👉 El abogado del caso, Dr. López Carribero, discute el inicio del juicio de Nina, una trabajadora acusada de un crimen. Se mencionan las sospechas sobre la posible implicación de un individuo llamado Del Río y la desaparición de videos de seguridad clave. A pesar de las pruebas circunstanciales, aún no se ha podido confirmar la culpabilidad de ningún sospechoso.
👉 Seguí en #QuienCuandoDonde #QCD
👉 Seguí en #QuienCuandoDonde #QCD
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00I'm here with Dr. López Carribero, the lawyer of the worker in that house, how are you Hugo?
00:07Nina.
00:08Nina.
00:09What a great job he did to free her.
00:10Yes, he defended her a lot.
00:11I want to say that Hugo's messages, permanently, insisting on Nina's innocence, were from the
00:20first moment that he took charge of his defense.
00:23Hugo, how are you?
00:24Good afternoon.
00:25Hello, good afternoon.
00:26Nice to talk to you.
00:29Well, the trial began, Nina did not want to be in front of her.
00:35How far have you advanced and what do you think happened here?
00:40Well, we, with my team of collaborators, we limit ourselves in this case to solving
00:49the situation of Ms. Nina.
00:51Yes.
00:52We have never ventured to give an opinion, let's say, about the guilt of El Río.
01:01Sorry, but Nina said it was him.
01:03I mean, I don't know if it's a technical job.
01:06No, no, no.
01:07Nina didn't say that.
01:08No, no.
01:09No.
01:10Nina said exactly the opposite.
01:11She said, I can't say that he pressed the trigger.
01:12She said it like that, right?
01:13But what she did say, that's why, in this case, I don't know if it's a technical
01:19job, but what she did say, that's why in this conversation it can be clarified, is
01:26that he is the one who walks down the street.
01:30That's what she said, that's what she said.
01:32But she didn't say that El Río did it.
01:34No, no, she didn't see him pressing the trigger.
01:36Nobody saw him either, but the evidence leads him to walk down this sidewalk that Fito
01:40leads us.
01:41Hugo, I'm going to ask you a question.
01:43That's why I say, but Fito.
01:45But he never accused him as the author of the fact, right?
01:48No.
01:49She said, look, they show me a video, I understand that this person is Martín del Río,
01:55who wears the father's bust.
01:57Of course.
01:58Exactly.
01:59I washed that bust and ironed it every week.
02:02Excuse me, Hugo.
02:03Excuse me.
02:04He didn't say he was the killer, but almost.
02:08If he's saying he had the bust, that person who came out.
02:11Hugo, I'm going to ask you a question.
02:13But that's why I say, he answered the questions he was asked and he was never asked about
02:20the authorship, right?
02:22Of course.
02:23He never said, well, tell me who is the author of this double homicide, right?
02:31Hugo, Fito Baquet.
02:33Hugo, Fito Baquet, how are you?
02:36I just congratulated your work with Nina.
02:40My question is, do I remember wrong or did Nina say she heard noises in the room above
02:47when she arrived that day to work?
02:50No, she never said that.
02:52No, no, she never said that.
02:54I can tell you because, look, excuse me for talking about me, right?
02:58But I know the cause of memory, right?
03:01From the beginning, from the first day we went to Nina's lawyers and I can also tell you
03:07that just on the ninth day, on the ninth day that Nina was arrested, the suspicion against Martín del Río began to arise.
03:17Before, there was no suspicion against Martín del Río.
03:20And why? Why does the suspicion appear?
03:23Well, it started because these videos were collected, which you pointed out very well, right?
03:30And the first one who recognized him as Martín del Río in that video was precisely the brother.
03:39Then Nina came.
03:41Then Nina came.
03:43Nina came later, she came in an extension of her statement a long time later.
03:48But she was arrested.
03:50Okay, but she was arrested for 14 days, pointed out at least as a participant or at least that she had helped the murderer or the murderers.
03:59I remember it perfectly and it was your insistence of permanent innocence, right?
04:04Of course, because even yesterday, let's say, Dr. López Carribero, yesterday also, when declaring a police expert there,
04:13he also made it clear that they met as a staged scene that made them boast, as a first hypothesis,
04:20where the house is, an area, in addition, of very beautiful houses, of people of high purchasing power, there in the northern area, in Vicente López.
04:29Everything made them boast that there had been a robbery attempt and that perhaps,
04:34having been surprised by the criminal or the criminals with the residents of the house or vice versa,
04:40the situation of murder had been given out there.
04:43Rare, rare, the place where they were dead, right?
04:47That it was not a surprising situation in the middle of a living room, of a room,
04:51but the two victims sitting in a vehicle, right?
04:55And practically executed.
04:57Now, from that scenario, that initial scenario,
05:01Yes, he put the suspicion on Nina as someone, and in that he put a little bit of Ficha Martín del Río,
05:08Martín del Río, oriented some suspicions there,
05:11as Nina had facilitated the entrance and that perhaps the criminals, some could have been a son, had entered.
05:18In that, in that, it is very true what you point out, I give you the right, as is usually said, right?
05:26And reinforcing what you say, it is not as you point out, as Martín del Río put Fichas,
05:34no, he put Fichas, it's not like ...
05:36Ah, yes, directly.
05:38He put it directly, he said, yes, yes, yes, that yes.
05:41What I can say is that Nina never ventured to accuse Martín del Río of the deaths, right?
05:47He never did that.
05:49Now, and to do this, Nina was in prison for 13 days, and I insist on this, right?
05:56Only on the ninth day, and in the fifth testimonial statement of Martín del Río, already in the prosecution,
06:03the prosecutors began to have, and we ourselves, right?
06:06We could not say it publicly, because otherwise the investigation would fail.
06:11They began to have, only on the ninth day, suspicions against Martín del Río, right?
06:16Against the younger son.
06:17Yes, I thought, excuse me, Hugo, excuse me, maybe you can help us with this,
06:22because I remember one of the inquiries, one of the inquiries that were made.
06:27The woman, Martín del Río's mother, had hair in her hands, as if the hair had been plucked.
06:33Yes, correct.
06:34How would the mechanics of what happened in that car be?
06:37I'm going to explain it like this.
06:40That hair that was plucked was intended to be inquired about.
06:44Yes.
06:45What happened is that the forensic experts established that the hair, unfortunately, did not have a bulb, right?
06:55So it could not be established whether it belonged to a man or a woman.
07:01Of course.
07:02First, it could not be established whether it belonged to a man or a woman.
07:05It was hair, but it was worn out, it was very fine hair, and it was not appropriate to be inquired about, right?
07:13Of having been inquired about that hair, which you point out very well, it would have been a very important advance in the cause,
07:19but it could not be inquired about because the material was insufficient.
07:22And who do you think happened? Why did he have hair?
07:25If it was his, why?
07:27And if it was Martín del Río's, how would he have done if he was shot in the back?
07:32That could never be known.
07:34How incredible.
07:35I insist on this, right? And his lightning.
07:38It could not even be known whether it was a man's or a woman's.
07:41So there was always a problem.
07:44That hair was reserved in the overcoat of the prosecution, but it never served as a police element.
07:52Fito, and I also incorporate it, in the theory of the case, of the accusation,
07:57what is the idea?
07:59That the homicide executes them, shoots them from the back seat of the vehicle,
08:04and what does the prosecution believe?
08:07That it is Martín del Río supposedly leaving, all above the car, because they were there.
08:12Simulating the exit to the chateau.
08:14Because they are going to go out to see supposedly the apartment bought, which was never bought.
08:18Is that the theory of the case?
08:20No, they don't put it as if they were going to go to ...
08:23Because what you say, in the theory of the case, you have to prove it.
08:26Of course.
08:27So, since you are not going to be able to prove what they were doing in the car,
08:32Not even with the previous messages of conversations where they said they were going to look for him.
08:35Let's see, in the theory of the case, if I'm going to prove it,
08:38judges who were murdered, they said by the name of the two, of the parents of del Río,
08:45who were murdered from behind and the economic mobile,
08:49then they pass, they do not specify in the theory of the case if they were going to buy or not,
08:54because you prove something, because you say something,
08:58and then you can't prove it, the defense grabs on to that and starts throwing, throwing, throwing.
09:02I understand, I understand.
09:03But clearly, in the theory of the case yesterday,
09:07they exposed that it had been Martín del Río, the murderer,
09:11and that he had executed them from behind his parents.
09:14There were also some security camera videos that also disappeared from the house,
09:22and supposedly del Río himself had thrown them in one of his apartments here in the capital.
09:26He went for a walk and threw some elements in a dump.
09:31Exactly, that is the degree of suspicion, exactly, yes, yes, it is correct.
09:35That is the degree of suspicion that arises from a recording coming out and entering.
09:40Has this material been able to be recovered or not?
09:45No, no.
09:46It has never been recovered.
09:47Never, never.
09:48There were witnesses who saw him go out and throw things in the dump.
09:52Now, it would be strange if it were true.
09:54There is no certainty that it was his duty, right?
09:59Of course.
10:00But there is a fairly certain presumption that may be useful to the jurors,
10:05that it is enough for them, right?
10:07Now, look, it is true that the two victims, the man and the woman,
10:18were, let's say, victims of the double homicide inside the car, right?
10:23The shots occur inside the car.
10:25And it is very true that the murderer, or the homicide, sat back,
10:29he sat in the back seat, because the ballistics say that,
10:33and they say it clearly, right?
10:35There is no room for doubt.
10:37What the defense establishes is that it is not proven that the one who sat in the back seat
10:42was Martin del Río.
10:44Of course, of course.
10:45They even put other hypotheses, right?
10:48It could have been two people.
10:50It could have been a woman.
10:52It could have been a man and a woman.
10:54It could have been two men, two women.
10:57That is, it is not proven that he was the one who sat in the back seat.
11:01Very good. Hugo López Carribero, Nina's lawyer.
11:04Thank you for this contact.
11:06Well, I greet you with all my appreciation. Thank you very much.
11:09Thank you very much.
11:10Fito, what a case this is, because the truth has everything.
11:13And there are other elements of doubt, because it is strange that, in effect,
11:16it eliminates, if it were Martin del Río, right?
11:18The DVR does not make disappear, for example, the homicide weapon,
11:22which they later end up finding.
11:23It appears in the country.
11:25In the country, in the house of the brother.
11:26Yes.
11:27That's why they point out, right?
11:29They try to get there.
11:31They go that way.
11:33I think what complicates it are the chats.
11:40If you don't explain the chats well ...
11:44With the real estate agent and the family.
11:46Of course.
11:47But with the move-in, right? With the move-in.
11:49And with the father.
11:50And with the father.
11:51Because the chats with the father, I think that's the key.
11:54If you don't explain that, you're doomed.
11:57You're doomed if you don't explain that the father ...
12:01Because if he manages to prove that the father was a whole simulacrum
12:04and that he was an accomplice to deceive the mother and what do I know,
12:07well, he's going to be able to get out unscathed.
12:10If he doesn't manage to prove that issue, it's very difficult,
12:14beyond the audios, beyond the video.
12:19The fact of throwing the DVR is anecdotal.
12:23He's going to take it and he's going to throw it right there.
12:25That is, he throws it in the past, anywhere.
12:28What the defense also says is that if someone had been premeditating it
12:34and it hadn't been him, having seen that he had made that path,
12:38grabs someone to imitate the path,
12:42so that the investigators just find it, all that path, and they can go back.
12:47What a window he's going to open.
12:48But that someone can't be the brother,
12:51it just has to be the person who accompanied him to do the same route.
12:54Which is the woman.
12:55No, if I'm chasing you, no.
12:57If I'm walking you, as they say in the war, if I'm watching ...
13:01Let's remember that Martín del Río leaves his truck, his car, in the capital,
13:06and then he takes a walk on foot to the place.
13:09The truth is that this clearly shows a premeditation too.
13:12Well, in case it is proven, obviously ...
13:14In case it is proven.
13:15Let's see, he has premeditated that it was not with his cell phone,
13:18because he left his cell phone in the car.
13:20And he has no activity in that period.
13:22Listen, one of the judges' questions, I'm going to tell you, in El Boardin,
13:25was, do you usually leave your phone far from where you are,
13:32and for a long time remain without the phone?
13:35Everyone said no.
13:36Cell phone.
13:37The cell phone.
13:38Everyone said no.
13:39There was a 64-year-old man, an accountant who was chosen by the jury,
13:44who said, I'm not a very expert, but no.
13:47Chiribín has it complicated, in this case, I think, beyond all the effort he makes.
13:51Chiribín is with a client.
13:52He has it complicated.