👉 En comunicación, el abogado José Codazzi sostiene: "Ocultaron el accidente por la carrera política de Caillava".
"La familia va a tener que responder"
"Macarena se puso de novia con "El Americano"
"Macarena también declaró que hubo accidente"
👉 Seguí en #AndinoYLasNoticias
"La familia va a tener que responder"
"Macarena se puso de novia con "El Americano"
"Macarena también declaró que hubo accidente"
👉 Seguí en #AndinoYLasNoticias
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00with reference to what could be the future of the people who are in prison.
00:04Of course, they appealed the trial.
00:06All the lawyers who represent each of the seven detainees,
00:10those who were in the farm on June 13,
00:14and the commissioner who participated in the search, Maciel,
00:17now the judge will have to determine,
00:20it can be thought, he has a lot of time to determine it,
00:23if he goes back with that trial.
00:25Serious errors in the 1075 sheets of the self-trial,
00:29says one of the lawyers, there are errors in the resolution,
00:32does not follow a chronological order,
00:34discards hypotheses and holds a conclusion of his abduction and accident.
00:38Let's see, that's the last of the cause.
00:41But in turn there is another cause,
00:43which is connected with the Loan cause,
00:47which is the cause that has to do with what happened to Laudelina that night,
00:51where they transfer her and allegedly press her to speak and give a version,
00:56the version of the boot.
00:58Precisely, we are with José Codazzi,
01:01who was Laudelina Peñaqueta's lawyer.
01:04Dr. Codazzi, thank you for attending us, good morning.
01:07Hello, how are you? Good morning and say hello to you
01:11and to the people who share the squad.
01:14Thank you very much.
01:15Let's see, Dr. Codazzi, in principle I want to go from the general to the particular.
01:19We said 180 days without news,
01:23at least regarding the Loan, where it is,
01:27where it could be.
01:29What is your reflection on this?
01:31Why don't we know anything yet?
01:34And well, the truth is that around there you have to understand the judicial deadlines,
01:38they are not the same as the deadlines that one normally handles.
01:42We have a great advance in the cause,
01:44we have the last writing of the judge,
01:48there are 1075 pages,
01:50it is a writing, the truth is that it is very extensive,
01:53it is practically a book.
01:54So out there there are people who criticize it lightly
01:57and well, I would invite you to sit down to write 10 pages
02:00to see how they do it,
02:02but the truth is that it is very forceful,
02:05you have to sit down to read in detail
02:07and basically it comes to claim the hypothesis of the accident.
02:12This professional who is talking to you was the only professional
02:16who held from the beginning
02:19one more hypothesis of the 7 or 8 that were handled
02:22and today the case is basically leaning
02:27on the hypothesis of the accident.
02:29Doctor, this is important, right?
02:31Because some minimized the hypothesis of the accident
02:35by thinking that why it was not quickly denounced
02:38and we would not have this case with detainees
02:41speculating with a mafioso humor
02:44regarding the disappearance or kidnapping of Loan,
02:48something that other colleagues of yours support.
02:50Why do you circumscribe it to a lamentable accident
02:54that ends Loan's life,
02:57a fact that is tried to hide?
02:59Let's see, why don't you give us more details of this, doctor?
03:01And in this case, who was the protagonist of this accident?
03:04In reality, the details are given in the 1075 pages,
03:07they are very abundant, very detailed.
03:10I have no problem doing it,
03:12but the truth is that it is for an entire program
03:15if you want, or an hour of program,
03:17to give details from moment to moment
03:20of the geolocation of each one,
03:22the different facts, the different evidence
03:24and evidence that is already produced.
03:26Yes, but doctor, you are used to making a long story on short television.
03:30I speak to you from lunch, from the famous photo
03:33to the disappearance of Loan.
03:36What are the three or four steps that you could describe
03:39that lead to the hypothesis of the accident?
03:42Well, the first big step
03:45so that people at home can understand it is
03:48the judges inclined to the theory of the accident.
03:50Yes?
03:51Today there are still professionals
03:53who do not want to accept this theory,
03:55of which we have precisely Dr. Hanson,
03:59that to this professional,
04:01to me personally,
04:02it strikes me powerfully
04:04that if he is a defense lawyer of two people
04:06and the hypothesis of the accident
04:08favors him 100%
04:10and not only does he not accept it,
04:12he fights the hypothesis of the accident.
04:16So there is no defensive strategy for his clients.
04:19There are other purposes.
04:21And that is why I personally understand
04:23that there are political purposes,
04:25there are economic purposes
04:26that are getting into the cause
04:28and that is what leads to the delay
04:30of the investigation even more
04:32and therefore the outcome
04:34of the completion of an investigation.
04:39Responding to your question,
04:42I will summarize your question in three questions.
04:47The first strong evidence
04:49is that we have DNA test
04:51of a male,
04:52of a male human being
04:54in the internal part of the mudguard of the truck.
04:57We have patent deformation,
04:59we have mudguard scratch
05:00and there is a blow at the bottom
05:03that today everyone knows
05:04that the plasters below are plastic.
05:06So many say the DNA did not coincide.
05:09Well, yes,
05:10that final result has not yet been reached,
05:12but today we have the strong evidence
05:15of a DNA that makes you win or lose a case
05:17that is male DNA,
05:19that is, male human DNA.
05:21That is in the file,
05:23that is already approved.
05:24So you will tell me,
05:25who is driving his car
05:27with human blood?
05:29The first question.
05:31Now, another strong evidence,
05:33we have evidence number one.
05:35Many professionals also ignore
05:37the work of the number one,
05:40the creator of discipline in Argentina
05:42and very recognized in the world,
05:44which is the odontology test.
05:46There we have Mr. Rosillo,
05:48he is an authority,
05:49he is a person who solved
05:51hundreds of cases in the country
05:54and in the world.
05:56He even works for the FBI.
05:58So we have a strong evidence
06:00that, well, I always said it,
06:01don't believe,
06:02don't believe anyone,
06:04don't believe the people,
06:05the relatives,
06:06don't believe the witnesses,
06:07but believe the dogs.
06:08The dogs don't lie
06:09and the dogs don't bribe.
06:11So if the dog...
06:12Yes, let's see.
06:13I close the idea for you.
06:14Yes.
06:15I close you there and I leave you.
06:16Yes.
06:17If the dog gives you 100%
06:19of the smell of Lohan
06:21in the truck that was at lunch,
06:23well, it's a pretty strong evidence
06:27at the time of a future trial.
06:29But if it gives you 100%
06:31of the smell of Lohan in the car,
06:33in the red Ford car,
06:35which did not participate in the lunch
06:37and therefore there is no way
06:38for the marriage to explain
06:39how the smell of the baby
06:41got to the car,
06:43then it is also a very strong evidence
06:45at the time of a future debate
06:47that, well,
06:48they are going to have to revert
06:49precisely the Pérez Caillabas marriage
06:51because it is a more than sufficient evidence.
06:53A strong doctor would be
06:55whoever was his defendant at the time,
06:57Laudelina Peña,
06:58of an accident theory
06:59and then doesn't give up
07:01and talks about pressure.
07:03No, no.
07:04You know what?
07:05What happens is that people like you
07:07are not understanding out there
07:09the set of everything that is
07:11evidence and evidence.
07:12You completely omit
07:14that Laudelina Peña
07:16made three statements.
07:18One was made before the prosecutor's office
07:20of the province of Corrientes
07:22making a complaint.
07:24Another statement that you don't have
07:26and I don't know why it wasn't leaked,
07:28because they leak all the information
07:29but in this case they didn't leak it.
07:30Three or four days later
07:31she made a statement
07:32before the federal judge,
07:34the federal prosecutors,
07:35the prosecutors of PROPTEC.
07:36She made a statement
07:37of almost three and a half hours.
07:38She answered more than 80 questions
07:40and it was consistent
07:41with what she stated
07:42in the prosecutor's office
07:43of the province of Corrientes.
07:44And in turn,
07:45an audio was leaked now.
07:46So we have three statements
07:48coincident against one,
07:50a supposed,
07:52because I say supposed
07:53because later it was proven
07:54that it was said
07:56of certain sayings
07:58but based on what?
07:59Based on the fact
08:00that it was poached
08:01by a group of fake dupuis,
08:03fake lawyers,
08:04fake experts.
08:05So,
08:06that is completely omitted.
08:08And I'm going to give you
08:09a conclusive fact
08:10that no one knows.
08:11It would be a scoop
08:12for your show.
08:13Let's see.
08:14The same day,
08:15the same day,
08:16that is,
08:17you know it
08:18but no one says it.
08:19The same day
08:20that she declares
08:21on July 5
08:22Mrs. Laudelina Peña
08:24before the federal judge
08:26and the federal prosecutors,
08:27in the federal court,
08:29the same day,
08:30surprisingly,
08:31the daughter Macarena
08:33declares,
08:34she,
08:35on her own,
08:36I don't know,
08:37until now we don't know how it was,
08:38declares to the federal police
08:40and also makes the story
08:42of a possible accident.
08:44She voluntarily,
08:46spontaneously,
08:48goes and declares
08:49at the same time
08:50that she was declaring to the mother
08:51without the consent of the mother
08:53or mine
08:54because we didn't know anything,
08:56she was declaring the same thing.
08:57Then,
08:58a few days later,
08:59when the fake American intervenes
09:01who became a boyfriend
09:03with this girl Macarena
09:04and they were in a sentimental relationship
09:06and the fake Upo came in
09:08and they put him all
09:09in a hotel that was not authorized,
09:11there Macarena and the mother
09:13are misled.
09:14Did they convince them,
09:15you say, doctor?
09:16What?
09:17Did they convince them to mislead themselves?
09:18To benefit who?
09:19No, no.
09:20I don't make those statements.
09:23You make your own conclusions.
09:24No, we are inspired
09:25by what you say, doctor.
09:27So,
09:28when you release the news
09:30or when you release the information,
09:31give it in the context
09:33in which the news was given
09:34and in the context
09:35in which the rectification was given.
09:36So,
09:37it's very easy today
09:39to completely omit
09:40that Mr. Vera
09:41had several interviews
09:43in a truck
09:44alone with Mrs. Macarena
09:45and well,
09:46make your conclusions.
09:48How are you not going to say
09:49or how are you not going to change your strategy?
09:50Doctor,
09:51how does the governor say
09:53putting a tweet
09:54saying that the case is closed
09:57and then
09:58he goes back
09:59and the case
10:00continues today
10:01in a nebula?
10:03Let's say,
10:04was there a firm theory
10:05and were there consistent proofs?
10:07Because there aren't.
10:08People
10:09like you
10:10are the ones who hinder the investigation.
10:11But don't personalize with me, doctor.
10:13I'm just asking for the cause.
10:16Why do you personalize with me
10:17if you don't know me?
10:19And I'll tell you why.
10:20You don't even know my name, doctor.
10:21You mix politics
10:22with what is judicial.
10:24So, if you have...
10:25And it's linked.
10:26The governor closes the case
10:27with a tweet.
10:28Well,
10:29if you let me finish,
10:30if you let me finish...
10:31Please, doctor.
10:32I apologize.
10:33I am respectful
10:34when it comes to questions.
10:35I listen to them
10:36and I let them finish.
10:37Now,
10:38if you have any questions
10:39regarding the governor
10:41or his sayings,
10:42the person who will answer that
10:43is the governor himself.
10:45I answer for my actions
10:46and for my sayings.
10:47Yes?
10:48My defensive strategy
10:51was very good
10:52until today.
10:54So good
10:55that today
10:56the only hypothesis
10:57that is standing
10:58is the hypothesis
10:59of the accident.
11:00So,
11:01all those famous lawyers
11:03who mediatized the situation
11:06and talked about the case,
11:07while we don't have
11:08a single proof
11:09or evidence
11:10until today.
11:11Yes.
11:12So,
11:13you ask me a legal question
11:15and I answer you legally.
11:17This is simple.
11:18It was an accident
11:19that the pieces are being assembled
11:21and that the puzzle
11:22will end
11:23with the perpetual sentence
11:26of both the marriage
11:27and the doctors.
11:28Yes, doctor.
11:29Or they helped with that.
11:31Yes.
11:32Let's see.
11:33I ask you,
11:34what happened then
11:35with Lohan's body?
11:37Was it discarded
11:38on a trip between July 9
11:40and Chaco?
11:42Between July 9
11:43and a trip somewhere?
11:44What happened
11:45with Chiquito's body?
11:46No, no.
11:47I tell you,
11:48I'm not the owner of the truth.
11:50I just give you my hypothesis.
11:52Yes, of course.
11:53Yes?
11:54I wish I knew everything.
11:57There is no Correntino here
11:58in the province of Corrientes
11:59who does not want to solve the case
12:01and therefore find Lohan
12:02either with life or without life.
12:03Yes?
12:04Yes, yes.
12:05Well,
12:06what you have to have
12:07is a true fact here.
12:08When the marriage
12:09of Perez Caillaba
12:10leaves Mrs. Catalina's house,
12:13it reaches her house
12:15and there is a fact
12:16that is not mentioned either.
12:17He turns off his cell phone.
12:18That is,
12:19since he bought his cell phone
12:20three, three and a half years ago,
12:21Mr. Perez never turned off
12:22his cell phone.
12:23Yes?
12:24He turns off his cell phone
12:26and disconnects it
12:27from the satellite
12:29and from there
12:31at 43 minutes,
12:3343, 44 minutes
12:34he turns it on again.
12:36What he says,
12:37what I think is this.
12:38In those 44 minutes,
12:40he had 22 minutes
12:41that he leaves with the baby
12:42that he loaded in the car,
12:43the Ford Ka.
12:44It is my personal hypothesis.
12:46He discards the body,
12:48in 22 minutes
12:49he returns to the place
12:50and there he turns on the cell phone.
12:51He always had the cell phone with him,
12:53but he had turned it off
12:55for a matter of any emergency,
12:56any, I don't know.
12:58The person took the cell phone
12:59but turned it off
13:00so that they don't track him
13:01where he went.
13:02That is my hypothesis.
13:03My hypothesis is that
13:05Mr. Perez
13:06discarded the body
13:07in 44 minutes
13:08that he had turned off the phone,
13:10which is surprising.
13:11And, well,
13:14until now,
13:15they gave me the reason
13:16that the lagoons
13:17were not tracked
13:18as they should be
13:19and, well,
13:20it is a matter of search.
13:21Doctor, let's see.
13:22So, one wonders,
13:23and I think
13:24it is the twentieth time
13:25that I ask this,
13:26why not say from the beginning
13:28that they ran over the little one.
13:31Culpable homicide.
13:32Of course,
13:33in a context
13:34of what would be
13:35a culpable homicide.
13:36The answer is very simple
13:37and I said it
13:38countless times.
13:39It is very easy
13:40to talk to the newspaper
13:41of the next day.
13:42Here we were talking
13:43about a winery
13:44full of wines
13:45they drank all morning.
13:46Mr. Perez
13:47was drunk
13:48and, therefore,
13:49no insurance
13:50will cover
13:51a person
13:52who was drunk.
13:53We are talking
13:54about 50 to 60 million pesos
13:56average
13:57of a child
13:58compensation
13:59in his case.
14:00Also,
14:01it was added
14:02today
14:03in the 1075 pages
14:04a psychiatric report,
14:06no,
14:07psychological
14:08psychological
14:09sorry,
14:10I correct myself,
14:11where he realizes
14:12that he is a very
14:13diligent person
14:14and that he was not going
14:15to allow a stain
14:16on his leg.
14:17In addition
14:18to the fact
14:19that the most
14:20potable candidate
14:21was Mrs. Caillava,
14:22his wife,
14:23who was inside
14:24with her in the truck.
14:25So,
14:26who is going to vote
14:27a person
14:28who had an accident
14:29and, in his case,
14:30killed a person
14:31in an accident,
14:32a child?
14:33Nobody.
14:34So,
14:35one adds
14:36different factors
14:37and says,
14:38he was drunk,
14:39he made a very
14:40bad decision
14:41of wanting to hide
14:42the accident,
14:43and, well,
14:44they unchain.
14:45Who would have thought
14:46that all
14:47national media
14:48were going to focus
14:49on a city
14:50of so few inhabitants
14:51on July 9,
14:52that,
14:53the truth is that
14:54nobody expected
14:55that repercussion,
14:56both media,
14:57legal,
14:58political,
14:59economic,
15:00that happened.
15:01Nobody,
15:02but nobody,
15:03not even the most
15:04important forecaster
15:05of the country
15:06can tell you that.
15:07At that point,
15:08sorry,
15:09I don't remember
15:10what happened,
15:11but...
15:12It was a cold day
15:13in the neighborhood.
15:14But,
15:15in that I agree
15:16in that,
15:17maybe,
15:18in the framework
15:19of the power
15:20that these people
15:21held,
15:22they never thought
15:23that the case
15:24would be nationalized,
15:25but this
15:26ends up
15:27happening,
15:28right?
15:29So,
15:30I mean,
15:31we have an accident,
15:32but we don't have
15:33the body,
15:34they did
15:35rafting,
15:36but they
15:37didn't
15:38finish
15:39rafting
15:40the whole area,
15:41which
15:42sounds ridiculous
15:43to us,
15:44because of the magnitude
15:45that the case
15:46takes later,
15:47that today there is
15:48a centimeter
15:49without having
15:50rafted.
15:51I mean,
15:52an accident
15:53without the body.
15:54Do you understand me,
15:55Dr. Basi?
15:56I understand,
15:57but there is also
15:58a resolution
15:59of the judge
16:00in which
16:01the rafting
16:02is authorized
16:03to the provincial
16:04forces
16:05at their cost
16:06so that
16:07they can
16:08empty the
16:09different lagoons,
16:10because there are
16:11four large
16:12lagoons
16:13that are
16:14attached
16:15to the
16:16Perez Cayllaba
16:17field.
16:18So,
16:19he is realizing
16:20that the
16:21rafting
16:22of the
16:23water
16:24was not
16:25done
16:26in depth,
16:27it was not
16:28done
16:29correctly.
16:30So,
16:31until that
16:32possible search
16:33in the
16:34lagoons
16:35is not
16:36possible
16:37to
16:38find
16:39a
16:40solution
16:41to
16:42the
16:43problem
16:44of
16:45the
16:46rafting
16:47of the
16:48Perez
16:49Cayllaba
16:50field.
16:51So,
16:52he is
16:53realizing
16:54that there
16:55is
16:56no
16:57solution
16:58to
16:59the
17:00problem
17:01of
17:02the
17:03rafting
17:04of the
17:05Perez
17:06Cayllaba
17:07field.
17:08So,
17:09he is realizing
17:10that there
17:11is no
17:12solution
17:13to the
17:14problem
17:15of the
17:16rafting
17:17of the
17:18Perez
17:19Cayllaba
17:20field.
17:21So,
17:22he is realizing
17:23that there
17:24is no
17:25solution
17:26to the
17:27problem
17:28of the
17:29rafting
17:30of the
17:31Perez
17:32Cayllaba
17:33field.
17:34So,
17:35he is realizing
17:36that there
17:37is no
17:38solution
17:39to the
17:40problem
17:41of the
17:42rafting
17:43of the
17:44Perez
17:45Cayllaba
17:46field.
17:47So,
17:48he is realizing
17:49that there
17:50is no
17:51solution
17:52to the
17:53problem
17:54of the
17:55rafting
17:56of the
17:57Perez
17:58Cayllaba
17:59field.
18:00So,
18:01he is realizing
18:02that there
18:03is no
18:04solution
18:05to the
18:06problem
18:07of the
18:08rafting
18:09of the
18:10Perez
18:11Cayllaba
18:12field.
18:13So,
18:14he is realizing
18:15that there
18:16is no
18:17solution
18:18to the
18:19problem
18:20of the
18:21rafting
18:22of the
18:23Perez
18:24Cayllaba
18:25field.
18:26So,
18:27he is realizing
18:28that there
18:29is no
18:30solution
18:31to the
18:32problem
18:33of the
18:34rafting
18:35of the
18:36Perez
18:37Cayllaba
18:38field.
18:39So,
18:40he is realizing
18:41that there
18:42is no
18:43solution
18:44to the
18:45problem
18:46of the
18:47rafting
18:48of the
18:49Perez
18:50Cayllaba
18:51field.
18:52So,
18:53he is realizing
18:54that there
18:55is no
18:56solution
18:57to the
18:58problem
18:59of the
19:00rafting
19:01of the
19:02Perez
19:03Cayllaba
19:04field.
19:05So,
19:06he is realizing
19:07that there
19:08is no
19:09solution
19:10to the
19:11problem
19:12of the
19:13rafting
19:14of the
19:15Perez
19:16Cayllaba
19:17field.
19:18So,
19:19he is realizing
19:20that there
19:21is no
19:22solution
19:23to the
19:24problem
19:25of the
19:26rafting
19:27of the
19:28Perez
19:29Cayllaba
19:30field.
19:31So,
19:32he is realizing
19:33that there
19:34is no
19:35solution
19:36to the
19:37problem
19:38of the
19:39rafting
19:40of the
19:41Perez
19:42Cayllaba
19:43field.
19:44So,
19:45he is realizing
19:46that there
19:47is no
19:48solution
19:49to the
19:50problem
19:51of the
19:52rafting
19:53of the
19:54Perez
19:55Cayllaba
19:56field.
19:57So,
19:58he is realizing
19:59that there
20:00is no
20:01solution
20:02to the
20:03problem
20:04of the
20:05rafting
20:06of the
20:07Perez
20:08Cayllaba
20:09field.
20:10So,
20:11he is realizing
20:12that there
20:13is no
20:14solution
20:15to the
20:16problem
20:17of the
20:18rafting
20:19of the
20:20Perez
20:21Cayllaba
20:22field.
20:23So,
20:24he is realizing
20:25that there
20:26is no
20:27solution
20:28to the
20:29problem
20:30of the
20:31rafting
20:32of the
20:33Perez
20:34Cayllaba
20:35field.
20:36So,
20:37he is realizing
20:38that there
20:39is no
20:40solution
20:41to the
20:42problem
20:43of the
20:44rafting
20:45of the
20:46Perez
20:47Cayllaba
20:48field.
20:49So,
20:50he is realizing
20:51that there
20:52is no
20:53solution
20:54to the
20:55problem
20:56of the
20:57rafting
20:58of the
20:59Perez
21:00Cayllaba
21:01field.
21:02So,
21:03he is realizing
21:04that there
21:05is no
21:06solution
21:07to the
21:08problem
21:09of the
21:10rafting
21:11of the
21:12Perez
21:13Cayllaba
21:14field.
21:15So,
21:16he is realizing
21:17that there
21:18is no
21:19solution
21:20to the
21:21problem
21:22of the
21:23rafting
21:24of the
21:25Perez
21:26Cayllaba
21:27field.
21:28So,
21:29he is realizing
21:30that there
21:31is no
21:32solution
21:33to the
21:34problem
21:35of the
21:36rafting
21:37of the
21:38Perez
21:39Cayllaba
21:40field.
21:41So,
21:42he is realizing
21:43that there
21:44is no
21:45solution
21:46to the
21:47problem
21:48of the
21:49rafting
21:50of the
21:51Perez
21:52Cayllaba
21:53field.
21:54So,
21:55he is realizing
21:56that there
21:57is no
21:58solution
21:59to the
22:00problem
22:01of the
22:02rafting
22:03of the
22:04Perez
22:05Cayllaba
22:06field.
22:07So,
22:08he is realizing
22:09that there
22:10is no
22:11solution
22:12to the
22:13problem
22:14of the
22:15rafting
22:16of the
22:17Perez
22:18Cayllaba
22:19field.
22:20So,
22:21he is realizing
22:22that there
22:23is no
22:24solution
22:25to the
22:26problem
22:27of the
22:28rafting
22:29of the
22:30Perez
22:31Cayllaba
22:32field.
22:33So,
22:34he is realizing
22:35that there
22:36is no
22:37solution
22:38to the
22:39problem
22:40of the
22:41rafting
22:42of the
22:43Perez
22:44Cayllaba
22:45field.
22:46So,
22:47he is realizing
22:48that there
22:49is no
22:50solution
22:51to the
22:52problem
22:53of the
22:54rafting
22:55of the
22:56Perez
22:57Cayllaba
22:58field.
22:59So,
23:00he is realizing
23:01that there
23:02is no
23:03solution
23:04to the
23:05problem
23:06of the
23:07rafting
23:08of the
23:09Perez
23:10Cayllaba
23:11field.
23:12So,
23:13he is realizing
23:14that there
23:15is no
23:16solution
23:17to the
23:18problem
23:19of the
23:20rafting
23:21of the
23:22Perez
23:23Cayllaba
23:24field.
23:25So,
23:26he is realizing
23:27that there
23:28is no
23:29solution
23:30to the
23:31problem
23:32of the
23:33rafting
23:34of the
23:35Perez
23:36Cayllaba
23:37field.
23:38So,
23:39he is realizing
23:40that there
23:41is no
23:42solution
23:43to the
23:44problem
23:45of the
23:46rafting
23:47of the
23:48Perez
23:49Cayllaba
23:50field.
23:51So,
23:52he is realizing
23:53that there
23:54is no
23:55solution
23:56to the
23:57problem
23:58of the
23:59rafting
24:00of the
24:01Perez
24:02Cayllaba
24:03field.
24:04So,
24:05he is realizing
24:06that there
24:07is no
24:08solution
24:09to the
24:10problem
24:11of the
24:12rafting
24:13of the
24:14Perez
24:15Cayllaba
24:16field.
24:17So,
24:18he is realizing
24:19that there
24:20is no
24:21solution
24:22to the
24:23problem
24:24of the
24:25rafting
24:26of the
24:27Perez
24:28Cayllaba
24:29field.
24:30So,
24:31he is realizing
24:32that there
24:33is no
24:34solution
24:35to the
24:36problem
24:37of the
24:38rafting
24:39of the
24:40Perez
24:41Cayllaba
24:42field.
24:43So,
24:44he is realizing
24:45that there
24:46is no
24:47solution
24:48to the
24:49problem
24:50of the
24:51rafting
24:52of the
24:53Perez
24:54Cayllaba
24:55field.
24:56So,
24:57he is realizing
24:58that there
24:59is no
25:00solution
25:01to the
25:02problem
25:03of the
25:04rafting
25:05of the
25:06Perez
25:07Cayllaba
25:08field.
25:09So,
25:10he is realizing
25:11that there
25:12is no
25:13solution
25:14to the
25:15problem
25:16of the
25:17rafting
25:18of the
25:19Perez
25:20Cayllaba
25:21field.
25:22So,
25:23he is realizing
25:24that there
25:25is no
25:26solution
25:27to the
25:28problem
25:29of the
25:30rafting
25:31of the
25:32Perez
25:33Cayllaba
25:34field.
25:35So,
25:36he is realizing
25:37that there
25:38is no
25:39solution
25:40to the
25:41problem
25:42of the
25:43rafting
25:44of the
25:45Perez
25:46Cayllaba
25:47field.
25:48So,
25:49he is realizing
25:50that there
25:51is no
25:52solution
25:53to the
25:54problem
25:55of the
25:56rafting
25:57of the
25:58Perez
25:59Cayllaba
26:00field.
26:01So,
26:02he is realizing
26:03that there
26:04is no
26:05solution
26:06to the
26:07problem
26:08of the
26:09rafting
26:10of the
26:11Perez
26:12Cayllaba
26:13field.
26:14So,
26:15he is realizing