Supreme Court Law and Criminal Division Cantabrian Confirms Carmen Merino’s 15-year sentenceShe was convicted last December for murdering her boyfriend in 2019 in Castro Urdiales, and will destroy his entire body except the skull, gave it to a friend.
The sentence, which has not been finalized and can be appealed to the Supreme Court, also rejects the objection made by the defense of the woman, who requested her acquittal on the grounds, among other things, that the cause of death could not be proven. victim.
who is merino stays in El Dueso prison Since his arrest in 2019, he has been found guilty of murdering his 67-year-old partner from Biscay, “for the purpose of financially exploiting his assets and money,” which he called the “universal heir”.
According to the sentence given to her after killing her boyfriend and as confirmed by TSJC, Carmen Merino threw the body in the trash and gave the skull to a friend in a box, making him believe it contained sex toys, until the woman opened the package months later. In the open hearing held on March 14, the court heard the defense of the parties and decided that the right to the presumption of innocence had been violated, as claimed by the defense.
The Chamber believes that, contrary to this party’s argument, the sentence was not “wrongful, arbitrary or unreasonable”. forensics could not prove the victim’s cause of deathThis led the woman’s lawyer to argue that the death could not be proven to be violent.
“All the indications are pointing in the same direction: it’s a violent death, a hypothesis that has a higher degree of justification than the hypothesis put forward by the appeal,” the sentence says, “it can’t be anything.” There’s more room for a speculative idea like the one put forward in the appeal because it’s “not based on logic.”There is no logical or rational explanation that one would go to the trouble of decapitating the torso if the death were of natural or coincidental causes.exposing him to the action of heat, the soft parts separating him and hiding him from the rest of his body, cell phones, etc. to be saved, to eliminate the possibility of proving that death was not murder”.
While disagreeing with the defense’s view, which questioned that the purpose of the jury’s decision had changed at some point, the Chamber already understands that the meaning has not been changed. Merino’s lawyer also made the claim. He objected to the lack of prosecution evidence to confirm his client’s involvement in the victim’s death.
However, the court considers that the jury’s decision was “sufficiently clear and reasoned” and that the assessment of evidence to arrive at a conviction “does not deviate from the rules of logic, experience and scientific knowledge”. “Countless indicative data have been given, all of which add up, which clearly points to the fact that the accused was not a person unrelated to the victim’s death,” he notes.
Regarding the possibility of punishment Merino as accomplice, not as author On the last day of the hearing, the court committee regarding the crime brought up by the defense, does not “fit” the account of the facts. “A secondary or inferior participation cannot be attributed to someone who wants to end his partner’s life, raises him, organizes him, and ultimately implements his plan, either alone or with the help of someone else, it doesn’t matter to us, because the punishment will remain the same,” concludes the Chamber.