[ad_1]
Imréné Besze (her maiden name was Erzsébet Bigló) was born in 1915 in Diósgyőr. From the age of twenty, Elizabeth committed a whole series of scams and robberies, crimes against property. He has been sentenced to seventeen or more prison terms seventeen times in three decades and has spent a total of more than a quarter of a century in the nation’s prisons.
In 1967, after his latest release, he wandered the country for months, eventually ending up in Gyöngyös, where he got a job on a construction site. A few days later, he was greeted by a lonely man whom they soon married. Elizabeth systematically texted her relationship system. In August, he met the widow Lajosné Kertész, and with her flattering manners managed in a short time to enter into the trust of the old cane, whom he called only “Mama” with noble simplicity.
Signet ring, letter, ax
In early October 1967, a short-lived police report informed the residents of Gyöngyös:
The widow Lajosné Kertész, a 72-year-old market vendor in Gyöngyös, disappeared under unknown circumstances, she may have been the victim of a crime. The Heves County Sheriff’s Office has launched an investigation into the matter.
Ms. Kertész lived in Gyöngyös, in the winery on Harangozó Street 4. Her disappearance was reported on October 2 by her owners, who last saw her on September 28 at dawn.
A shovel from the market recalled that it struck four in the afternoon on the tower clock when Mrs. Gardener closed her stall. No one knew that the old market vendor was in anyone’s way.
On the other hand, various rumors about his wealth circulated in the city. Some say you have accumulated hundreds of thousands in savings.
After a suicide investigation also ruled out suicide, a possible accident and a stay abroad, the police went out to see Kertészné on the day of his disappearance in the late afternoon with Imre Besze.
The police suspicion was only reinforced by the fact that during the search of the house in the Speeches, the stamp of the market vendor and a letter written by Ms Kertész to her daughter who lived in Czechoslovakia at that time were found. moment. It turned out that on the 28th the old woman took out part of the money she kept in savings, seventy thousand forty thousand florins, with the intention of depositing it in another bank.
An ax was also found in the wooden chamber, in which stains contaminated with human blood were discovered in the crime lab. In possession of this evidence, the police arrested Imre Besze.
Was not me! I’m not a murderer! Prove that I put Gardener under my feet!
The multiple criminal yelled at the police. But her husband was also questioned, who said that in his world life he did not hurt the fly either, but that he can imagine the worst of his wife since he just got out of prison. Investigators found that the man returned home from work late at night on the 28th, had dinner, and had already gone to bed when his wife announced that he was traveling to Pest on the midnight train due to his urgency. Confronted, the woman confirmed that she really wanted to travel to the capital, but missed the train and went straight home from the station.
Besides the ring, the letter, and the ax, there was other evidence against the woman. For example, several people reported to the police that they borrowed a larger sum in the summer, that they returned their money after the vendor disappeared from the market, for a total of about 30,000 florins.
Detective: Where did you get the money from?
You spoke: I gathered it from my husband’s claim.
Detective: According to her husband, the lawsuit was filed overnight.
You spoke: What do they have to do with where I got the money from? It was and is done.
The investigation continued for the third consecutive month, when the corpse of the widow Lajosné Kertész was excavated on the bank of the Mérges stream in the garden of the Beszéék house.
Thirteen dumpers land
On July 22, 1968, in Gyöngyös, the scene of the crime, the criminal council of the Heves County Court, chaired by István Kamrás, began the criminal trial of Imréné Besze, accused of lucrative homicide. In the face of great interest, the largest room of the district council was converted into a meeting room for this purpose.
The news of the trial attracted many, and long before the start, a large crowd swept the cement of the Main Plaza, the sidewalks. The curious entered the building, almost occupying the staircase and the corridor that led to the meeting room; So much so that the members of the court could only reach the door of the room at the cost of “melee.” The courtroom was packed and three times as many people waited outside, patiently enduring until the end of the trial, until 7:30 p.m.
The Heves County popular newspaper reported the uproar the next day.
According to the indictment, on September 28, 1967, in Gyöngyös’s apartment, Imréné Besze murdered the widow Lajosné Kertész, a 72-year-old market seller, with particular cruelty and nine blows of the ax. He wrapped the shattered and bloody head in a cloth and tied it with a nylon bag; and sewed the corpse into a straw bag.
He dug the corpse in his garden at night and brought in thirteen dump trucks the next morning. He planted the planned area with alfalfa seeds to cover a green carpet for his victim.
I also regret having killed the cat. Why had he killed Gardener? Please, if I want to finish him off, I’ll just poison him. I had nicotine at home, I mix it with my brandy, I drink it and that’s it. I would have beaten him in the vineyard and drunk there, and then he would bury him there, not in the garden.
Judge: There we stop not feeling guilty, only in part. Why?
You spoke: Because I didn’t kill the widow Lajosné Kertész. I just grabbed one corner of the canvas. I helped get the body to the camera. I did nothing else.
Judge: So who was the culprit?
You spoke: Call my husband here! It will tell you if it is next to me. I ask you, honorable court, that it soon become clear that he is the real culprit.
Judge: He claims that he himself did not know anything about the financial situation of the injured widow, Ms Gardener. He did not know that he had seventy thousand florins saved.
You spoke: I say it clearly.
Judge: But since he went to the bank to ask if the money was taken out by the widow Kertész. And she also attacked her husband, where is the money, what did you do to him, did you destroy me? That’s what you said here in court, Speech. Or not?
However, the defendant was never embarrassed during the trial, he always had some explanation, another story, even if they hit each other.
Judge: Why did you plant the garden?
You spoke: I wanted to raise rabbits.
Judge: Were you about to serve another prison sentence for keeping rabbits?
You spoke: “Mom” would have taken care of that.
Judge: But then “mom” had been dead for several days. He was buried in the ground. You knew he was dead. He testified here in court that he helped get her corpse out of the wooden chamber onto the canvas!
You spoke: We decided together before to raise rabbits.
Deliberately confrontational behavior
The Heves County Court heard no fewer than fifty-seven witnesses during the evidentiary proceedings. And what happened seemed to clear up step by step. The head of the council finally established that on the afternoon of the memorable day, September 28, 1967, the widow Lajosné Kertész was undoubtedly in Imréné Besze’s apartment between four and five in the afternoon. The victim arrived with the Speech and did not leave her alive. The time, place and particular circumstances, such as the fact that there was no other person in the immediate vicinity, were appropriate to commit the crime. The court considered the letter written by Ms. Gardener in the Spokesman’s kitchen as relevant evidence. In this, the victim wrote that he took sixty thousand florins out of savings, and from this, Speaking was able to know for sure that the money was with the victim, he could get it.
The important evidence from forensic medical experts is the finding that the crime can only be committed by a woman. This was indicated by the force of the blows or the precise wrapping of the corpse.
On the eighth day of the trial, the trial court found the defendant guilty of a previously planned fraud and profit-seeking homicide committed as a four-gang repeat offender, a bogus three-order count, and sentenced him to death as a collective punishment. The court did not find mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused, but at the same time valued his lifestyle, incorrigible, deliberately opposed to society, his punishment seventeen times greater, and the fact that he committed his crime when he was not convicted of another act . as an aggravating circumstance.
The verdict was taken by the Prosecutor’s Office, while the convicted person and his lawyer appealed the facts and the qualification, as well as the commutation of the sentence.
In the Supreme Court, the Criminal Chamber of Ferenc Vida opened the appeal hearing on November 12, 1968. András Farkas, representative of the defense, highlighted in support of the appeal that
the personality structure of the accused makes the commission of the crime cause for concern.
His crimes so far have been motivated by money laundering, and his current crime is also characterized by this, but according to the lawyer, after obtaining the money, sixty thousand florins, there was no reason to commit an act of violence and kill to the elderly woman.
She spoke right in the last word, in her speech of more than an hour, she also denied her guilt and claimed that her husband was the culprit, only helping to bring the body to the camera.
On November 17, the Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence imposed in the first instance. The Presidential Council of the People’s Republic rejected the request for clemency. Imre Besze was hanged on February 2, 1969 in the courtyard of Eger prison.
Epilogue
The number of known homicides has been steadily declining in recent years: 96 in 2016, 90 in 2017, 78 in 2018 and 58 in 2019. Although the participation of women in total crime is 13-14%, in the violent crimes this proportion is “only” around 10%.
Female crime has long received less attention due to its lower share of total crime. Gabriella Raskó was a great scientific breakthrough Female offenders published in 1978, in which he stated:
Only a slow but uninterrupted, trend-like modification of the mass statistics revealed a relatively new type of female offender: the active and violent young initiator who is less and less different from a similar male offender.
Orsolya Bolyky, principal investigator at the National Institute of Criminology, noted in her 2018 doctoral thesis on Imréné Besze’s late descendants:
The motive for murders by women has always been emotional. Most of the time, the act of killing was committed to the detriment of her son or partner, but there was also the murder of the mother. More than half of the female perpetrators had a psychiatric problem before the murder, were often on medication or abused sedatives or hypnotics.
Due to the sensitivity of the subject of this article, we do not consider it ethical to place ads.
Please refer to the Indamedia Group Trademark Statement for more details.
[ad_2]
