The prosecutor is demanding a life sentence for the 28-year-old man. The right to comment on the title and possible punishment after the completion of the state of mind survey.
District Court has ordered a mental health man who is accused of murdering an acquaintance by setting fire to this apartment in Hartola in March. In an interim judgment given on Friday, the Päijät-Häme District Court finds that the 28-year-old accused acted as described in the indictment.
“All the evidence presented in the case, with the exception of (the accused’s) own report, supports the fact that (he), using flammable liquid, set fire to the (victim’s) apartment and left the highly intoxicated (victim) apartment to death,” the interim judgment says.
The terraced house was destroyed in a fire down to the wall and roof structures. Based on a study with the help of fire dogs, the living room of the apartment was confirmed as the starting point of the fire. Flammable liquid had been applied to the room in several places.
The prosecutor demands the life sentence of the accused for murder and destruction. Defendant denies the charges. The district court will take a position on the criminal title and possible punishment after the completion of the state of mind investigation.
Of justice according to the accused and the victim had spent some days at the victim’s apartment. The defendant said he had known the duo for fifteen years.
According to the district court, the defendant’s account of the events has varied significantly during the pre-trial investigation and trial. In court, the man said he had gone to visit Alko and noticed that when he returned, the townhouse was on fire. He said he went to look inside the door, but the smoke was so heavy that the victim was not visible.
At the police interrogation, the man, on the other hand, had said he was enraged and beaten the victim and then set the couch on fire. The man had also spoken to a witness at the scene about lighting the couch, the verdict says.
At trial, the accused explained his previous speeches with shock and intoxication, which would have made him speak “what hurts.” However, the court held that the speeches spoke of the man’s guilt.
“The District Court finds that (the accused) could not have known with this certainty where the fire had begun if he had not been present. Still, when the police contacted (the accused), he had only been asked for his identity, at which point (he) had again stated that he was a murderer. ”
Notice the emergency center was made by a woman living in a nearby house. He said in court that he had seen a terraced house in open flames, and that at that time the fire was already spreading to the adjacent apartments.
“The door to the backyard of the end apartment seemed to have flown away. The fire had been really fierce and the fire brigade had not been present. It had been difficult for (the witness) to believe what he saw, ”the judgment refers to what the woman said.
The woman said she encountered an accused in the yard who behaved indifferently and confusedly. This had said the woman said she had started a fire and that the resident was still inside the apartment.