👉 Un audio grabado durante una conversación revela detalles inquietantes sobre la desaparición de Loan Danilo Peña. Las implicaciones de estas revelaciones podrían cambiar el curso de la investigación. Hablamos con Marcelo Hanson, abogado de "Fierrito" Ramírez y Mónica Millapi, dos de los detenidos.
👉 Seguí en #QuienCuandoDonde #QCD
👉 Seguí en #QuienCuandoDonde #QCD
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Marcelo Hanson, the lawyer of Monica Millapi and Daniel Fierrito Ramírez.
00:05How are you, Marcelo?
00:08Tell us first what you want about these audios and Rodríguez's statement before and after today.
00:18Well, look, we are in the middle of the hearing.
00:22Rodríguez has just finished his statement, now there is a fourth intermediate.
00:26And he is going to declare Erika Torre an officer who depends on him in complex crimes.
00:32So I can't say much about the content because it's an elemental issue.
00:38Of course.
00:39But yes, obviously, these audios are circulating, they are public.
00:45And well, they will be taken into account regarding the veracity of the content and so on.
00:55If you can answer it in the first statement or in today's,
01:00did the commissioner Rodríguez give any explanation about the origin of the audio,
01:05in the sense of who is the one who starts recording the audio in this conversation?
01:13No, he didn't answer, but he didn't give a certain answer either.
01:17I mean, it's like the one who doesn't know.
01:21I mean, it may be that they recorded it without him knowing.
01:24I say because in the statement he tells what Audelina tells him, but he never talks about the audio.
01:29That's why they call him again.
01:31Because the audio appears, I already tell you, in one of the shipments made by this graphologist,
01:37who never did an exam, they tell me in the court, but who had several students,
01:41including Lescano, who would have or would have shared this audio with the rest of the students,
01:47and that is why it is finally presented.
01:49Beyond the fact that there are those who say that this audio had also been brought to the court a few weeks ago,
01:55but so far the official information is this, right?
01:59Yes, I mean, there are many versions of how this audio was made.
02:03The truth is that so far there is nothing clear.
02:07Obviously, the voices, anyone recognizes them,
02:11but whoever is attributed has the right to deny that it is the one who is speaking.
02:18It will depend on a lot of measures that are going to be taken.
02:22All these audios, there are a lot of audios circulating in the press,
02:28that the origin is obviously sometimes difficult to determine,
02:33but if one compares the voices, they hear my voice today,
02:39surely any audio that appears, my voice will be recognized, as much as I deny it.
02:44And Dr. Hanson, now in a little while we are going to do the journalistic exercise,
02:47when you can return to your task of connecting there with the next audience.
02:52We are going to be analyzing the differences, if there are any, between this story,
02:57this audio of Laudelina is clearly her voice, and her interlocutor is Commissioner Rodríguez,
03:03and the statement he made that night in front of the prosecutor,
03:06where Laudelina ends up talking and even describing in detail
03:11the supposed accident or road accident in which they would have hit the baby with the truck.
03:17We are going to analyze to see how much they have of coincidence and how much not.
03:21If this were that someone recorded it, someone from the investigation, or not?
03:26It is strange that having such an important commissioner there,
03:29someone is going to do it without his consent.
03:32Does it have a provisional value, does it have a judicial value?
03:35Because for us it has the value of someone who can be speaking spontaneously,
03:39who does not know that they are recording it, and who comes from being almost lynched.
03:43Then someone says to him, he gives him a little push,
03:46why don't you tell us, Laudelina, what you know, that we are going to take care of you,
03:49it comes from being almost lynched, to her and her daughter,
03:52and that's where it becomes important what she can say.
03:55Would these audios have a provisional value?
04:00Everything has a provisional value, because although it is true that the method,
04:05by how it was obtained, what cannot be unknown is the content,
04:09and obviously to whom it is attributed,
04:11then he will have the right to question or not the way he acquired relevance to that audio.
04:19In any case, it will be one more indication, added to those that already exist in the cause.
04:24And concatenated all this in a chronological way,
04:28they can give us an answer of how it was,
04:30what happened, what happened in Corrientes Capital,
04:34what was first and what was later, it is very important to determine.
04:38I don't know if you want us to change the subject,
04:40I don't want to make Dr. Hanson nervous,
04:41but I would like to ask him later about some of the things that Dr. Gallego said.
04:45Yes, we are going to consult him there.
04:47I wanted to close this chapter on time,
04:51telling you, I say, this that we hear from Laudelina,
04:55runs from the axis at least to the first three who were in the orange, right?
05:00By the content of the audio that is reproduced in the networks,
05:04I would understand that, yes.
05:07So for you it would be an important element,
05:10I say, for your defense of Millapi and Ramírez,
05:13of Benítez, of Ramírez, yes, sorry.
05:16You have always heard me say, Pablo,
05:18that any of the hypotheses, Millapi and Ramírez, have nothing to do with it.
05:24But what catches my attention about this,
05:26is that although Codazzi came here to talk about an accident,
05:30at no time do I hear the word accident being said to Laudelina.
05:34What they do talk about is a braking,
05:36and that supposedly Pérez opens the box and puts something that is supposed to be Loan.
05:46This is supposed to be, according to what we hear, Laudelina herself.
05:53Well, that's why, I mean, there are issues there that are found
05:57in the versions that Codazzi gave periodically,
05:59which is the only one we have,
06:02regarding Laudelina's versions.
06:06In the alleged accident, there are elements that Codazzi incorporates in his statement,
06:11and that Laudelina does not tell us, that's why.
06:14Fortunately, I believe that this will be elucidated in the case
06:19with EXA, where the Codazzi action is investigated.
06:22He always showed us great intellectual honesty,
06:25even in the coincidence, in the difference, in corrections that Dr. Hanson has made to us.
06:30As Pablo said, if it were that the theory of the accident were to gain volume and probationary framework,
06:35not so far,
06:37this is that someone leaving with a large vehicle,
06:40accidentally runs over the little boy, carries him and takes him away,
06:43in principle to give medical attention,
06:45from that situation he would never have returned.
06:47This would excuse them, their clients,
06:53because they are very far from the sequence of that event.
06:56Perhaps they are even the ones who are furthest away, along with Benitez.
07:00However, do you really believe that this is what happened?
07:05I have my doubts about the accident, because as I always said,
07:08they would have to be very stupid,
07:12they intended to hide a guilty accident,
07:16and remain buried in such a cause as the one they have.
07:20But Marcelo, forgive me,
07:22but if it wasn't an accident, and Pérez and Cayllaba simulate an accident,
07:28once they saw them with their hands in the dough,
07:31taking Lohan, then they come back and say,
07:34it was an accident, but in reality it was something else.
07:38If there is no evidence of the accident,
07:40there is no trace of Lohan's DNA on the bumper,
07:44nor under the tire,
07:46and what we do have are contradictions of Pérez and Cayllaba,
07:49and supposedly this statement of a braking...
07:53And the dogs marking the truck.
07:54And the dogs marking the truck, right?
07:56It's okay, it's a valid theory, Pablo, and it can happen,
08:00but also in that case,
08:04our clients, Millapi and Ramírez,
08:06don't have any idea of what happened,
08:09because it happened out of their control,
08:13because they were practically in that place where they would lift the child,
08:18whether they had an accident or not,
08:21they would be at least 500 meters away,
08:24and Monti in between, right?
08:26In the theory of the case that you presented with Dr. Monti,
08:29for the benefit of your clients,
08:30even asking for the lack of merit,
08:32that is, there are no more test elements
08:34to demonstrate your participation in the subtraction of Lohan,
08:39well, the other day we spoke with Dr. Gallego,
08:42and he said that in that theory of the case,
08:46there was practically a confession,
08:49an admission of participation, of guilt,
08:52I even objected to that situation,
08:55I said, I saw the writing,
08:56nowhere do I see that the lawyers are almost considering
09:00that they are delivering to their clients...
09:02Criminal law 1, procedural law 1, there is the answer.
09:06How do you take it, beyond...
09:08Like this, procedural law 1, in the faculty, there is the answer.
09:13It's like a very basic matter,
09:15I don't know if I have to interpret that
09:17some of them are missing to carry it out.
09:18That's why, that's why,
09:19that the lawyer confesses what the client did,
09:22and the truth is, well,
09:23now I understand who made the famous writing
09:25that they asked us to give to our client.
09:28He didn't just sign it,
09:29but now I understand,
09:31I'm understanding who makes the writings.
09:34Good, good.
09:35The one who wants to understand...
09:36You mean the writings of the Querella?
09:39Yes, that's what I mean.
09:40Of course, do you remember that there is a writing
09:42that they asked us to give,
09:44and applying article 34 of the criminal code,
09:48to avoid a greater evil
09:51for a lesser evil,
09:52which was to reveal to our clients
09:54what they have confessed to us.
09:57Now I understand that later he denied it,
09:59he didn't take charge publicly, well,
10:02but I understand that it's like that.
10:05Jorge, Dr. Hanson...
10:07Because if he says,
10:08if he says that the theory of the case
10:10is exposed by the lawyers in the client's confession,
10:13well, I would have to review again
10:16everything I studied in criminal law
10:17and what I learned in these years of profession.
10:20Of course.
10:21Dr. Hanson, how forceful
10:23regarding the declaration of Gallego, right?
10:25I don't even believe in the entrance of the faculty
10:27when I see that.
10:28But I want to go 150 days,
10:31and you just said something
10:32that I've been asking for a long time,
10:35which is, what happened that day,
10:36I call it the Tour de la Duelina,
10:38as you just said, in the capital of Corrientes,
10:41and I see a police officer who says,
10:43I should have taken the complaint,
10:44but I decided not to take it.
10:46And he says,
10:48he would have gotten into the truck,
10:51I mean, we are in the same situation.
10:52A police officer and his assistant,
10:55150 days later,
10:57why do you think they are just declaring
11:00and not from the very moment
11:02that they took Laudelina?
11:05Well, as you would have heard me say,
11:09doctor, that we are defense,
11:13but nevertheless,
11:14those who asked for the statement of this police officer
11:16after no one asked for it,
11:17it was us.
11:21Dr. Hanson, I don't want to make you fight with anyone,
11:23but the other day when we spoke with Dr. Gallego,
11:25I noticed a certain insistence
11:27on the part of Dr. Gallego
11:30to all the time
11:32to allude to the fact that you,
11:33at some point with Dr. Monti,
11:35had defended Ramírez,
11:38Millapi, and also Benítez,
11:41as if that had been extended for a long time
11:44and that was a sign of,
11:47I don't know, a joint armed strategy.
11:51I tried a couple of times to say no,
11:53but that quickly,
11:54where it was seen that there was
11:57a counterposition of interests,
11:59they quickly opted for Ramírez and Millapi.
12:03Why do you think the Cresce permanently points it out,
12:06as if the fate of the three was tied
12:09and you represented the three?
12:13Look, Bobby,
12:14to the Basque you tell him that the soap is butter
12:16and he will keep telling you no.
12:19Tough head.
12:20Today we are,
12:21I tell you, we are for Martin Fierro,
12:23we are for Martin Fierro,
12:25and we are,
12:26in fact, in Jose Ardante's version,
12:27we have Hanson.
12:28It's fine, it's fine,
12:30because he maintains the temple.
12:31And why would they point out
12:33that there would also be a counterposition of interests
12:36between his two defendants,
12:38between the members of the Fierrito-Millapi marriage,
12:42because he also marked it?
12:44But yes, no, Bobby,
12:45that's what I'm telling you,
12:46I mean, on television we can say whatever we want about the subject,
12:48you have to write it down and base it on the file.
12:50So far there hasn't been a single written statement.
12:52Good.
12:52Let's talk about that.
12:54Let's talk about that.
12:55Talking about that,
12:56about what is or is not in the file,
12:58we wanted to show you a clip
13:00of the conversation we had with Pablo.
13:02What caught our attention the most.
13:04What caught our attention the most
13:05because it introduced an element
13:07that we didn't have until now,
13:09which was the possibility of a forgery
13:15prior to...
13:17By another creature.
13:18By another creature.
13:19By another creature, not by Lohan.
13:21Let's listen to the forgery
13:23and we'll keep talking, Marcelo.
13:25Listen.
13:26And I think there is a premeditation.
13:29It is likely that this premeditation
13:30has nothing to do exclusively with Lohan.
13:32Let's not forget that there were other children.
13:34Let's not forget that when Lohan disappears,
13:36a situation of a certain forgery
13:39with another minor appears.
13:41And this also arises from elements of the cause,
13:44in addition to Lohan.
13:45A male and a female,
13:48at least to say it,
13:49very close.
13:50And some more nearby.
13:52But those two very close.
13:54One of those two had an episode
13:57at the time this happened.
14:00Those two little ones, Bobby,
14:01indeed, for justice,
14:03are not only direct witnesses
14:05of Lohan's disappearance,
14:07but they are also victims.
14:08The fact that they are co-opted
14:10and that they cannot express themselves freely,
14:14although they have contributed elements
14:16that the judge has received.
14:19And I think there will be a new contribution soon
14:22to the extent that this new contribution
14:24does not victimize them even more
14:27with everything that has happened.
14:28But these guys are victims.
14:31Well, you were just listening to Juan Pablo Gallego,
14:33exclusively with Quien Cuando Donde,
14:35talking to Bobby and me.
14:37And he puts on the scene
14:39a forgery that we had not heard until now,
14:43which is supposedly in the cause.
14:44I want to ask you, Marcelo.
14:48Look, I assure you that this is not in the cause.
14:52But it was also proven,
14:55even if it is denied by the Querella,
14:57that through their expert,
15:00they have done pseudo-reconstructions
15:04with some minors of the cause
15:07and that Dr. Marini
15:09has asked that this situation be investigated
15:13because there was an express prohibition
15:16for all parties to approach the minors.
15:18So we...
15:19Marcelo, I'm confused because
15:22there are people who are arrested for doing the same.
15:24They detained nine more people,
15:26plus the American,
15:27for a similar situation.
15:29And I somehow told it.
15:30Look, it's not...
15:31I mean, Macarena
15:33and the families
15:35were approached by people
15:37not by the courthouse
15:39sent by Poserpenso, nothing.
15:41They were simply approached by the parties.
15:43You say they tried to do the same
15:45for which the Querella itself
15:47points to the Dupuis.
15:49No, I'm saying that
15:51because
15:53they are trying
15:55to install...
15:57Let's not forget
15:59Piensa,
16:01everything that has been done.
16:03They asked for reconstruction
16:05with the minors, which the judge denied.
16:07They asked for a new Gessel Chamber
16:09which was denied.
16:11I mean, it would be a third Gessel Chamber
16:13which was denied.
16:15And then, even if they pretend to say
16:17that the lawyers and the experts
16:19were the relatives,
16:21it's a mess
16:23that the minor can't handle
16:25and anyone
16:27will know that what they did
16:29was a reconstruction prohibited by the court.
16:31Of course. I understand, Bobby,
16:33that the judge,
16:35Poserpenso,
16:37has a special
16:39concern for this issue with the minors.
16:41Of course.
16:43In fact, do you remember
16:45when that reconstruction was already done
16:47by a psychologist from Tucumán?
16:49Fito himself said
16:51that this can't happen.
16:53And we said,
16:55well, but they are with the mother.
16:57Why can't they go with the mother?
16:59And Fito said, legally,
17:01he said it all at once.
17:03Here, what Dr. Hanson means
17:05is that just as that was done,
17:07which is wrong
17:09because there are rights that protect
17:11the minors,
17:13there are contexts in which
17:15it can be done by one of the parties
17:17but with minors.
17:19Another is to go with a puppy
17:21looking for its owner
17:23and then we'll see
17:25if that has value or not.
17:27But doing it with minors
17:29is particularly sensitive
17:31and delicate
17:33because of the rights,
17:35not to victimize them,
17:37not to take them to a place
17:39where something could have happened
17:41and it could be traumatic
17:44for a lot of reasons.
17:46Now, having said that,
17:48just as it was wrong
17:50when Fito pointed it out,
17:52it's also wrong
17:54if someone shows up
17:56in the house or in the business
17:58to the marriage of Ramírez Millapi
18:00and wants to do the same
18:02with a son or a nephew.
18:04It's also wrong.
18:06I think that's what Dr. Hanson is talking about.
18:08That's why I wanted to explain
18:10that because
18:12there's an idea
18:14that you won't be able to
18:16explain in the report
18:18because you did it all wrong.
18:20You didn't follow the normal path.
18:22Unfortunately,
18:24how to play a match
18:26and score a goal against,
18:28talking about a match
18:30that you like to compare
18:32to the 90th minute,
18:34in this case he scored a goal against
18:36but that forgery
18:38that he refers to,
18:40I think that it can be seen
18:42in the statements of the minors
18:44that he has an ugly face
18:46that he makes before leaving
18:48and that one of the minors
18:50relates.
18:52And I think that
18:54those pseudo-experiments
18:56that the pseudo-dupuis
18:58did to him
19:00talking about falsehoods
19:02also showed up
19:04a famous drawing of the bad man
19:06that represented
19:08pressure, surely.
19:10That's what can be related
19:12to a supposed anger
19:14that Loan had
19:16before retiring.
19:18But forgery
19:20is not in the cause
19:22and if they got it
19:24in some other way
19:26it's a goal against
19:28they won't be able to incorporate it
19:30and it's not incorporated
19:32in any way.
19:34Galleo made it public
19:36or he was wrong
19:38we asked him several times
19:40Yes, the request
19:42excuse me for interrupting you
19:44Pablo also made it public
19:46the request of a future GSE
19:48if the minors are in conditions
19:50and the minors will never be in conditions
19:52because they already did too much damage to them.
19:54We have never talked
19:56with any of the minors
19:58nor with the daughter
20:00of our defendant
20:02nor with the nephews
20:05We have to let the minors live
20:07it was traumatic
20:09for them what happened
20:11and they will have it all their lives
20:13and hopefully it won't bring consequences
20:15in the future.
20:17Dr. Hanson
20:19Galleo said it here
20:21I had a meeting with him
20:23because he said in 5 days
20:25this will be solved
20:27and I told him
20:29that's a lack of respect
20:31to the colleagues
20:33that are missing
20:35that are disturbing
20:37we have to take the hat off
20:39to Dr. Monti
20:41for the things he says
20:43I say
20:45the judge
20:47and you
20:49and you and Dr. Monti
20:51have never filed a complaint
20:53about the amount of things
20:55that Dr. Galleo is saying
20:57that disturb the cause
20:59instead of helping?
21:01Dr. Postelpenso
21:03will take some measures
21:05but we will do
21:07what Monti and I
21:09have been doing for years
21:11but we practice the same philosophy
21:13we don't have to give for the pitot
21:15more than the pitot is worth
21:17How are we today?
21:19Dr. Hanson
21:21I want to ask you about something
21:23that always made noise
21:25about the situation of your clients
21:27I say in favor of them
21:29some actions that if they are true
21:31and are corroborated by technology
21:33they call them
21:35doctors
21:37in the middle of the search
21:39but they are this figure
21:41so rural
21:43that sometimes they are
21:45evident people
21:47healers
21:49someone explains to Ferrito
21:51that he would need
21:53a personal effect
21:55or a photo of the boy
21:57and on the other hand
21:59they invalidate that dialogue
22:01I say nobody who has kidnapped a boy
22:03is making those calls
22:05it's small, it's anecdotal
22:07but it gives me credibility
22:09that they are really desperate
22:11trying to see if they can find him
22:13and another element
22:15that is also
22:17in favor of them
22:19is that nobody is going to kidnap a boy
22:21taking their own boys
22:23that always made a lot of noise
22:26to Lohan or to another boy
22:28who would take
22:30not having the need to do it
22:32not only to his daughter
22:34but also to his nephews
22:36it doesn't close me
22:38even though we know the Pucho clan
22:40but it doesn't close me
22:42I celebrate your reasoning
22:44of common sense
22:46because I understand
22:48that you are not a lawyer
22:50but your reasoning of common sense
22:52that sometimes the cases
22:54are looking at those facts
22:56of what would normally do
22:58someone who is going to commit a crime
23:00he is not going to take his son
23:02he is not going to invite
23:04by chance his nephews
23:06in the case of Mrs. Camila
23:08she would not leave her daughter exposed
23:10to a situation
23:12because she would have to be giving her own daughter
23:14more or less
23:16that would be the plan
23:18that we would have to imagine
23:20because otherwise it could not be otherwise
23:23if someone goes to a plan
23:25of those characteristics
23:27already perjured with previous
23:29because the truth is that
23:31the conclave, the lunch is strange
23:33as to what people gather
23:35some who do not know each other
23:37but I would not go with the boys
23:39that's what I think
23:41now, having said this
23:43if there is something that makes me noise
23:45and I want to transfer it to you
23:47as a question
23:49if he has his brother
23:51would you go to visit him
23:53to the clinic or to the hospital where he is hospitalized?
23:55because the intensive care
23:57they do not let you in
23:59they give you the part
24:01at certain times
24:03and one or two relatives
24:05took turns per day
24:07that day he did not have to go to Ramirez
24:09and he had to go to the stepfather
24:11and the mother
24:13that's why they were there in Goya
24:15because we remember that we have 60 kilometers
24:17and Mrs. Ramirez
24:19Ramirez worked in the morning
24:21and he also had some work to do
24:23let's not forget that
24:25they were living on a daily basis
24:27and they needed to make more money
24:29because they have children to raise
24:31that is, within
24:33what they could
24:35they were aware of the situation
24:37and Mrs. Millapi was worried
24:39because precisely Ramirez
24:41a month before
24:43or about 15 days before
24:45had been consulting
24:47a nurse
24:49for the ailment he had
24:51because in order not to go to the doctor
24:53he went to the nurse
24:55and the nurse told him
24:57you are wasting time
24:59and when it happened to the brother
25:01he was more worried about him
25:03that's why he was
25:05aware that something was happening to him
25:07more than anything to his husband
25:09his brother-in-law had already had the ailment
25:11and he was in intensive care
25:13I reiterate, in intensive care
25:15you can't go in
25:17you have to wait for the medical report
25:19after the visit
25:21it's like you go and put up a guard
25:23there is no other way
25:25and the hospital is in Goya
25:27Goya or Bellavista
25:29now I lost where it was
25:31but it was not in July
25:33You know I was thinking
25:35about Millapi and Ramirez
25:37how are their conditions
25:39at this time of detention
25:41in what situation are they
25:43in a cell or in a pavilion
25:45sharing with others
25:47the truth is that they are in a
25:49paupérrima situation
25:51because they go out very few hours
25:53to the light, they are locked up
25:55for a long time
25:57and it is already affecting them
25:59psychically that situation of confinement
26:01because they are told that for security
26:03to be in that place
26:05but the truth is that it is a place
26:07where it is very isolated
26:09and we have already asked that they be allowed
26:11to interact with another pavilion
26:13where there are apparently people
26:15with good conduct
26:17and others who are not in danger
26:19Marcelo Hanson
26:21lawyer of Ramirez and Millapi
26:23thank you very much for this contact
26:25no, thank you for the time
26:27that they continue well
26:29I was thinking about the question
26:31that Marcelo said about security
26:33you remember that Audelina Peña
26:35was sent from Ceiza to Mendoza
26:37what subject is written
26:39because what does it mean?
26:41it would be that we have to accept tacitly
26:43that an intern cannot be provided
26:45security in a Argentine Republic prison
26:47if you get her out of Ceiza
26:49out of Ceiza