[ Attorney Farfán is not excluded that the owner of the van with plate cloned] *
- " the February 17 "is reported (to be contained in police notebooks)" by the theft of parts. "
- " "r parts obo vehicle "** is the same as theft / loss of an entire vehicle? and what if" stolen "just" your brain, flowmeter, and its board, and / or chassis . Why the chassis number of the detained vehicle, prosecutors did not match the chassis number helper in the "book police investigations?; why what was "stolen vehicle" entirely, or just "stolen" his plate, or just "stole" your chassis, if the only complaint has "stolen parts?
- Why "was raped by a security seal had been placed so that no one enters the interior of the vehicle?
- Why " altered chassis number and keys, which opened days before the motor, this time did not work. ?
- Why out Loza's attorney says his client never drove the van of the crime? But it is public record and institutional Cape at the time of arrest and provide your information carried Motorized keys?
- Why argues that it was stolen (in theft) *** also his credentials had expired (no other crime is perhaps the credential expired) Why did it take in reporting the loss of the credential?
- Why Cape Loza said that the vehicle was loaned by a friend? The friend happens to be the owner alleged that earlier dates denounced the "theft of parts of a vehicle" similar?
In these days the people involved, collusion and cover-up were fit (to the force and improvised as to be obvious) evidence of the alleged complaint of theft of parts of a vehicle "similar?
¿Por qué el procesado y gangoso satuco aparece justo en momentos como el “boom” del “video soborno” y en este caso de la chuta-vagoneta también?
________________________
*/*** http://www.la-razon.com/version.php?ArticleId=130334&EditionId=2528&idp=&ids=&page=2&
** Http://www.noticiasfides.com/sociedad/placas-clonadas-fiscalia-denuncia-informacion-erronea-en-investigacion-policial/
0 comments:
Post a Comment