[ad_1]
The Court of Appeal sentenced Tishko Ahmed to 18 years in prison for murdering his girlfriend, Wilma Andersson, 17, at their joint home in Uddevalla. The 23-year-old was convicted of his denial and has always denied having anything to do with the girl’s death, and in November he appealed the verdict himself in three handwritten letters to the Supreme Court.
In the letters, he affirmed his innocence and appealed to the court to take up his case.
“Please. Give me a chance and I’ll prove I’m innocent,” he wrote, among other things.
Although the letters were recorded and formally considered as an appeal, they did not meet the requirements for an appeal. Among other things, there must be a demand for what you want the court to make for a decision and you must state the reasons why the sentence will be modified. Tishko Ahmed’s defense attorneys, Beatrice Rämsell and Peter Olsson, were given more time to complete the appeal, something that has already been done.
READ MORE: Little chance that the Supreme Court will accept Tishko Ahmed’s appeal
Presses in the clouds
The lawyers press the appeal on the ambiguities they believe there are in the investigation. Above all, the question of cause of death is important, they say, as it has not been possible to determine exactly how Wilma Andersson was brought to life.
Is it really possible to exclude other possibilities if the research does not provide clarity? Can someone be convicted of intentionally taking the life of another person without making it clear that the person was murdered? Beatrice Rämsell and Peter Olsson ask.
Nor has it been possible to determine how the body disappeared from the crime scene, emphasize the lawyers. Furthermore, they believe that it is “important for law enforcement” for the Supreme Court to examine how someone can be convicted despite the ambiguities that exist.
READ MORE: That is the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in the Wilma case
Requires reduced punishment
Beatrice Rämsell and Peter Olsson also want the Supreme Court to judge the length of the prison sentence. It is important, they say, that the courts adhere to the evidence in a case and do not add speculation or their own general conclusions. The Court of Appeal ruled in its ruling that Wilma Andersson, 17, was physically inferior to Tishko Ahmed, 23, and saw this as an aggravating circumstance.
This is disputed by defense attorneys, who believe that the Court of Appeal did not justify how this came to be. “It seems that it is only the fact that Wilma is a woman and that Tishko is a man that is the basis for the conclusion,” they write in the appeal.
Several of the circumstances highlighted by the Court of Appeal are not relevant to the length of the sentence, according to the lawyers, who believe that if Tishko Ahmed is convicted of the murder, the penalty should be 16 years in prison.
Wilma Andersson’s family also appealed the Appeals Court ruling, demanding that the Supreme Court sentence Tishko Ahmed to life in prison.
[ad_2]
