The court found the man who stabbed his son-in-law to death with treason and brutality.

We are equally upset because the injustice is caused by Luis not being here with us.“We will continue to fight for him and our (deceased) mother,” said Mari Carmen Salazar, the victim’s sister, as soon as she heard the verdict. She also thanked the police, the prosecutor and the jury.

After the decision, the third chamber president of the Provincial Court has to shape the sentence. Judicial sources drew attention after learning of the decision: It is foreseen that the penalty will vary between 20 and 22 years. Blame assumes 22.

The Public Prosecutor continues to demand 22 years in prison and absolute disqualification during the sentence., plus compliance with probation and other measures for 10 years. It also demands from the defendants, as a civil liability, compensation of 200,000 Euros to the deceased’s son and 25,000 Euros to each of Luis Salazar’s ten siblings. All this and the corresponding legitimate interests.

The special prosecutor’s office initially asked for 25 years in prison, but yesterday this was reduced to 22 with the partial handling of the confession defense. Juan Antonio Felipe Roman, 72 years old, allegedly confessed to the truth, but concealed the whereabouts of the weapon he used to stab his son-in-law 25 times. son.”, on the other hand, is the grandson of the murderer. According to what was stated at the trial, this was the reason why the father denied that he could not be with his younger son, as determined by the courts. During the trial, no one said a bad word about Luis Salazar, who was portrayed as a father who separated from his son for no reason and by force. The special prosecutor’s office is seeking compensation of 60,000 euros for each brother, father and victim.

Thursday session

Lastly, in an oral session in the courtroom on Thursday, 72-year-old Juan Antonio Felipe Román was said to be “repentant”. He asked for “forgiveness” from the relatives of the victim “for the pain he caused them”. He did this just minutes after the special prosecution accused him of not showing any empathy for the son-in-law’s family in the three years since the crime. Family spokesman Segismundo Salazar told the newspaper, “If he tells us where the knife with which he killed our brother is, how he organized it and who provoked him, we will have no problem forgiving him.”

Forensic experts did not contribute much more than members of the Science Police eye examination group had declared the day before. They were not as strong as agents to completely rule out any possible previous fight between the accused and the victim prior to the attack, but stressed that there was no evidence to support Felipe Román’s alleged self-defense. In the first session of the trial, the defendant said that it all started with an argument. His son-in-law picked him up on the “wing” and threw him into the kitchen sink of his house, which he responded by picking up a knife and “sticking” it to his stomach. He doesn’t remember any more. The coroners recreated the brutal attack the author had forgotten, as the police had done before. They noted that three of the nearly thirty stab wounds were fatal. He cut the radius at his wrist, severed his kidney in his abdomen, and someone in his neck severed the entire vascular bundle in his throat. A “machete-type blade” was used, which caused “enormous bleeding”.

Caused unnecessary pain and suffering

Experts stressed that although Luis Salazar’s death was rapid, he survived throughout the attack. This fact will be relevant when the jury decides whether there was persecution, that is, whether there was persecution, as the prosecutor claimed: “Absolutely unnecessary pain and suffering.”

The existence of the aforementioned persecution and possible treason will determine whether the accused is convicted of murder or willful homicide, assuming, as the defense claims, the owner of the crime. Then there are possible defenses of confession and repentance. The prosecution and defense fought a battle on this ground yesterday. Because they were before a popular jury, they took special care to embellish their results. The prosecutor effectively used stubbornness, which he described as “brutal, swift and with no choice for the defence.” He argued that it was treason, persecution and only a partial (simple) confession, as the public ministry realized that Felipe Román had obstructed the investigation. throw the knife into the river. The prosecutor was particularly accurate when assessing the legitimate defense. After using all the evidence that excludes the possibility of a possible fight between the victim and the executioner, I stress that even assuming a possible struggle, we cannot speak of any proportionality after 25 stab wounds inflicted. “After causing the massacre, the accused lied and hid the weapon, surprisingly and without leaving any commotion,” he said.