Randomramblings

With regard to the case of Silvo Plut I am shocked how superficial responses people produce on being asked about it. And while I could never be prevailed on to stand for a man who's actually killed and abused three women, I would ask myself in S.P.'s case whether that really happened.

I'm no expert on the case although I've taken an interest in it and read as much as I could. Several things about this case strike me as interesting. According to the information I have, Plut raped and killed the woman in Serbia and was found guilty of the act after a DNA analysis of a woolen hat, which was left (by mistake?) on the crime scene. My sources don't report anything of the matter, but I find it strange that (if this indeed it was a rape) they did not do a DNA analysis on the sperm. There are several possibilities: a) it was not a rape, only a murder and the only DNA evidence was on the hat, b) the DNA in the sperm matched the one on the hat thus almost certainly proving that Plut is guilty c) the DNAs in sperm and on the hat are different and most likely there were two people involved or the person who committed the rape tried to plant the crime to someone else by leaving behind a stolen hat belonging to Plut. My sources (newspapers and TV reports) are scarce with details on the Serbian case as everybody seems sure that Plut is guilty. But given the facts so far, we really could not make a final verdict.

Additionally, let's suppose that what he did to Ljubica Ulčar a few days ago was indeed an accident, who would believe him? The only witnesses were he and the deceased and the public/jury is predisposed to believing he's guilty. In his statement for the media, Ljubica's husband reported that he barely escaped Plut, that once he was done with his wife, Plut approached him saying that it would take far longer to deal with him, but the husband managed to escape Plut in the last second. So if the husband indeed was the witness, he would have heard a noise or a fall and thus would be able to confirm the story about the accident rather than a murder. (Would he want to confirm the accident, if that is what really happened, is less certain.)

And the last piece of evidence that could result in a lighter sentence is the fact that Plut may be suffering from a psychiatric illness that was never properly treated. (Or that long-term alcohol addiction has done irreparable damage to his brain, since he admits that he used to drink quite a lot.) I remember a case from a year (or slightly more) ago, where two youngsters (I think they were barely legal) smoked marijuana in a cellar. In one moment the older one demanded from the younger one his golden necklace, which the younger one refused to give. The older took a knife from his pocket and stabbed the younger one several times in the heart, severing the aorta and severely damaging the heart. The younger died within minutes. In the court it was found that the older suffered from (I hope I remember correctly) a severe form of paranoid schizophrenia and was, by the testimony of a psychiatrist, significantly affected by his illness in the moment of the murder. Something similar might be happening to Plut, because killing three times is not something a normal, healthy person does. Sometimes the brain makes fools of us and it might be happening in this case.

If Plut is definitely found guilty (I'm hopeful that the evidence will be plentiful, since the forensic team did seem to do their best), I hope he gets a fair punishment for what he did. However, there are some "curiosities" about this case that might not point to the 30 years sentence.


...And you thought I would never pass as a law student! I'd even make a decent private detective and it's all because I know my medical stuff. :)