all the evidence.

We do not know exactly what happened in the seconds before the two shots.

And most importantly, there is no final judgment.

Two extremes we must avoid

The case has already divided society.

One extreme is:

“If he is a thief, then he deserved it.”

That is not justice.

The other is:

“If he fired, then there was no self-defense whatsoever.”

That too is a prejudgment.

The right question is different.

What really happened that night?

If there was an immediate attack, the law must take it into account.

If there was no such attack, the law must also be applied.

This case is bigger than Todor Lapkov and Mitko Dimitrov

The story in Saedinenie raises several painful questions for society as a whole. What does a person do when they believe the state cannot protect them? Where is the line between defending one’s home and taking the law into one’s own hands? And can fear of crime turn an illegal weapon into a means of “personal justice”?

These are questions with no easy answers.

But one thing must remain clear.

No one should be acquitted or convicted by society before the court.

Mitko Dimitrov has the right to justice. Todor Lapkov has the right to a defense and to the presumption of innocence. And society has the right to know the truth. Not the one that sounds best, but the one that can be proven.

Случаят „Георги Кузев“…