Mursel's lawyer rejects demand for maximum sentence: Key investigative actions have been carried out

In the final word, he has stated that in this case there are four key issues that, according to him, are not handled properly by the organs of justice.

Okay, four issues here are key. In this process there are four key issues. First case. The first case is that, since the court and the prosecution have no knowledge of all the subjects that are processed in court, the prosecution has ordered the expert to make forensic expertise, responsible for the causes of death of the late Liridona. We are, we are witnesses, that forensic expert Naim Uka in this courtroom has explained the reasons for Liridona's death. What did I say? She mentioned that in the left hand of the deceased Liridona there is a haematoma, which is not contradictory, that is correct. However, in his testimony to this expert in the main examination, he has raised an issue that for many jurists is unknown. Part of it is the subject for visualizing fingers. We've been looking for answers, what does visualization mean? The same decisively stated, on page six, seven and eight, where it says, in the case of macroscopic expertise, we have not noticed traces of the visualization of fingerprints in this person. It means, the expert is saying there's no visualization of the fingers. Since the court is now, we need someone to trust. We are not saying that Liridona is not deprived of life. She's been deprived, not contradictory. Just some fool, some lunatic says he didn't get out of life. However, the court remains more confirmed what” has said, he said.

He has also stressed that no significant investigative actions have been carried out that, according to him, could confirm the presence or not of the accused at the scene.

“Second item. He's saying he's been gunning for half an open window. But to also prove to cast the version of Naim, that this was not present with the case of life deprivation, a very strong procedure such as São. It's not the prosecution. During the investigation, Naim had to take his clothes. The clothes are taken away, looking at the presence of powder particles in case of a gunfight. If the presence of gun particles from a secondary match was confirmed, it's useless to protect Naim. Let this guy talk all day. The evidence says something else. That's it. The one who prevented him from taking his clothes even the stupidest of his clothes by checking it out is said to have been in the investigator. Given that powder particles in closed environments, there is a diameter of up to 70 to 80, given the distance where it allegedly came, powder particles had been its clothes, and Naim discussion closed. I'm not saying three years you're taking me in. That's it. Why was this not tested? What I've finally given you for legal selection, I don't contest the case. I've never contested the case. I don't mind. But is the description adequate? It's not. It's not a match for”, he said.

In the end, he asked the court to assess all claims and make a fair decision, rejecting the requirement for maximum punishment.

“required an extremely severe sentence, which was envisioned at least 10 years or eternal punishment. Those involved know better, lawyers, prosecutors and the judiciary. I demand that any claims that have been filed, you assess and make a fair decision”, he said.