Despite a lack of confession or eye witnesses, the prosecution had no doubt that the ex-boyfriend of Ana Lopes was responsible for her death. This was the conclusion they came to on Thursday afternoon in the murder trial of the 25 year old woman in January 2017.
Due to the premeditated nature of the murder, which had been planned in great detail and over a long period of time, the prosecution requested a lifelong prison sentence for the accused.
It was obvious that the perpetrator knew his victim, said the prosecutor. It wasn’t just a case of Ana being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Her killer knew where she lived and was familiar with her habits. It was still unclear how the victim was attacked: no one had heard her scream, suggesting her killer surprised her. After the crime, her body was placed in her car and driven to a predetermined location, where the car was burned. Ana was simply meant to ‘disappear’.
It was argued by the prosecution that no one apart from the accused had been involved in conflicts with the young woman. The couple often had arguments and even physical altercations. It was clear that Ana was afraid of the accused. The prosecuting team argues that he had even said, more than once, that he would kill her and even announced how he would do it. While the defendant’s family claimed Ana was involved in drug dealing, there had been no proof of this. It was put to the court that the defendant’s family had done this in an effort to lead the investigation down the wrong path.
Concerning the evidence against the man, the prosecutor noted that his alibi was not credible, prompting to his family desperately trying to provide one for him. On top of this, the defendant had driven the exact same route as the murderer six hours later and was unable to provide a valid explanation for this. As for the adhesive tape with DNA traces found not far from the burned out car, he had likely manipulated this himself at the time of the crime.
At the end of the session, Mrs. Roberto, lawyer to 4 civil parties, remarked on the fair and sober indictment by the prosecution.
“We expected that the prosecution would push for the sentencing of our client”, said one of the defendant’s lawyers, Philippe Penning. Requesting the maximum sentence for premeditation was only the logical consequence.
According to him, however, the way there was paved with too many hypotheses. The prosecution was moving on thin ice, especially concerning the DNA traces. The lawyer stressed that it was preferable for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man to be behind bars.
The defendant ended the session by repeating his innocence and requesting his release.
The sentence is expected for 12 January.
