The story of the Brianza Mantis lands on TV. New episode of “A day in court” tonight at 9.20pm on Rai 2: the first degree trial will be broadcast Tiziana Morandi, a 49-year-old originally from Bellusco in the province of Monza who had been accused of robbing some men after drugging them. Morandi was sentenced to 16 years and 5 months in prison and is now awaiting the appeal process. At the end of the sentence, if she were to be confirmed, she was also given 3 years of probation.
Who is the Brianza Mantis?
Morandi was already known to the police for theft and circumvention of incapable person. But in August 2021 the circle of investigations conducted by the Carabinieri and coordinated by the Brianza prosecutor’s office closed on her following the complaint filed by 9 men who claimed to have been drugged and then robbed. The woman defended herself by talking about jealous wives and girlfriends and that in reality it was a big misunderstanding.
The reconstruction of the investigators followed this hypothesis: Morandi would have contacted the men through social networks. When they met at her house, the woman would dissolve some benzodiazepines in their drinks and then took away their cash, credit cards and jewelry. The survivors were aged between 27 and 84 and in at least one case someone even risked their own safety, like a 28-year-old from Trezzo sull’Adda who was so groggy that he lost control of his car when returning from home of the “Mantis”. The complaints earned her 21 charges, including robberyimproper use of credit cards and causing incapacity.
The reasons for the sentence
In April 2024 the reasons of the first degree conviction of Morandi who – according to the sentence – would not have given “no sign of repentance”. The “Mantis” would have acted with “unscrupulous lucidity” and to this it must be added that a certain “criminal seriality“, which would have materialized in “a spy of great social danger”.
It was also highlighted “the coldness of mind with which all the serious crimes were committed”, however, at the same time the woman is excluded
could have acted in this way because of a psychiatric pathologyindeed she was also recognized as a “tendency to manipulation“, as well as the “pervasive criminal capacity”.
