The crime in Teleorman: The Prosecutor General demands the investigation of the police and the prosecutor of the case: “Deficiencies in the activity of the police and the prosecutor”
On Monday morning, the General Prosecutor's Office published the results of the control ordered at the Prosecutor's Office next to the Turnu Măgurele Court, in the case of the crime in Teleorman, when Mihaela, a young 25-year-old mother was killed by her husband, on the street. The control revealed serious deficiencies both in the activity of the police officers who responded to the woman's complaints, and in that of the case prosecutor.
“The Prosecutor General of the Public Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (PÊCCJ) ordered, on November 10, to carry out an inspection at the Public Prosecutor's Office attached to the Turnu Măgurele Court, as a result of the murder that took place in Beciu commune, Teleorman county, on November 8, 2025,” the Public Ministry announced in a statement.
According to the General Prosecutor's Office, the control “established deficiencies in the activity of the police bodies, which carried out the criminal investigation in question, as well as in the activity of the prosecutor regarding the attribute of coordination or supervision of the criminal investigation carried out by the police”.
“Gross negligence”
Thus, the general prosecutor, Alex Florenta, notified the Ministry of the Interior to investigate the policemen who responded to Mihaela's complaints. Also, the general prosecutor notified the Judicial Inspection, to initiate a disciplinary investigation on the prosecutor who handled the case.
“In relation to the deficiencies found in the activity of the police bodies, the general prosecutor ordered the notification of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in order to take the necessary measures according to the legal powers. Also, the general prosecutor of the PÎCCJ notified the Judicial Inspection in order to start a disciplinary investigation against the prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Turnu Măgurele Court, in terms of the disciplinary violation provided for in Article 271 lit.s) sentence of II of Law no. 303/2022, consisting in the exercise of the function with serious negligence”, the statement sent by the Public Ministry states.
The crime film from Teleorman
Mihaela, a 25-year-old woman, mother of three children, she was killed on November 8 by her husband in front of the youngest of them, in the town of Beciu, Teleorman county. The woman had separated from her 42-year-old husband a few months ago, and had obtained a protection order against him in court.
Concretely, the police issued, on September 22, a provisional protection order against the 42-year-old man, and four days later, on September 26, the Turnu Măgurele Court issued a protection order for a period of 6 months.
On September 26, the woman complained to the Police that the man kidnapped and raped her, but the man was released.
Next, the General Prosecutor's Office presents the sequence of events after the complaints made by the woman.
“Through the provisional protection order issued on 22.09.2025, at 23:27, by the police bodies of the Teleorman County Police Inspectorate, it was ordered that starting from 22.09.2025, at 23:27, for a period of 5 days, respectively until 27.09.2025, at 23:27, the MGP aggressor should keep a distance minimum of 20 meters from the MMF victim and her residence in Beciu Commune.
On the same occasion, the injured person stated that he does not agree to wear an electronic surveillance system, which explains why he was not ordered by the provisional protection order and obliging the aggressor to permanently wear an electronic surveillance device”, the General Prosecutor's Office reported.
According to the General Prosecutor's Office, the police did not thoroughly check the call to 112 on September 22 and did not investigate any previous episodes of violence.
“It does not appear from the provisional protection order or from other documents drawn up by the police bodies, attached to the work of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Turnu Măgurele Court, that the police body proceeded to the thorough verification of the notification made to the single emergency number 112. It also does not follow that checks were carried out regarding the existence of previous notifications made by the injured person or a history of violence within family relationships, aspect relevant in the assessment of the risk and the degree of danger. Only the Risk Assessment Form is attached to the paper, which includes the findings based on the answers given by the victim, as well as the police officer's findings, which do not attest to traumatic injuries on the victim,” states the Prosecutor's Office.
What happened after the first protective order expired
“Subsequently, by the order of 24.09.2025, drawn up by the prosecutor of the PJ Turnu Măgurele, based on the lack of other evidence to accompany the provisional protection order, the termination of the protection measures established by the order of 22.09.2025 was ordered, at the time of their expiration, respectively on 27.09.2025, at 23:28. The order of 24.09.2025 was communicated to Section No. 8 of the Lunca Rural Police.
According to the answer prepared by Section no. 8 Lunca Rural Police, the police bodies did not inform the MMF injured person and the MGP perpetrator of the date of termination of the measures ordered by the provisional protection order, according to the ordinance of 09/24/2025″, the statement also states.
Later, through the application registered at the Turnu Măgurele Court, on September 25, Mihaela asked the court to issue a protection order, “to compel MGP to keep a minimum distance of 50 m from her and her home in Beciu Commune, for a period of 12 months”.
“By the sentence of 26.09.2025 of the Turnu Măgurele Court, the request made was admitted, in part, and a protection order was issued by which the following measures were ordered, provisionally, for a period of 6 months from the date of issuance: obliging the defendant not to come closer than 50 meters to the building where the plaintiff lives, located in Beciu commune; obliging the defendant to to keep a minimum distance of 50 meters from the plaintiff; prohibiting the defendant from contacting the plaintiff in any way, including by phone, by mail or in any other way,” states the Prosecutor's Office.
Investigation stalled after September 26, although there was evidence
Through the complaint of September 26, Mihaela requested that investigations be carried out against the man, showing that, on September 20 and 22, 2025, while she was in the Beciu commune, “he physically assaulted her, hitting her with his palms and fists in the face area and with a pipe on her body, acts of aggression as a result of which injuries were caused to her”.
“Subsequently, on 26.09.2025, at around 09:00, the injured person traveled to the Turnu Măgurele municipality, to appear at the Turnu Măgurele Court in the procedure for issuing the protection order. In the area of the “Tudorică Dorobanțu” Park, located in the center of the municipality, she met the MGP, with whom she later traveled, in his car, to the exit from the Turnu municipality Magurele, in the outskirts of the town, where the MGP allegedly blocked the car doors and had sexual intercourse with the injured person, against her will.
By the ordinance of September 26 of the criminal investigation bodies within the Turnu Măgurele Municipal Police – Criminal Investigation Bureau, it was ordered to start the criminal investigation under the aspect of the crimes of rape, deprivation of liberty, non-compliance with the protection order and family violence.
“At the hearing on the same day, the perpetrator of the MGP made available an audio-video recording made during sexual intercourse with the injured person, claiming that the sexual intercourse would have been freely consented. Following the analysis of the file documents, several deficiencies of the criminal prosecution were found, likely to affect its effective nature:
First of all, there is a lack of rhythmicity in the execution of the criminal investigation documents, in the sense that the entire evidence administered until now was carried out exclusively on 26.09.2025, without any other necessary documents being subsequently ordered or carried out to find out the truth”, the statement of the General Prosecutor's Office also states.
The prosecutor's office says that Mihaela had been examined, during which several traumatic injuries were found, including on the face, cheeks, right eye and nose, where several bruises were observed.
“The provisional conclusions of the medico-legal expertise were attached to the case file, attesting to the fact that MMF had traumatic injuries that could have been caused by hitting with a hard body, injuries that could date from 22.09.2025 and that required 12-14 days of medical care. It is thus noted that although the injuries, at least those on the face, were visible, in the Risk Assessment Form drawn up at at the time of the intervention on 22.09.2025, in the column related to the policeman's findings, no traumatic injuries were found on the victim”, the statement also states.
“After the date of 26.09.2025, the case remained inactive, without using the evidentiary material administered on that date and without proceeding with the administration of other means of evidence, which would have justified the continuation of the criminal prosecution against the MGP, at least in terms of the commission of family violence crimes and non-compliance with the protection order”, says the General Prosecutor's Office.
