s personalities indicated that about two weeks before the crime, that is, in february march 2015, lipsovas interested in whether they had either a crowbar or a mount for what he allegedly it is necessary, uh, to carry out some repairs , but these words of the accused were not confirmed, and the defendant's mother and cohabitant noted that he had not carried out any repairs in almost his entire life. as they say, i didn’t drive a nail into the wall , so this version with a mount was refuted if we dwell on the trace picture, but when examining the scene in the head project. uh, how the deceased lay on objects of the environment on pieces of furniture on the walls. uh, battle traces of blood in the form of spatter, which directions which was from the bottom up, which is direct evidence that the lifts e struck , a already lying in position. therefore, already finished it. uh, again, which disproved his words that he allegedly did not intend to kill her. i just flared up important circumstances, sheets, did not particularly strive to work. after returning from prison. for some time he lived w

found a gold ring with diamonds, the genotype of our deceased was established at that moment oleg lipsovds that it makes no sense to select further there are no facts, then the defendants decide against him, at least trying to minimize the degree his guilt, having rich criminal experience. the attacker shared his version with the investigators ; their sanctions and here the attacker's attention agrees. yes, he caused bodily injury to serious death, from which he negligently occurred, in addition, oleg lipsov allegedly notes that when he left lyudmila was still alive, she admitted natural theft of property, because this property was discovered from him. there was nowhere to go now. however, e, pointed out that the intent to steal property arose after he had caused bodily harm during a quarrel, thus he expected that his actions would be qualified not under the second part of article 139, that is, a particularly serious crime. and in terms of the third article 147 and theft, that is, of course, the term of punishment. uh, they differ radically, of course, the investigation cannot rely on wo

he beat him, however, oleg lipsov was well versed in the articles of the criminal code and their sanctionsacker's attention agrees. yes, he caused grievous bodily harm, death, from which came through negligence, in addition to this, olegriptov allegedly notes that when he left lyudmila was still alive, a simple theft of property, because such property was discovered from him. there was nowhere to go, however, he pointed out that the intent to steal property arose after he had caused bodily harm during a quarrel, thus he expected that his actions would be qualified not under the second part of article 139, that is, especially serious crime, and according to the third part of article 147 and theft. that is, of course, the term of punishment. uh, they differ radically, of course, the investigation cannot rely on one word, all the testimonies of the accused are exposed. checks and in this case a logical question arises. why did lips deal with lyudmila shiroka? what happened between them on that fateful day about the events that took place not on april 1 already in the apartment, the victims ca