[ad_1]
Šiauliai, a respectable man, was convicted on July 16 of illegally collecting information about a person’s private life, producing, distributing pornographic content, and publicly exhibiting. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison, according to a press release from the Šiauliai Regional Court.
On Wednesday, the Šiauliai Regional Court issued a new acquittal in a criminal case examined on appeal.
The crime, which caused great public curiosity, came to light in October 2018, when one day a resident of Šiauliai unexpectedly found a video camera when he went to the biotoilet installed in the center of Šiauliai by Lake Talkša, near the sculpture “Iron Fox”. The man immediately informed the police.
Soon, officers found video equipment built into the toilet seat at the scene. Subsequently, 340 records were restored with intimate parts of the body of people involved in natural affairs. These images were recognized by officials, specialists as pornographic information. During the pre-trial investigation, specialists who examined the images captured by the camera discovered the image of the allegedly captured owner of the camera. Forensic scientists declared that it was said SB of Šiauliai
The defendant both during the investigation and in court insisted that the crime was not committed by him, the image of the man captured on camera was not at all SB The defendant’s defense attorney said that the expert who conducted the examination did not dispel doubts, the attorney rated the exam incomplete. According to the Šiauliai Chamber of the Šiauliai District Court, which examined this case, the evidence gathered in the case was sufficient and Judge SB found him guilty. SB appealed against such verdict.
According to the assessment of the panel of judges of the Criminal Cases Division of the Šiauliai Regional Court, which examined this case on appeal, the court of first instance violated the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure by failing to assess SB’s exculpatory evidence by issuing sentence.
First of all, SB lives near the place where the video recording equipment installed in the biotoilet was found, so it is only natural that his mobile phone was connected to the relevant roads, which also include the area next to the Iron Fox sculpture. .
Second, no suitable traces for identification were found either on the toilet seat or on self-made video recording equipment.
Third, the information in the file confirms that no one identified the person in the photograph when the photograph was shown to people who lived nearby and to employees of nearby establishments. However, the officer soon stated in an official report that during the pre-trial investigation, the search had established that the man captured in the photo was SB.
At the hearing before the Court of Appeals, the official questioned as a witness could not explain by what means it was established that the person seen in the photograph was SB.
Fourth, the pre-trial investigation did not establish at all that the person seen in the video had a video camera installed, which is just an assumption that is not supported by other data collected in the case. The agents who investigated the crime admitted that the investigation did not try to determine if there were other people who were similar to the man seen in the video, so the pre-trial investigation only collected data that could confirm or deny the version in question. by SB.
The defendant stated in court that the man seen in the video had never worn such clothes. This fact was confirmed by his spouse interviewed as a witness.
A police officer questioned in the appeals court during the pre-trial investigation admitted that during the search of SB’s home, no clothing was found that could be similar to what the man in the video was wearing. No tools or materials were found that were necessary for the production of the self-made video recording equipment. The searches also did not reveal any devices that could be used to view the videos.
Experts found that the only device that could be used to watch videos, a computer, was last used in 2013.
Although the expert report indicates that there is a very high probability that the same person will be captured in the video and the comparative photos, the expert interviewed at the hearing acknowledged the veracity of his conclusion and admitted that he could not provide a categorical conclusion due to lack of overlay.
The data collected in the case shows that SB is only similar to the man seen in the video. Given that the sentence is not based on presumptions and that the presumption of innocence in the criminal process forces to assess all objectively unresolved doubts in favor of the defendant, the panel concludes that the court of first instance made an error in its assessment of the article 167 Article 309 (2).
The fact that the trial court declared him worthless and decided to destroy the objects seized from SB without establishing a connection to the crime committed (i.e. his clothes and mobile phones) confirms that the district court did not conduct a full examination and superficial of the criminal case.
The Šiauliai Regional Court annulled the Šiauliai Chamber of the Šiauliai District Court in 2020. Convicted July 16 and issued a new sentence – acquitted SB based on the criminal offenses against him, as it had not been proven that the accused would have participated in the commission of these crimes.
[ad_2]
