• yesterday
👉 La defensa y la fiscalía han presentado sus argumentos ante un jurado que ahora se prepara para deliberar. La fiscalía sostiene que Del Río tenía un móvil financiero para cometer el crimen, mientras que la defensa cuestiona la evidencia presentada. El veredicto debe ser unánime para ser válido.

🗣️ @PonzonePablo @BobbyMenna
👉 Seguí en #QuienCuandoDonde #QCD
📺 a24.com/vivo

Category

🗞
News
Transcript
00:00the lawyer of Nina, the employee, we are going to talk about the issue of the jury, but I want to
00:08tell you that in a little while we are going to get fully into the head of the river, because there were
00:13psychological psychiatric tests that were also added to the cause and that we are being
00:19Claudio Greco with us, we want to get into the mind of a possible parricide, that's why it's so
00:25interesting, thank you Claudio for coming, now we go directly with Hugo Carrivero live,
00:30Hugo, how are you, good afternoon, we understand that there are statements about at least five,
00:37attention, five of the twelve jurors who have on the bench of the river, right?
00:43Good afternoon everyone, how are you? Yes, in fact, we are men of the law and well,
00:51we have observed this circumstance with great concern, this situation was just getting ahead,
00:59this concern, a juror who cries, who is moved, can guarantee a fair trial? I don't think so,
01:06even taking into account that the system of trial jurors comes from Anglo-Saxon culture
01:15in the United States and in many states, especially in Texas, the nullity of the trial has been achieved by the defense
01:23precisely because of the emotion, because of the crying of some judges, some jurors, and well,
01:32this was understood that they were not in a position to dictate impartial justice, but nothing happened to me,
01:38so in a trial that seems completely unfavorable to the river, Monica Chivin,
01:44your lawyer, has an ace up his sleeve that could make the jurors who have broken up point out?
01:50Yes, he does, yes, he does, what happens is that, in my opinion, he should have anticipated it,
01:55because if he did it now, he would run the risk that it would be an extemporaneous approach,
02:01but he should have done it, in my opinion, right? It is an opinion, but I say this because in the Anglo-Saxon system,
02:09sometimes they have nullified the trial for these circumstances.
02:12What Dr. López Carribero is telling us is very important, I even want to thank him for his intellectual honesty,
02:21because he is a lawyer of someone who had a very bad time, who had a very bad time at times, if you will,
02:29of Martín del Río, because who deposits the suspicions in Nina, in the lady who was going to work
02:36for more than a decade at that house, who was a caretaker, and ends up eating 13 days in jail,
02:42and ends up eating those days in jail, and has a terrible time, with anguish, with health,
02:47with a situation that has not yet managed to recover, a job stability, with a son who was also under suspicion,
02:53with all that accumulation of situations, with how bad Nina had a time, his lawyer says,
02:58be careful, because it would be convenient for him to be declared from the grudge to Martín del Río,
03:03and I even charge myself, if you will, from my temperament, how bad my client had a time.
03:08However, he has the intellectual honesty to say, be careful, I don't like jurors who get excited, who cry,
03:13because in a way they are taking partiality, they are losing objectivity before the assessment of the trial.
03:19What López Carribero tells us is very important.
03:21Let's add to all the doubts that still remain in the case.
03:27Because we are just talking about something fundamental, which is the gun.
03:30How does the gun get to a safe in the brother's house, if there is no indication that Del Río himself...
03:35Before we get into this, before we get into the doubts, Hugo, how should the approach have been?
03:40In the very process, in the very hearing, when the defense lawyer, or the defense lawyer,
03:46sees that there is a juror who is, from his emotion, from his cry, being partial,
03:52does he have to point it out at the moment?
03:54Yes, yes, yes, that's why there are subordinate jurors, right?
04:00Of course, I mean, look, this person, the titular jury, is crying.
04:04It is being a sign of accepting what the witness says.
04:09Or, on the contrary, it is denying what the witness says.
04:12This jury is emotionally broken.
04:15We have to replace them, that's why there are also subordinate jurors, right?
04:19But it worries me a lot.
04:21I want that if Martín Del Río is guilty, he is condemned.
04:25But not in any way, not in any way.
04:28Let's see, Claudio Greco, tell me, because you have a contribution to this.
04:32Yes, hello Carribero, how are you, doctor?
04:35Nice to meet you, nice to meet you.
04:37How are you?
04:38Something interesting that is happening and that is going to start happening with the issue of popular jurors.
04:43The jurors are not experts.
04:46The jurors are not experts.
04:48Therefore, to their good knowledge, understanding and objective evaluation,
04:53I want to stay and stop at this word.
04:55Objectivity is a chimera.
04:58Objectivity is an utopia.
05:01There is always subjectivity, especially in an evaluation,
05:06in something as limited as condemning someone to life imprisonment or not.
05:11What do I mean by this?
05:12That we all, men of justice, but also those of us who work on psychological experiments
05:18and understand the emotional and emotional and cognitive processes,
05:23what is the reading that can be done about the emotion of a jury?
05:27Of course, the reading that one can do will always be subjective
05:31because one cannot give full certainty that because someone is crying,
05:35he is determining such or such thing in favor or against the accused of a certain cause.
05:43What do I mean by this?
05:45That we are going to have to build knowledge, because although, as the doctor said,
05:49there is a history of disqualifications, of impugnations,
05:54it is very linear and very, as our friend Fito Baque says,
05:58the thin, thick line between the interpretation of the emotional movement of a jury
06:05and understanding and interpreting the metaphor of a cry, for example, is very limited.
06:11Yes, now in a little while we will surely be in contact with Fito Baque,
06:14who is in the audience at the moment, and it is very interesting,
06:18because it opens up a defense to Del Rio himself.
06:21But also, how not to get excited?
06:24Because if you are a jury, for example, of a case of abuse, of rape,
06:28and you listen to the victim,
06:30how as a jury are you not going to get excited if it is a story that blinds you?
06:36Now, after that same jury will have to evaluate all the other evidence,
06:42even the scientific one, to determine if that fact that they are telling moves me,
06:48committed by that man that I am seeing sitting there.
06:52Sure, but I say this, right?
06:55There is no problem for a jury to get excited and cry.
06:58There is no inconvenience for that.
07:00What you have to do is just replace it.
07:02Sure, but you would also spend it in some cases replacing a lot of people.
07:06I understand, this is the key to the question.
07:08Yes, surely, because otherwise the defendant would not be being judged by an impartial jury.
07:14The thing is that emotions are flowing, Hugo is asking you,
07:19Hugo, just Claudio said with very good criteria,
07:23that crying does not mean that it goes to one side or the other.
07:27Well, but in doubt, you have to replace it.
07:30I want a jury that does not get excited.
07:33I want a cold jury, a jury that gets excited.
07:36Hugo, but you want robots.
07:39We are human beings, we can get excited.
07:43But precisely, the one who is being judged is also a human being, or Del Rio is a robot.
07:48I give an example of this same trial, so that people understand.
07:54One of the statements that also moved the jury,
07:58is when the brother, Diego Del Rio, declared.
08:01At a certain moment, Diego Del Rio says,
08:04what tortures me as a brother and as a son,
08:08is to think that in the dynamics of how they killed my parents,
08:12which is absolutely proven in the trial,
08:15that it is someone who sits in the car, in the back,
08:20when the car is still in the back seat,
08:23behind the wheel, the mother of the Del Rio brothers.
08:26We are going to put it in these terms,
08:28because it was the one who was driving due to some physical impediment of the father.
08:31In the seat of the companion, the father, that is, in front, the two victims.
08:35And someone from behind sits down, gets in that car and kills them.
08:40The father gets three bullets and the mother gets one.
08:46What the brother says when he declares, he says,
08:49it tortures me to this day,
08:52to think that one of the two, the one who was the second murdered,
08:57and I think in that case it is my mother,
08:59was aware, even if it was for a second,
09:02that it was her son who was giving them death.
09:05So when he says this,
09:07several members of the jury are deeply moved,
09:10because one empathizes with that description.
09:13Now, at the same time that one is moved,
09:16he is also saying, the murderer is my brother.
09:20So how to discern one from the other?
09:23And the latter, in my view,
09:27the prosecution could not prove it during the trial.
09:31The prosecution could not prove
09:33that the person who sat behind the Mercedes-Benz car
09:36was Martín del Río.
09:38And I'm going to this, Hugo.
09:40But said so,
09:42coming out of the mouth of the victim's son,
09:45he expressed it that way.
09:47In the same sentence he is saying something
09:49with which he connected the whole jury,
09:51and at the same time he is saying, the murderer is my brother.
09:53So people are left with that.
09:55Let's take a minute with this that we refer again.
09:57The last words of Martín del Río,
09:59before the fourth intermediate.
10:01Pay attention to the two things he says,
10:03because there is his line of defense.
10:05There it is, there it is, where it points.
10:07And then we get into it,
10:09with the mind of a possible parricide,
10:11while we wait for the sentence.
10:13Let's listen again to the last words of Martín del Río.
10:16Good morning to all.
10:18I already told you yesterday a little.
10:20I want to tell you that it is impossible
10:23to have committed this act
10:25without being in the place,
10:27without the murder weapon
10:29even being close to me,
10:31that I am completely innocent,
10:33that I love my parents,
10:35I love my children,
10:37and that I miss them very much.
10:40Every day I pray for them,
10:42and I want the prosecution
10:45to prove who are the culprits
10:48of the murder of my parents.
10:50Nothing else.
10:52Thank you very much for everything,
10:54and I hope this is resolved
10:56and to be able to know
10:58who killed my parents.
11:00Nothing else.
11:02Thank you very much.
11:04The state of the place
11:06and the dilemma of the weapon
11:08are the two strong positions
11:10in a trial that seems to be
11:12all against this,
11:14but the jury plays in his favor.
11:16His defense strategy is very clear,
11:18in very few words,
11:20when given the opportunity
11:22in these two concepts.
11:24They have not been able to prove
11:26that he is the one who entered the house,
11:28there is no trace of him in the car,
11:30there is no DNA of him.
11:32Then the other issue,
11:34the weapon,
11:36how do they prove,
11:38and I believe that in the trial
11:40it has not been proven,
11:42that this weapon passed through his hands?
11:44How does it appear there?
11:46If the weapon with which they kill
11:48in Vicente López,
11:50and his parents later,
11:52they have not connected
11:54that he has entered that private neighborhood.
11:56There are, but very few lines,
11:58the two elements.
12:00Then, in the times in which the images play,
12:02I would have advised him
12:04to dress differently,
12:06I do not want to tell Dr. Chiribín
12:08and the defense,
12:10in these times of how even
12:12the metamessages,
12:14the issues of the order of the symbolic,
12:16because he talks to a bus
12:18and so much was debated,
12:20if the walking man was not him,
12:22with a bus that also Nina
12:24and several who have declared,
12:26even his brother,
12:28they say it was a dad's bus.
12:30I would have advised him
12:32until he looked like
12:34how the walking man looks in the videos.
12:36Getting closer to the time of the sentence,
12:38where I had no doubts,
12:40I begin to have them.
12:42Because I say,
12:44some of the 12,
12:46but the prosecution does not have it
12:48checked inside the car,
12:50but the weapon, these doubts that we are raising,
12:52one of the 12,
12:54two of the 12,
12:56and finally that can play in favor.

Recommended