he was only on trial for one woman, when you get popped for a speeding ticket do you expect to have to pay for every time you were speeding and never got caught?
No, but the prosecution could possibly argue "similar transactions" to pursue a heftier sentence. Even if the person isnt convicted for the similar crime, this can be brought up at trial (in America and under certain circumstances. It would be tough (see definition below) and again, their court system may not allow it, but I have been in court and seen it used when the defendant was only investigated for a similar crime. Again, its a stretch, but might be worth pursuing.
Peru might have something similar, they might not.
See the definition here:
Similar transaction evidence means proof of a distinct, independent, and separate offense admissible in a trial of a crime which has some logical connection with the current offense, from which it can be said that proof of the one tends to establish the other.
Similar transaction evidence is admissible if
(a) the evidence is admitted for a proper purpose;
(b) it is established that the defendant committed the separate offense; and
(c) there is sufficient similarity between the separate offense and the crime charged that proof of the former tends to prove the latter.
The appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to admit such evidence for abuse of discretion
Is it because Peru doesn't have life sentence or something? C'mon, he murdered a young woman and he could be out before he's 70? That is just wrong in every way imaginable.
