Sentenced to death for murder of bus employee | News



[ad_1]

On January 26, the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Court tried in the first instance and sentenced the defendant Nguyen Van Mirror (58 years old, resident of Cu Chi, Ho Chi Minh City) to the death penalty for “murder”.
According to the indictment, in 2014, Nguyen Van Mirror had feelings for Ms T. (the victim in the case) was a bus driver traveling along Route 87 (Cu Chi – An Nhon Tay bus station) led by the Mr. D. be a driver.

In 2019, Mirror suspects that Ms. T. has an emotional relationship with Mr. Đ. he should regularly take the bus that Mrs. T. and Mr. D work to monitor. At 1:00 p.m. on March 31, 2020, Mirror went to buy a knife and then got on the bus led by Mr. Đ. driver, at this time, the car is driving in the direction of the Cu Chi – An Nhon bus station.

As the bus drove down Provincial Road 7, reaching the Go Noi Village Section, An Nhon Tay Commune (Cu Chi District), Mirror approached the main gate and then pulled out a knife and stabbed her in the chest and stomach.

Hear Ms. T. screams, Mr. D. opened the back door for passengers to flee, then threw a plastic basket at Mirror to rescue Ms. T., but Mirror attacked her and was injured.

The Mirror then took a knife and stabbed Ms. T. continuously, causing the victim to collapse and then get out of the car to escape. When Mirror got out of the car, it was Mr. Đ. with people for control, assigned to the police.

Ms. T. was taken to the emergency room, but due to her serious injury, she died before going to the hospital.

At trial, Mir said that every day he took the bus to work, so he met Ms T. and had feelings. The defendant loaned Ms. T. 420 million VND to purchase a private bus. However, Ms. T. did not buy a car but avoided her, so defendant Mir thought that Ms. T. was bringing money for Mr. Đ. Angry, the defendant used a knife to stab Ms. T.

However, at trial, the victim’s representative confirmed that the victim did not have an emotional relationship and did not borrow money from the defendant.

The Panel stated that the defendant’s behavior threatens the lives of others, is a hooligan, so it is necessary to permanently remove him from social life in order to prevent and prevent them. Therefore, the Panel declared the accused the death penalty.



[ad_2]