[ad_1]
The defendants perceived that their actions were wrong, they bowed to apologize to the families of the three policemen who died – Video: LIST
The defendants at trial – Photo: GIANG LONG
SOn September 8, the first instance trial of 29 defendants in the gas filling case killed 3 policemen in Dong Tam commune, My Duc district, Hanoi, the questioning continued. Most of the defendants admitted that their actions when they opposed the person on duty 9-1 in the morning were wrong, they joined “for lack of understanding of the law.”
“The accused does not know the origin of the land”
Although he was not allowed to pronounce his name on the podium, Mr. Bui Viet Hieu (77 years old) raised his hand to present. The defendant “apologizes to the jury” for his testimony yesterday (9-7) in court.
Mr. Hieu admitted that the earlier testimony regarding the origin of the Dong Senh land was that the 1981 information was “too out of date”, because from 1990 until now the land policy has changed a lot without the knowledge of the accused.
“The defendant sincerely apologizes to the Panel that the defendant’s behavior was wrong, he was unable to keep up with the situation, so he could not understand. The defendant hopes that the court will enjoy the leniency of the law for passing the race and not go back to the race. “
The defendant also admitted that on the night of January 8 he did not sleep at his house, because Le Dinh Cong allowed the person who entered the pass to go to sleep at Mr. Kinh’s house because of “the possibility that someone attacked, for what the accused should be protected “.
At the September 7 trial, the defendant Hieu said, who was the head of the Dong Tam cooperative from 1981-1982, found that the prosecution incorrectly stated about the origin of the land in Senh Dong. He joined the “consensus team” at the invitation of Mr. Kinh since 2013, but not against but for “anti-corruption purposes”.
Mr Hieu said that in the Senh field, only 47.36ha were recovered for the Mieu Mon airport, the rest was agricultural land. The panel evaluated the defendant Bui Viet Hieu “open to denying the crime.”
Go appeal for land allocation
In court, in a shaky voice, the defendant Bui Viet Tien said that he was simply “ordinary people”, who did not join the consensus team. From start to finish, the defendant did not report transporting weapons to Mr. Kinh’s home.
The defendant Bui Viet Tien at trial on the morning of September 8 – Photo: LIST
“The accused only knows that Mr. Kinh is the leader, and there are others who are Mr. Bui Viet Hieu, Mr. Le Dinh Cong. The accused was not promised anything. He only saw Mr. Kinh saying against corruption and defending rights. should come together to protect people from corruption. “
Mr. Kinh said that we keep the land and divide it among all the people, not just for one person. The defendant did not contribute money to buy grenades, but was mobilized due to lack of money to take over the paper financing, so he was able to contribute but not discuss the purchase of grenades, “said defendant Tien.
The accused Mai Thi Phan responds to the questioning of the panel – Photo: LIST
Like the defendant Tien, Ms. Mai Thi Phan claimed to follow the consensus team because “Mr. Kinh promised to divide the land.” Standing in front of the podium to report, Ms. Part stated Mr. Kinh assigned to save money for the consensus team. He stated that 9-1 in the morning was in place but did nothing.
“The defendant did not buy gasoline and he did not know who was buying, nor did he prepare bricks of lime and stone. The defendant contributed 2 million VND, but of which there were only 500, the rest of the others,” Ms Phan said.
Regarding the reason why he participated in the lawsuit for many years, defendant Phan claimed that Mr. Le Dinh Kinh promised to keep the land and then divided it among those who followed the team to reach a settlement.
“Mr. Kinh promises that each person will have 200m2, worth more than a billion. We do wrong, lack of understanding, we see that our work is wrong,” the defendant Phan hesitated.
The defendant Le Thi Loan said that her father had participated in the resistance war, so he never thought about killing in his heart. The prosecution charged the defendant with this crime, for which “he felt uncomfortable.”
Regarding the reason for giving money to other defendants to buy grenades, Loan said she asked her husband for 3.5 million to go to the market to buy things to take care of her daughter-in-law. When she entered the defendant’s house, she was asked to “have money” to pay off the loan. After repeatedly asking Ms. Loan how to borrow money to pay for the purchase of grenades. Tuyen told the defendant “daughter-in-law, but where will we give birth.”
Defendant Loan confirmed that he did not make a gas pump. The defendant gave Tuyen the money, not to pay off debts, not to buy grenades.
“The defendant apologizes to the family of 3 soldiers”
As in the 9-7 trial, many defendants said that when they were arrested they learned that 3 policemen were killed. In the detention center, they regretted their behavior for causing great pain to the family of 3 soldiers.
Defendant Tran Thi Phuong admitted that when Hanoi police entered Hoanh village on the morning of January 9, they saw other people holding stones and throwing, seeing people shouting “I do the same.” Police testimony showed that the defendant Phuong claimed to have picked up two stones that had been thrown at the police.
“The defendant perceives that his behavior is wrong, he wants the court to consider a slight penalty to return the child. The defendant’s son is very young, he still needs a mother. The defendant does not directly cause the death of 3 soldiers, but the defendant sincerely apologizes to the family of 3 soldiers, “said defendant Phuong.
The defendant Nguyen Quoc Tien also asked the court for his condolences to the family of 3 soldiers. “During the time of detention, the defendant repented of the repentance and sincerely repented of the mind of Buddha so that they will soon be saved,” said the defendant Tien and repeated his apology to 3 families of soldiers.
When the court gave its opinion, the representatives of the three families of the police soldiers who died asked the Panel to judge the correct person. Regarding civil liability, the victims’ families also expect the court to rely on the legal provisions to calculate the compensation.
