Overview
This dossier contains confidential records for Luka Petrovic.
Material is provisional, cross-referenced from recovered files, protected records, and field notes.
COT / MI5 Case File
Restricted
Eyes Only
Maritime Evidence Dossier
Luka Petrovic
Subject: Luka Petrovic
TECHNICAL AND PROTECTED-PERSON INTERVIEW
SUBJECT: Luka Petrovic
CLASSIFICATION: SECRET // INTERNATIONAL LIAISON
REFERENCE: CONTROLLED COPY // COT/EUROPOL/2035/CTC090
Document control
CASE REFERENCE: COT/EUROPOL/2035/CTC090
SUBJECT: Luka Petrovic
CENTRAL RECORD: COT0BFF7A873EF59
RANK / APPOINTMENT: Named fatality of The Black Dawn Protocol
ORGANISATION: Dawn List / protected-person network
DATE OF BIRTH: 2000-03-25
PLACE / NATIONALITY: Unknown, Unknown, Not established
INTERVIEW STATUS: Witness / account holder
LOCATION: Secure interview suite — location withheld
DATE: 25 October 2035
LEAD AUTHORITY: Europol Joint Investigation Team / Subsea Infrastructure Cell
RECORDING MEDIA: Two sealed digital masters and one independent evidential hash
DISTRIBUTION: Named recipients only. No automated onward distribution.
NOTE: Handling notice. This document contains operational, personal and evidential material. It may be read only by a person with both the required clearance and a recorded need to know. Extraction of images, transcript segments or metadata creates a new controlled copy.
Identity and visual evidence control
VISUAL ASSET STATUS: Passport image: attached; dossier image frames available: 2; surveillance frames available: 0; identity match: matched by subject/asset map.
Reason for interview or reconstruction
This record concerns attempts to move the subject through hospital-transfer language; the targeting of his subsea engineering knowledge; and infrastructure records capable of identifying legacy maintenance routes beneath the North Sea. The scope of this record is confined to the matters set out above and to evidence formally introduced during the session.
Preliminary investigator note
The subject arrived before the scheduled time, requested confirmation that the recording route was isolated, and inspected the exhibit seals before answering substantive questions.
Recorded interview transcript
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: State your full name for the record.
LUKA PETROVIC: Luka Petrovic
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you understand the status of this interview and the limits placed on distribution?
LUKA PETROVIC: Yes. I also understand that a classification marking is a handling instruction, not proof of integrity.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Have you been offered the representation, legal advice or staff support applicable to this procedure?
LUKA PETROVIC: Yes. The offer should not be mistaken for my acceptance of your account.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Before we turn to the documentary record, explain your involvement in the hospital-transfer wording.
LUKA PETROVIC: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. the person who held the contemporaneous log can confirm the sequence, but not necessarily the interpretation.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Before we turn to the documentary record, explain your involvement in the subsea maintenance records sought.
LUKA PETROVIC: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. The missing interval matters more than the wording placed around it afterwards.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Before we turn to the documentary record, explain your involvement in the subject's knowledge of dormant cable routes.
LUKA PETROVIC: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Before we turn to the documentary record, explain your involvement in the identity of persons aware of that knowledge.
LUKA PETROVIC: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. If the original is no longer available, that absence should remain part of your finding.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-01 Retained extract: Former Hexline interpreter. Associated persons: Tanner — Argus engineer, Singh — Argus second engineer, Patel — Argus junior engineer Relevant systems or locations: Hexline, Sanctuary
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUKA PETROVIC: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: What did you understand at that moment, before later analysis supplied a larger explanation?
LUKA PETROVIC: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. I will not improve my memory to make the chronology easier.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-02 Retained extract: The transport officer stopped beside the outer door. “My medical history is not part of Mr Petrovic’s movement authority.” “No. Associated persons: Jack — Argus duty officer
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUKA PETROVIC: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. I will not improve my memory to make the chronology easier.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Who else was physically present and capable of confirming your account without relying on the same electronic record?
LUKA PETROVIC: The values agree with one another. Agreement is not proof that they describe the real world. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Are you saying the official record is wrong?
LUKA PETROVIC: I am saying two honest records can disagree when they were generated from the same compromised source.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-03 Retained extract: It showed only a service route leaving the central array, crossing the subsea bay and ending at a maintenance connector family matching the one in Luka Petrovic’s drawing.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUKA PETROVIC: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Why was the matter not escalated through the ordinary reporting route?
LUKA PETROVIC: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. Check the physical record against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-04 Retained extract: The expiry date had another year to run. “Mr Petrovic, we need to move you because this site has been identified inside an active disclosure threat.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUKA PETROVIC: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. My answer is limited to what I personally saw, heard or ordered.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: What part of the retained record is incomplete or misleading?
LUKA PETROVIC: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. Check the physical record against the unprocessed record before you accept the later label.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Are you saying the official record is wrong?
LUKA PETROVIC: I am saying two honest records can disagree when they were generated from the same compromised source.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-05 Retained extract: She did not need the clerk to explain why they were there. Associated persons: Samira Qadri
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUKA PETROVIC: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. I will not improve my memory to make the chronology easier.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Which physical record should be examined before this account is treated as settled?
LUKA PETROVIC: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. The missing interval matters more than the wording placed around it afterwards.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-06 Retained extract: Each carried a maintenance condition drawn from the original Northlight conversion work and Luka Petrovic’s recovered notes. Associated persons: Raul Manuel Diaz, Tanner — Argus engineer, Singh — Argus second engineer, Patel — Argus junior engineer Relevant systems or locations: Northlight
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUKA PETROVIC: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. The missing interval matters more than the wording placed around it afterwards.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Did anyone instruct you to describe the incident differently afterwards?
LUKA PETROVIC: The values agree with one another. Agreement is not proof that they describe the real world. Raul Manuel Diaz can confirm the sequence, but not necessarily the interpretation.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Are you saying the official record is wrong?
LUKA PETROVIC: I am saying it may be accurate about the event and wrong about the cause.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-07 Retained extract: Beside the reader, the local controller displayed three frame numbers, one depth correction and a warning from the maintenance route Luka Petrovic had once serviced. Associated persons: Amir Rahmani Relevant systems or locations: maintenance route
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUKA PETROVIC: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. If the original is no longer available, that absence should remain part of your finding.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: What did you understand at that moment, before later analysis supplied a larger explanation?
LUKA PETROVIC: That is what the system reported. It is not necessarily what the equipment physically did. I will not improve my memory to make the chronology easier.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT D-08 Retained extract: Luka Petrovic.” Eve knew enough not to offer grief she had not earned. Associated persons: Owen Bell, Samira Qadri
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you accept that this extract accurately records an event in which you were involved?
LUKA PETROVIC: I preserved the raw state before testing the explanation. Anything else would have changed the evidence. If the original is no longer available, that absence should remain part of your finding.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Who else was physically present and capable of confirming your account without relying on the same electronic record?
LUKA PETROVIC: The timing is supportable. Attribution is not. The missing interval matters more than the wording placed around it afterwards.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Are you saying the official record is wrong?
LUKA PETROVIC: I am saying you should preserve the contradiction instead of choosing the tidier version.
[Exhibit S-01 introduced. Subject permitted to inspect the displayed copy without handling the source medium.]
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you identify the person shown as yourself?
LUKA PETROVIC: I identify myself in the frame. I cannot authenticate the date from the crop alone.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Can you establish the location or date from anything visible in the frame?
LUKA PETROVIC: The location is supportable from the surroundings. The purpose you are implying is not.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Were you aware that the image was being made?
LUKA PETROVIC: I was not aware of the camera at the time shown.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Who had advance knowledge of your presence at that location?
LUKA PETROVIC: That depends on whether the source is an official system, a copied feed or a separate observer.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: What does this image prove, and what does it not prove?
LUKA PETROVIC: Preserve the frames before and after it. A single image is a fact about light, not a complete account of conduct.
[Exhibit S-02 introduced. Subject permitted to inspect the displayed copy without handling the source medium.]
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you identify the person shown as yourself?
LUKA PETROVIC: I identify myself in the frame. I cannot authenticate the date from the crop alone.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Can you establish the location or date from anything visible in the frame?
LUKA PETROVIC: The location is supportable from the surroundings. The purpose you are implying is not.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Were you aware that the image was being made?
LUKA PETROVIC: I was not aware of the camera at the time shown.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Who had advance knowledge of your presence at that location?
LUKA PETROVIC: That depends on whether the source is an official system, a copied feed or a separate observer.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: What does this image prove, and what does it not prove?
LUKA PETROVIC: Preserve the frames before and after it. A single image is a fact about light, not a complete account of conduct.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Is there any material fact you have withheld because you consider this recording or its distribution unsafe?
LUKA PETROVIC: Yes. The existence of that fact is the most I will place in this copy.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: What is the single next action this investigation should take?
LUKA PETROVIC: Find the first system that accepted an answer without asking who had authority to give it.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR: Do you wish to add or correct anything before the recording is suspended?
LUKA PETROVIC: No correction. Only this: an accepted record is not necessarily a true one.
[Recording suspended. Source media sealed. Any resumed session requires a new opening declaration and exhibit schedule.]
Confidential investigator assessment
The account is internally consistent on physical chronology but remains deliberately limited on attribution. No adverse inference should be drawn from refusal to expose a source through a distribution route the subject challenged at the start.
Actions and inconsistencies outstanding
- Obtain or compare the independent account of Tanner — Argus engineer; do not disclose this transcript before their unaided account is fixed.
- Obtain or compare the independent account of Singh — Argus second engineer; do not disclose this transcript before their unaided account is fixed.
- Obtain or compare the independent account of Patel — Argus junior engineer; do not disclose this transcript before their unaided account is fixed.
- Preserve and independently verify the original record associated with Hexline, including audit history and physical custody.
- Preserve and independently verify the original record associated with Sanctuary, including audit history and physical custody.
- Preserve and independently verify the original record associated with Northlight, including audit history and physical custody.
NOTE: Finding limit. Nothing in this record establishes guilt, operational direction or final causation unless expressly stated as a supported finding. A valid credential, image or system entry proves only what that item can independently support.
LEAD INVESTIGATOR — sealed electronic signature held separately
Evidence custodian — receipt and hash recorded
END OF CONTROLLED RECORD — CTC-090