"Es imposible que Maciel sea partícipe necesario"
"Maciel no estaba en el lugar del hecho"
"La jueza habla de la posibilidad del accidente"
"Al principio se buscaba una criatura perdida"
"La llegada de Loan no estaba prevista"
"Tienen que especificar qué delito investigan"
"Es falso que Maciel sacaba fotos a los chicos"
👉 Seguí en #AndinoYLasNoticias
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00At the time, it was also said, with reference to the commissioner of 9 July, of Maciel,
00:06that the first tasks related to the investigation had aimed more than anything to mislead,
00:14to help the search of LOAN.
00:17And you remember that supposedly there had been an exhortation to the people
00:21not to march and to go to their homes because it was going to be a task of the police
00:26to solve this quickly, which supposedly could be solved quickly,
00:32or in the next hours of that 13th of June, right?
00:35Maciel processed and for which the lawyer Vallejos presented a resource
00:40which is going to have to be, let's say, for the process.
00:43What you understand, what are those 1075 sheets of the process act,
00:48is plagued with irregularities.
00:50And Dr. Vallejos presents that as a resource
00:53so that it goes back with the processing of Walter Maciel,
00:56as the rest of the lawyers also did, of the defendants.
01:00Let's see, Dr. Richard Vallejos is precisely the lawyer of Commissioner Maciel.
01:03How are you, Richard? Thank you for attending us.
01:06Hello, how are you? Good morning to you and good morning to all the viewers.
01:11Well, doctor, what is the situation of Maciel where he is detained?
01:16Remind us a little.
01:20Mr. Maciel is detained in the Federal Complex of Marcos Paz,
01:27Buenos Aires Province.
01:29Well, in this really sinister plot,
01:33he always indicated it as part of an organization
01:39that ends up making Aloan disappear.
01:42What does your defendant say about this?
01:45Six months from not having certainty about the little one.
01:51Well, what he always said is that he is totally innocent
01:58of this fact that is being investigated, right?
02:01He is totally alien to this situation.
02:04The truth is that we do not really have a certainty
02:08and we are not in a position to affirm one of the many hypotheses
02:14that has been handled.
02:16Not so many hypotheses, two or three basically,
02:20but at this moment we are not in a position to affirm
02:24what actually happened.
02:27Let's see, you are indicating justice as the kid's kidnapper, right?
02:32Yes, yes, yes, because the accusation is subtraction or
02:36counseling of the minor, cover-up for real favor,
02:40all this aggravated by his condition as a public official
02:43and in that sense, to ask you that you speak of nullities
02:48or irregularities in terms of the process,
02:51which is the most complex thing that all the detainees have received
02:55in the last instance.
02:56Why both the judge and the prosecutors do not have elements
03:00from their point of view, doctor, to accuse him of these accusations?
03:06Very good, very good question.
03:08In the first term, I want to tell you that for the judge,
03:14Walter Maciel is a necessary participant,
03:18which for this defense seems absolutely incomprehensible to me.
03:23In addition, it took us by surprise just the moment
03:28or at this moment that he made this decision,
03:32when, for example, this defense has not even requested
03:35a lack of merit, a discharge or something like that,
03:39since they are rights that basically correspond to the defendant.
03:43But even so, understanding that it is not the right time to process it,
03:49none of these issues or none of these institutes were requested
03:53that we, as defense lawyers, have that possibility.
03:58So it took us by surprise this decision that the judge has made.
04:03The judge places him as a necessary participant
04:08of the subtraction and concealment.
04:11When it is, in a proven way,
04:17let's say that it is impossible for him to be a necessary participant
04:22because he was not in the right place.
04:25That is more than proven.
04:27He was not there, he did not participate in the lunch,
04:29he was not there.
04:30He did not have dilatory attitudes.
04:33He did not generate a ground for him to be able to act for hours
04:39and then go to know what was the life of Loa, right?
04:45And that clear oath that there is between noon and night,
04:50and that supposedly, that ground released,
04:55they impute it to Maciel, right?
04:57That it was like the law there on July 9.
05:01Of course.
05:02At that time, like any ordinary citizen,
05:05he was in his resting time.
05:08The figure of the necessary participant, as you know,
05:12is a fundamental contribution without which the author could not have consumed the fact.
05:19That is the objective type that requires primary or necessary participation.
05:25Now I wonder, how did Maciel do to be a necessary participant or co-author?
05:33Or how did he cover the crime when he, as soon as he arrives at the place,
05:38orders the arrest or has or delays the first three detainees?
05:42There is talk of altering traces, evidence.
05:45Obviously, this is a cause that every day has different hypotheses and different versions.
05:51But it was also said that at the time he intimidated neighbors so that they would not leave.
05:56Different actions, and above all, also his role in terms of the appearance of the boot,
06:01the famous boot of Loa, who planted it.
06:04Commissioner Maciel appears in different instances.
06:08Not at the time of the disappearance, but later,
06:11in terms of what is believed to have been an abduction or a kidnapping.
06:17Well, you are saying now, later.
06:21Even you yourself are saying later.
06:24With which, that tells us that in fact,
06:28at the time the minor was lost,
06:33he was not in the place.
06:36That is more than clear, that he was not in the place of the fact.
06:41And you have to take into account that at the beginning,
06:44when the investigation was still at the headquarters of the ordinary justice,
06:48we were not even in the presence of a presumed criminal act.
06:54And a very important thing to take into account,
06:57not even the prosecutor, who is the head of the criminal action,
07:02places Maciel as a necessary participant,
07:07but also places him as a cover,
07:10which this defense does not agree with that position,
07:14but not even the prosecutor places him as a necessary participant,
07:18but simply because Maciel covered this crime.
07:22Which this defense does not agree with either,
07:25but the judge, I don't know why or motivated by what,
07:30decided to go for more,
07:33places him in a slightly worse situation,
07:37because he understands that this is a necessary participant.
07:42Yes, and they also place him in the context of a pact of silence,
07:46where the detainees still do not give an answer
07:53to those who suspect that they faithfully know what happened.
07:57We find the hypothesis of the accident,
08:02which for many is not credible,
08:04because if this was a guilty homicide,
08:06it could have been quickly made known.
08:11I say, from your trial, Dr. Vallejos,
08:15and understanding that let's suppose there is no omertad,
08:19what could have happened,
08:22understanding that you have spoken,
08:24surely with much more rigor than even the judge herself,
08:28regarding the events that occurred on June 13 last year?
08:32Well, as you are well manifesting,
08:36even the judge herself in her ruling
08:40speaks of the possibility of a traffic accident.
08:43Even she does not rule out the possibility of a traffic accident.
08:48Now, then, we have to evaluate certain issues.
08:54Do we believe Audelina at all or do we not believe her directly?
08:58Evidently, in some parts she does believe her,
09:01and in other parts she does not.
09:03She takes part of Audelina's statement to believe her,
09:06and in other parts she does not.
09:09Indeed, in Audelina's statement,
09:12at the headquarters of the provincial court,
09:15she said that she had been threatened,
09:19and that is why at that moment she did not tell us the truth of the facts.
09:22So, we have the following hypothesis.
09:25Either Audelina falsely denounced the crime,
09:30or we would have to accuse the person who says Audelina threatened her,
09:37accuse her, or directly overrule her,
09:43the person she accuses of having threatened her,
09:50or accuse Audelina of falsely denouncing the crime.
09:54That is another cause that does not advance, particularly,
09:57the cause of threats.
09:59No, no, that is another cause.
10:01That is incorporated in this cause, in the main file.
10:03Okay, but the situation of Dekodasi, of Audelina,
10:07being threatened in some way,
10:10led to falsely declare,
10:12that is not incorporated in this cause.
10:15It runs in an annexed cause that does not advance in that sense.
10:19That there is some...
10:21Let's see, correct me if I'm wrong.
10:23No, it is not in another cause.
10:25It is in this cause, in fact, in its...
10:27Well, journalists have access to...
10:30Yes, yes, but there is an annexed cause,
10:32where José Kodasi is involved,
10:34Senator Pellegrini,
10:36that is an alternative cause, annexed,
10:38that has not been incorporated.
10:40The ones that were incorporated are those of Soria,
10:42for threatening the authority, with the Dupuy clan,
10:44that yes, but the other cause of Kodasi,
10:46which I don't have the number here,
10:48but it is a different cause,
10:50runs through another way.
10:53No, no, no, it is not like that.
10:55This runs in this cause.
10:57She takes part of that clarification,
10:59of that statement, in this cause.
11:01No, no, no.
11:02This is the main file.
11:04In a statement...
11:05It is incorporated in Lexien.
11:07In Lexien, this cause,
11:09this statement, this testimony,
11:11is incorporated.
11:13Furthermore, when this
11:15goes to the ordinary justice,
11:17on July 5th,
11:19on July 5th,
11:21Laudelina declares,
11:23in the federal justice,
11:25and repeats exactly the same
11:27as what she said here,
11:29at the headquarters of the ordinary justice,
11:31exactly repeats the same,
11:33on July 5th,
11:35of that same year.
11:37If you allow me to return to your defendant,
11:39in one of the first statements,
11:41when you said,
11:43Lohan did not get lost.
11:45Could you investigate,
11:47based on that statement,
11:49what did Maciel mean
11:51when he said Lohan did not get lost?
11:53And how did he know,
11:55how could he affirm it so taxatively?
11:57Look,
11:59there are issues that,
12:01at this moment,
12:03it is not convenient,
12:05let's say,
12:07to make some kind of affirmation
12:09that, at the beginning of this investigation,
12:11we were not,
12:13not even,
12:15Maciel could have knowledge
12:17that we were in front of a presumed crime.
12:19In fact,
12:21the cover starts with
12:23abandonment of a person.
12:25If we go a little further,
12:27the abandonment of a person
12:29would not only be because of the people
12:31who were taking care of him at that moment,
12:33the missing child,
12:35but also, abandonment of a person,
12:37let's go a little further,
12:39and in this case,
12:41the father of the missing creature
12:43would have to be charged.
12:45Why do you say that, doctor?
12:47Because at the beginning of this investigation,
12:49they were looking for
12:51a lost creature,
12:53there was not even
12:55a cover.
12:57For ordinary justice.
12:59For ordinary justice,
13:01so that the people,
13:03the first three detainees,
13:05remain in effective prison,
13:07a temporary cover was put on him,
13:09which was the cover
13:11of abandonment of a person,
13:13because otherwise
13:15he could not continue
13:17being detained,
13:19so a temporary cover was put on him,
13:21worth the redundancy,
13:23for abandonment of a person.
13:25At what point,
13:27that is,
13:29how can Commissioner Maciel
13:31be a necessary participant
13:33in a case
13:35that at the beginning
13:37was not even being investigated
13:39as a presumed crime?
13:41In fact,
13:43it is perfectly known,
13:45and that is accredited
13:47both in the tax code,
13:49as well as his lordship holds it,
13:51that the arrival
13:53of the missing child
13:55instead of the fact
13:57was not planned,
13:59the father arrives by surprise,
14:01and that arises
14:03from the different testimonials
14:05and the different reports,
14:07investigations that were carried out
14:09in the course of this investigation,
14:11but I insist again.
14:13Why did you arrest Benítez
14:15that night,
14:17if what was being talked about
14:19was the disappearance of a person,
14:21or the search?
14:23How did I not understand your question?
14:25Of course, he arrests Benítez
14:27Maciel,
14:29we are still in an instance
14:31that there was no visibility
14:33of a possible kidnapping.
14:35Why did he make the decision?
14:37Based on what?
14:39How was the conversation
14:41in that sense with his superiors?
14:43The first cover that is given
14:45is the abandonment of a person,
14:47and they needed to put
14:49a cover
14:51to be able to maintain
14:53the detention of this person,
14:55otherwise they would have
14:57even the first three arrested
14:59at least.
15:01Necessarily, a legal qualification
15:03must be given
15:05so that later the prosecutor,
15:07we have an accusatory system,
15:09so that the prosecutor
15:11can request the warrant judge
15:13the detention or the preventive prison
15:15of a person, we have to
15:17put a cover
15:19and specify what crime
15:21we are investigating,
15:23what is the need.
15:25Yes.
15:27Why did Maciel take pictures
15:29of the boys at school
15:31according to testimonies
15:33of the people of 9 July?
15:35That is false.
15:37The truth is that that
15:39does not appear in any part of the file.
15:41Absolutely, that is false.
15:43That is false.
15:45It does not appear in the file.
15:47It does not appear in the file,
15:49but there are people who at first
15:51dared to speak
15:53as if they were doing a catharsis
15:55about that in addition to being
15:57Maciel a tough guy
15:59and that he imposed the law
16:01and that he was afraid of him,
16:03he also took pictures of the boys
16:05at school.
16:07We have heard it from more than one person.
16:09Do you categorically deny this?
16:11I categorically deny it
16:13and if someone has
16:15something to prove,
16:17to prove or has something to contribute,
16:19it can be presented.
16:21In fact, justice can present itself
16:23and provide its data
16:25and testimony of where
16:27that issue arises.
16:29And another very important thing to clarify,
16:31the fact that
16:33Mr. Maciel is demanding
16:35with the documentation
16:37of the vehicles, of the motorcycles
16:39to be able to circulate, that in no way
16:41makes him a criminal
16:43or makes him
16:45like the person who has committed
16:47this abhorrent fact that is being investigated.
16:49Yesterday Benítez declared
16:51that the brother of Loan,
16:53I understand that it is Mariano because he did not name him,
16:55was heard in the neighborhood,
16:57in the town, comments that
16:59there were strange things.
17:01There was always talk of a narco plot
17:03possibly linked
17:05to Mariano.
17:07You had the opportunity to talk
17:09with who was the
17:11legal authority in the town
17:13and if that was ever
17:15considered as a possibility
17:17that the disappearance of Loan is linked
17:19to a revenge, I don't know if
17:21narco, trance or something like that.
17:25No, from my point of view,
17:27I don't think that
17:29is absolutely
17:31ruled out
17:33what is the narco plot
17:35and the plot
17:37deals and plot
17:39I don't remember
17:41other things that are said
17:43there, let's say
17:45at the media level
17:47I mean
17:49information
17:51I think the one who had
17:53the opportunity
17:55to incorporate
17:57a question
17:59of drug trafficking
18:01was the testimony of
18:03Gustavo Vera
18:05who for very little
18:07does not end up being sued
18:09for false testimony
18:11that in fact he
18:13pretended
18:15to incorporate himself
18:17as a believer in the cause
18:19and that he was rejected.
18:21It is ruled out.
18:23The narco plot is ruled out.
18:25The kidnapping hypothesis is ruled out.
18:27Practically the accident is left
18:29in quotation marks, but there is no
18:31evidence more than the DNA in the truck.
18:35What can we infer?
18:37They asked to drain the lagoon.
18:39What can we infer?
18:41The truth is that if justice has nothing
18:43we who are trying to collaborate
18:45from the media with the appearance of the van
18:47from June 13
18:49we don't know where to point either.
18:51I want to clarify that I
18:53as a defense lawyer
18:55I do not rule out the hypothesis of the accident.
18:57I do not rule it out.
18:59It happens that it is illogical, doctor.
19:03The judge at this time
19:05I
19:07that is a criterion that she has
19:09and they have stopped
19:11in some failures
19:13that she mentions
19:15what her resolution basically says
19:17is that
19:19even if we are
19:21before a crime of subtraction
19:23or hiding
19:25or maybe we are
19:27before the hypothesis of the accident
19:29the question of competition
19:31will no longer be evaluated
19:33because according to
19:35the different failures that she mentions
19:37she says that
19:39changing from federal justice
19:41back to ordinary justice
19:43would be harmful
19:45for the investigation.
19:47This is going to continue.
19:49There are seven people who do not say what happened.
19:51He stepped on it
19:53and the body is in such a place.
19:55It gives the feeling that for the police
19:57for Maciel and the police
19:59who worked with him
20:01if this had been a traffic accident
20:03the case would have been resolved on time.
20:05But at that moment
20:07especially because
20:09we assume that there is a lot of previous experience
20:11for the police
20:13in terms of the discernment
20:15that this is a traffic accident
20:17or this is the subtraction of
20:19assuming that Maciel has nothing to do
20:21as you say, right?
20:23Or this is the subtraction of a minor.
20:25It seems to me that it could have been resolved
20:27on the same day.
20:31Well, but that's a question
20:33that is left in this case
20:35in provincial justice.
20:39In numerous opportunities
20:41I stressed
20:43and I said
20:45that
20:47there was a very important person
20:49in this fact
20:51which is the prosecutor Castillo
20:53who did not take the true dimension
20:55of what was happening
20:57and
20:59let's say
21:01he did not take the necessary measures
21:03to
21:05clarify this fact.
21:07In fact, when
21:09this issue
21:11happens, when the police
21:13or when Commissioner Maciel
21:15learns of this fact
21:17he will immediately ask for the arrest of Audelina
21:19which the prosecutor did not do
21:21understanding that
21:23it was convenient at that time
21:25to have her as a witness
21:27to Audelina and not as a defendant
21:29because as a witness
21:31she had the obligation to declare
21:33and instead being as a defendant
21:35she no longer has that obligation
21:37to declare, she can declare or not
21:39or abstain.
21:41Let's see.
21:43It is clear.
21:45Two things happened here.
21:47The fact could have been minimized
21:49for those who had nothing to do
21:51with it.
21:53To think that it was a lost boy
21:55in the middle of an orange tree
21:57I repeat,
21:59including those who could be
22:01in that family lunch
22:03and who did not participate
22:05but the reality
22:07showed something that we still
22:09do not know.
22:11That Loan is not among us
22:13that we have been going for six months
22:15and that in this context
22:17to believe that it was a traffic accident
22:19is like
22:21taking our hair, right?
22:23Because, I reiterate,
22:25the hypothesis that could have been
22:27solved faster if Pérez and Caillaba
22:29were the protagonists of this accident
22:31that in a framework
22:33of those who drove
22:35could be drunk
22:37and for the social shame
22:39that this could entail
22:41did not say it at first.
22:43I don't know.
22:45The reality is that today we are about to
22:47be six months without Loan
22:49and unfortunately
22:51we do not have the hypothesis
22:53of what happened
22:55or at least the facts.
22:59Well, I have to tell you
23:01I think this is the
23:03I think this is the first time
23:05that I have a communication with this media
23:07and I'm going to say something
23:09that I never
23:11said in other media.
23:13I think
23:15I'm not going to say who
23:17but I think that
23:19apart from Maciel in this fact that is being investigated
23:21there are two more people
23:23who are unjustly detained.
23:25That's what I have to say.
23:29I imagine that
23:31Millapi and Ramírez.
23:37No, I'm not going to say who
23:39but I never said this
23:41but yes.
23:43Dr. Vallejo, thank you for this contact.
23:47Thank you very much.