La causa por la sustracción de Loan Danilo Peña el 13 de junio en un paraje de 9 de Julio, Provincia de Corrientes sigue en proceso. Hablamos con el abogado de dos de los detenidos.
"La causa está en una meseta"
"No hay avances en la investigación"
"No creo que haya un pacto de silencio"
"No todos los del almuerzo saben lo que pasó"
Si aparece el cuerpo de Loan, hablará"
Seguí en Alerta 24/7
"La causa está en una meseta"
"No hay avances en la investigación"
"No creo que haya un pacto de silencio"
"No todos los del almuerzo saben lo que pasó"
Si aparece el cuerpo de Loan, hablará"
Seguí en Alerta 24/7
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00That agreement has to be done until the trial with the prosecutor and consider it for the moment of establishing the court of trial and then the future sentence.
00:11It is not that they already remove it according to the participation it has, that is, the only thing that is established there are the evidence that the deputy collaborator is going to provide
00:22and check, of course, for that to be reflected in an agreement that is then approved by the judge and at the time of dictating the sentence there is a reduction of the sentence.
00:34Marcelo, what is real today, tangible, with respect to the appearance or the resolution of the Loan case?
00:43Look, unfortunately we are in a, if you want, a plateau because there are no advances that mean the clarification of what happened with the Loan.
00:58Okay, but the plateau can be down or it can be up, depending on where the plateau is. Where are we?
01:06I understand that it is down because too much time has passed and we have not incorporated enough elements to know what actually happened that day,
01:18unless some of those who were at lunch, and notice that I do not say detained, tell what really could have happened.
01:30That is, my question was well understood then.
01:35Note that what I say, that they are at lunch or not, that they are at lunch or not.
01:41I believe more that some of those who were at lunch may break.
01:47Oh yeah?
01:48And it is decided to tell what happened.
01:52Of those who are detained or do you include those who are not detained and participated in lunch too?
01:58I speak of all those who were at lunch.
02:01And Marcelo, sorry, Lucia greets you, how are you?
02:03Do you think they have not broken that pact of silence yet, if so, because they are being threatened or because what they can confess is harmful to a sentence?
02:13Look, I don't believe in the pact of silence. Why?
02:18Because for the pact of silence there would have to be a pre-established plan.
02:23And if there was a plan, not all those at lunch participated, it may be some of them, with which they will never speak.
02:31But for me something happened that made all this, with the coming, become what it seems it is.
02:41It's a bit complicated what I say, but what I'm saying is that for me there are people at lunch,
02:48including Ramírez and Millapi, who do not know what happened.
02:53Okay, I have a question, Marcelo.
02:56How much is the judicial reproach, analyzing the future, right?
03:01Because since the cause is exhausted, put it in evidence.
03:10What I say is, how much is the judicial reproach for the current crime, adding the nullities or the lack of concrete evidence that would arise in the file?
03:25What judicial reproach are we talking about?
03:29Look, we are talking about a criminal scale of 5 to 15 years, because the crime of 146 is subtraction and concealment.
03:39If it cannot be determined who is responsible in such and such measure,
03:46and let's assume that everything is processed and everything ends up condemned,
03:52no one has antecedents.
03:54In the case of the public official, who is the commissioner,
03:58other crimes must be added, which is the cover-up and also hiding evidence and so on.
04:06The lack of evidence.
04:08That criminal scale is closer to the maximum, but for the rest it will be close to the minimum or the minimum.
04:14Close to the minimum, minimum, minimum, with a year already inside.
04:21That is, 5 years will be the minimum.
04:24The two-thirds of the penalty is the two-thirds, right? To start asking for a benefit?
04:32Yes, for the conditional, for the anticipation of freedom, conditional freedom,
04:40the two-thirds are fulfilled, the two-thirds of the sentence.
04:43It's shocking, I mean, if you do the math.
04:45The time they have detained at the time of that computer,
04:50the sentence is fulfilled, that is, they served two years.
04:55That is, we are talking about 5 years, the minimum is 60 months,
04:59that is, with 40 months they would have access to a conditional giving them the minimum.
05:04Why are they going to talk?
05:05And if they do not have antecedents, it is expected that they give the penalty to me.
05:10Okay, that is, why are they going to talk if they know that in a year they are all in the street?
05:14Of course, of course.
05:15Because talking can lead to an even worse criminal act with a greater criminal scale.
05:25So why risk that? That's my theory.
05:28Tremendous.
05:29That's my theory.
05:30In fact, Omar and Marcelo, I think that the defendants,
05:34to those who are now free, it is not convenient for the body to appear,
05:38nor by chance, if it is dead.
05:41Of course, of course.
05:42If we talk about life, great, we applaud everyone,
05:45let everyone be free and come back with the family, I don't care.
05:48But if we talk about a body...
05:50That is relative, Nahuel, because the body always speaks.
05:56An autopsy will determine, whether when it is, but if it appears,
06:01and it is the body of Lohan, it will speak.
06:03Yes, that's fine, but you, for example,
06:05I refuse to tell you what happened to Cecilia Triszoski.
06:11Do you understand?
06:12Yes, but it didn't appear.
06:13Well, they say that piece of bone, that yes, that no,
06:15that it was, that it was not, that this, that the other,
06:17it's over, bye.
06:18And something else, Lohan appeared, let's go with Lohan.
06:20The one who is innocent must be begging, begging,
06:24he is detained, but he must be begging for the body to appear.
06:27Not until now.
06:28The one who is innocent of the detainees.
06:30No, it didn't give me the perception that none of the seven
06:35original defendants, the original detainees,
06:37here those of the Dupuy Foundation,
06:39those of the Dupuy Foundation,
06:41that none have the regret, one speaking with lawyers,
06:44of a person who claims to be innocent.
06:46Because innocence is precisely...
06:48Innocence is not regret.
06:51It is precisely the opposite pole.
06:53If I, you, right?
06:54And here I'm going to use Sacker.
06:57If I put myself in the place of one of the defendants, Omar,
07:01and the cause, you already have it at your fingertips,
07:03Marcelo, the same, I'm going to ask both the same question.
07:06What do you recommend?
07:09Tell me more or less what I saw, what I felt,
07:12what I thought, or stay quiet,
07:15that in a year you're out.
07:17I, particularly, up to this point,
07:20with the cause, with the performances,
07:22I say, sit down and speak the truth, your truth.
07:25Okay, but if that truth is in doubt,
07:27the body appears and whatever,
07:29you're talking about 8 to 25.
07:31That's why.
07:32The strategy is different.
07:34What happens is that here you have to differentiate.
07:36What do we look for?
07:37The truth or do we look for the defense of the defendant?
07:40No, you look for my defense, because the truth has already been lost.
07:42Ah, if I look for your defense, I can use thousands of strategies.
07:46I wouldn't care about the truth.
07:48The one who defends, I don't have to...
07:50I don't have to care about the truth.
07:52The only thing I have to care about is that my defendant...
07:55Demonstrate the innocence of my defendant.
07:58Period.
07:59If I believe my defendant, his innocence,
08:02I'm going to go everywhere.
08:03The truth is sought by the judge.
08:05I don't look for the truth.
08:06Look, you know that I almost never agree with Omar.
08:09I know.
08:10But here he has a point, Omar,
08:12and I value the honesty with which he tells it.
08:14One thing is justice, looking for the truth,
08:17and another thing is a defense lawyer
08:20demonstrating the innocence of his defendant.
08:22Okay.
08:23They are two completely different things.
08:25Okay, I'm going to count on the first one that doesn't happen.
08:27No, no.
08:28Justice never looks for the truth.
08:29It would also be a lack of ethics, of morality,
08:32and even a quasi-crime that I, as a lawyer,
08:34look for the truth of a cause
08:36when my primary function is to defend the person.
08:40Me, Dr. Hanson, or whoever.
08:43No, don't compare yourself with Hanson.
08:47Because Hanson wouldn't defend if he were guilty.
08:51You would.
08:52And that's fine, it's your job.
08:54No, no.
08:55Let's see.
08:56He believes in the innocence of his defendant.
08:59That's why he's defending him.
09:01He doesn't know if he's guilty or innocent.
09:03He understands and believes in the innocence of his defendant.
09:06Can I ask Hanson an elementary question?
09:09All of them.
09:10All of them.
09:11Maybe we shouldn't put it in his place
09:14to speak as a lawyer of the devil,
09:17not a lawyer of a person responsible
09:19for the disappearance of Lohan.
09:21But we can take a step back.
09:23Marcelo, does the judge, Poser-Penso,
09:26have enough elements to make up a story,
09:31to process, let's say,
09:33to make up a story about what happened to Lohan?
09:37Theory of the case.
09:38Theory of the case.
09:39Theory of the case.
09:40There are a lot of gaps to fill in the story
09:45to explain where each of the seven defendants were
09:49at the time of the disappearance
09:51and what the mechanics of the disappearance were.
09:54I imagine that to process it,
09:56you have to explain it or you don't need to.
09:59Wait, because I'm listening.
10:01There's a conversation back there.
10:04Hello, can you hear me?
10:06Yes, we can hear you perfectly.
10:08The case is like this.
10:10The judge, with what he has,
10:12can make it simple and define the role
10:15as he sees fit,
10:17that they all participated,
10:19but the only thing he will conclude
10:21is that Lohan is obviously missing
10:24and hidden.
10:27He can be alive, he can say he knows,
10:30so to speak, if he is alive or not,
10:34he can put together a process.
10:37I'm asking you out of curiosity.
10:39The point is that the evidence he has so far
10:44necessarily leads us to rule out
10:48one of the detainees,
10:50Ramírez and Millapi,
10:52because the evidence he has
10:54indicates that at the time of the disappearance,
10:57Ramírez and Millapi had no idea
11:00where he was or what had happened to the boy.
11:04That's what I'm afraid of, Marcelo.
11:06And the camera will also control that accusation,
11:08that process.
11:09It's fundamental.
11:10That's what I'm afraid of, Marco.
11:12Because so far, everything is fine.
11:14We all know that there is an abduction
11:18of a 13-year-old boy
11:20and that he doesn't show up.
11:22That's what the judge has.
11:25With the evidence that the judge
11:27and the public prosecutor have,
11:30how far can the judicial reproach
11:33of each of the defendants go?
11:36That's it.
11:38That's the great task that the judge has ahead of him.
11:41And that's why the delay is understandable.
11:44The delay because it is precisely not defined
11:48as in the indictment.
11:50For the indictment, it was enough
11:52that everyone was there
11:54and that they had a degree of verisimilitude
11:58to indict them.
12:00But to process,
12:02to finish the role that each one did,
12:04is where it becomes difficult.
12:06Marcelo, do one thing.
12:08Stop, you're going to cut yourself.
12:09You're about to cut yourself.
12:10Let's do it like this.