đ En noviembre del 2006, Nora Dalmasso fue hallada asesinada en su casa en un country de RĂo Cuarto, CĂłrdoba, estrangulada con el cinto de su bata de baño y golpeada con un elemento contundente.
đ SeguĂ en #ElNoticieroDeA24
đș a24.com/vivo
đ SeguĂ en #ElNoticieroDeA24
đș a24.com/vivo
Category
đ
NewsTranscript
00:00And just moments ago, the prosecutor of the case
00:03just confirmed that the genetic traces
00:07found in the scene of the crime
00:10would correspond to this man that you are seeing on the screen.
00:14It's Roberto Barzola.
00:17The charge is for sexual abuse followed by death.
00:21It's one of the polishers. There it is.
00:23Roberto Marcos Barzola,
00:26who performed tasks, as Javier de Pulido said,
00:29on wooden floors in the house of the Macarron family,
00:33who was a witness at the time in this case,
00:36and who said he went to the scene on Saturday, November 25,
00:40but he didn't ring the bell
00:42and that he only waited for his boss at the time,
00:46who was Walter GonzĂĄlez,
00:48who finally didn't make it to the scene.
00:51We reiterate, with the same surprise
00:54that you are receiving, the information,
00:57there is an unexpected twist in the Dalmaso case.
01:00There is a fact, Facundo, let's see, now that we have RaĂșl.
01:03RaĂșl, when you did the investigation there, inside the place,
01:10I already know, but tell people
01:13where and what you found on the floors
01:18of the Dalmaso Macarron house.
01:21As you know, we, this interdisciplinary team,
01:25was formed two months after the death of Nora Dalmaso.
01:30We were given access to the stage
01:33and the maid of the house told us
01:37that there were two stains that had been caught
01:41by the plastering of the floor on the same day of the crime.
01:44She had seen those stains on the day of the crime
01:47and that later the floor had been plastered
01:50and those stains had fallen in this way,
01:53on the floor of the dormitory where Nora dies,
01:57which I remind you was the daughter's dormitory,
01:59because the house was under remodeling and construction.
02:03Now, RaĂșl, let's repeat that.
02:06Two stains that later appear covered or hidden
02:12by a polished and plastered floor.
02:15No, no, covered or hidden.
02:16The plastering was done, what did it do?
02:18It fixed those stains.
02:20It fixed them.
02:22Yes, those stains, Dr. Fenoglio,
02:24who was the pathologist of our team,
02:27he lifts them up and they were examined
02:29in the scanning electron microscope
02:31and they added an image
02:34that was clearly similar to a spermatozoid.
02:39I'm talking about a high-resolution electron microscope
02:42for which we used, at that time,
02:45that of the University of MorĂłn.
02:47Now, this was not admitted as proof
02:51because it was extemporaneous
02:53and it had been achieved outside the procedural scope, right?
02:57But in any case, it reinforced our original hypothesis
03:02that this was a crime against sexual integrity
03:04followed by death, and so we exposed it.
03:08I remind you that this was later all done by the FBI,
03:11and the FBI later coincides with us.
03:14The FBI also indicates that it was most likely
03:18that it was a crime against sexual integrity
03:21followed by death.
03:22Then we traced the profile of the criminal,
03:25and what the profile of the criminal indicated,
03:28beyond the fact that he was undoubtedly a man,
03:31was that he was a young person
03:33who lived near the victim's house, right?
03:39RaĂșl, I'll stop you there, I'll stop you there.
03:42I'll come back.
03:43Listen carefully because, truly,
03:46the scientific task that experts often perform,
03:49sometimes they appear detailed in the story one makes,
03:55in the reconstructions one makes of police cases,
03:58but it's practically an art, the way you work, RaĂșl.
04:02Two crime scenes, a body,
04:06two spots that appear in the crime scene on the floor,
04:10a flat surface,
04:13that are, in some way, solidified by a plaster,
04:18that you lift up, take to the lab,
04:20and you can determine that it would be a profile
04:25of a young person who lived nearby.
04:28How do you determine this, RaĂșl?
04:30No, no, no, no, no.
04:32They are two different things.
04:33One thing is the physical evidence, on the one hand.
04:35On the other hand, what we did was trace the criminal profile.
04:39According to the reading and interpretation of the crime scene
04:43and of the autopsy,
04:44what we did was trace the criminal profile.
04:47And the criminal profile, taking, as the profiles are made,
04:52based on numerous cases previously studied,
04:55gave us that the criminal was a young person
04:59who, in some way, lived nearby or near the victim.
05:04That's why, when we concluded our investigation
05:09on the case of Almanzo,
05:11we indicated that the perpetrator
05:14belonged to the victim's environment.
05:16But not necessarily to the intimate environment,
05:19but to the geographical environment.
05:21Of course, he knew the place.
05:22He knew, let's say, where the crime scene was transformed.
05:26Clearly.
05:27Now, we're still going to wait,
05:29but, let's say,
05:30the genetic evidence is mentioned by Gustavo BĂĄrzola,
05:33a floor polisher,
05:36who still hadn't finished the job inside the house.
05:40Now, what I remember,
05:43we'll remember it later,
05:45what BĂĄrzola said to the journalists...
05:47Yes, yes, because we quickly found a file,
05:50because, we repeat,
05:51we are witnessing an unexpected turn in the case of Almanzo.
05:55We are a few days away from closing 20-24,
05:57a case that, up to this point,
05:59was practically part of the file
06:01of the criminal and police reconstructions
06:03that we usually talk about with Javier, with RaĂșl.
06:07Later, we will also make an assessment
06:10of the passage of time
06:11and the functioning of justice in Argentina,
06:13which is another story
06:14that we will now surely reflect on the subject.
06:17BĂĄrzola, BĂĄrzola,
06:18you were never asked for the genetic profile,
06:20as far as I know.
06:22Well, but I remember you, Javier.
06:24Except for this moment,
06:25that they found a profile some time ago,
06:27because the prosecutor had asked for it,
06:28he insisted again on this issue,
06:30at the time,
06:31about 200 genetic profiles,
06:34of all those who were close, involved and others,
06:37they rejected it, but left some for him.
06:39And now what is done is the comparison
06:41at the time of saying,
06:42well, we have this,
06:43let's start asking for those we don't have,
06:45because it doesn't match.
06:47When they did this survey,
06:48they realized it was from BĂĄrzola, this man.
06:52Very clear, that's how it was.
06:55RaĂșl, will you let me listen to BĂĄrzola?
06:58BĂĄrzola, at a certain moment,
06:59who is now the prosecutor of CĂłrdoba,
07:01and here we have to mention, of course,
07:03the work that the prosecutor Pablo Javera is doing,
07:09sixth prosecutor of the case, I insist.
07:12There will be a moment when we have to stop,
07:15I'm not going to involve RaĂșl in this,
07:17in the functioning of Argentine justice.
07:19I'm going to involve Pablo, Winokur,
07:22we're going to chat a little bit with you.
07:2611-54, what you are seeing is an unexpected turn
07:29in the case of Almazo, of a murder witness.
07:32At the time, when he was summoned as a witness,
07:35the one who is now the sixth prosecutor of the case,
07:40he summons him as a witness
07:42for having been working inside the house.
07:45This is how he spoke, listen to him.
07:49Until after noon and we left the house.
07:53Nothing more, not much to add.
07:57It was a few days that we were there,
08:00not much was seen because we were in a place
08:04where we had no contact with the other workers.
08:07How many days did you work?
08:09How many days did you work in the house?
08:11Three, three.
08:13And did you have contact with the lady, with Nora?
08:15No, no, I saw her only once there,
08:18but I had no contact, I had no dealings with anyone.
08:21Could you comment on the relationship
08:24between Nora Dalmazo and Marcelo MacarrĂłn?
08:26No, no, nothing.
08:28Nothing because I never saw anything.
08:31Is it true that your boss told you that
08:34the journalists were in the house that Sunday
08:37because MacarrĂłn had won a golf tournament?
08:41Yes, yes.
08:43Are you following the trial?
08:45No, no, I work in the field, so no.
08:48Were you at Dalmazo's house on Saturday?
08:51Yes, I was there on Saturday morning.
08:53When the police interrogated you,
08:55they came to your house, they called you on the phone,
08:57were you afraid of having some kind of accusation
09:00against you, for example?
09:02No, no.
09:03Were you calm?
09:04Calm, yes.
09:05Sometimes a little nervous, but...
09:07But did you think about it,
09:08because just as a painter was accused?
09:10Yes, but I was always calm
09:12because I knew I hadn't done anything.
09:14Did they press you?
09:15Did they make a single search in the house?
09:16Yes, a single search.
09:17What were they looking for?
09:18A phone.
09:19Did the police ever press you to testify?
09:22No, no, normal.
09:23I mean, not like that, pressure, but yes, yes.
09:27That Saturday, how long were you waiting for GonzĂĄlez, your boss?
09:30Ten minutes.
09:31Did you ring the doorbell at Dalmazo's house?
09:33No, yes, what I least wanted to do was go to work.
09:36So you waited there at the door of the house
09:39for a few minutes and then you left.
09:41Did you testify that you rang the doorbell
09:42to cover yourself with your boss?
09:44Of course.
09:45Yes.
09:46As if there was no one there.
09:48I already had half the day paid.
09:50Were you surprised that they accused a painter,
09:52in this case GastĂłn Sarte?
09:54The truth is that I don't know,
09:55because I didn't know if I knew him
09:57at the time I had been there.
09:59I never wanted to know either.
10:02Did you have to go back to work at the house later?
10:04Yes, yes, we came back later.
10:06And how was that moment?
10:08Normal, normal work.
10:10When and how did you find out about Nora's crime?
10:13My boss told me.
10:14What was Nora like?
10:15No, I don't know.
10:16I only saw her once there.
10:18But how did she treat you?
10:19She didn't treat us.
10:21My boss always talked to Marcelo.
10:24Only that time she blamed you for the powder?
10:26For the powder, yes.
10:29Well, that's the end of Raul's statement
10:32from Barzola himself.
10:34Does the tranquility with which he spoke
10:36call you to account?
10:39If this continues to advance and is confirmed,
10:43there will undoubtedly be an individual
10:45who has the conviction that you are innocent, right?
10:48Notice that this happens in the oral trial
10:50to Marcelo MacarrĂłn,
10:52already at the edge of the prescription,
10:54which was also public, right?
10:58Sure, sure.
10:59Raul, I ask you,
11:00because there Javi said that
11:02this man was never asked for a genetic profile.
11:05How many more people could be in that place,
11:07because he speaks even of three days of work,
11:10and that he has not taken a genetic profile
11:12and we enter 18 years later?
11:14Well, this arises with a more recent investigation
11:19carried out by the Public Ministry
11:21of the Province of CĂłrdoba,
11:22where it resolves to advance beyond the possibility
11:25of the prescription, in some way,
11:27to reach the definitive truth in this case,
11:30that we claim it was a debt,
11:32not only with the victim and her family,
11:34but it was a debt for all Argentine society, right?
11:38Yes.
11:39What happens?
11:40At that time, I remind you
11:42that many people had entered the treatment scene
11:45and that the prosecutor who carried out
11:47the first section of the investigation
11:49ordered to take samples
11:52to all the people who entered the scene.
11:56Then, there were already about 30 people
11:59of whom a genetic profile was obtained for comparison.
12:02Then, in this more recent opening
12:07of the investigation,
12:09after the oral trial where Marcelo MacarrĂłn was acquitted,
12:13it is decided to obtain more genetic profiles
12:17and that's where I understand
12:19where this latest information has come from.
12:23This latest test.
12:24Now, in this ...
12:28Of course, with the newspaper of today, Monday,
12:31one repairs in this, right?
12:33We all know that there was a deficiency
12:35in the investigation by the Public Prosecutor's Office,
12:38the police,
12:39wanting, unintentionally, the truth is that I don't know.
12:41No, but I want to clarify one thing to you, Javier.
12:44I want to be objective with this
12:46because we are precisely with the newspaper of Monday.
12:49The police of investigations in the province of CĂłrdoba
12:52always had the conviction
12:54in the first section of the investigation
12:56that this is a crime against sexual integrity
12:58followed by death.
12:59Yes.
13:00Dr. Cachaguerda
13:01of the forensic medical team of Cordoba Capital
13:04also.
13:05And after our report,
13:07the FBI agreed with us.
13:09That is, in reality, this is not new.
13:11The hypothesis of the crime against sexual integrity
13:14followed by death.
13:15Okay, but if ...
13:16It is installed.
13:17But I say, as for the suspect,
13:18there was everything.
13:19What was the husband?
13:20What was the son?
13:21What was the parishioner?
13:22What was ...
13:23some person linked at that time
13:25to the government of the province?
13:27What ...
13:28Well, it could have been one of the lovers.
13:30A lot of stories were invented.
13:32Poor against ...
13:33More than anything against the victim
13:35you have to look for the victim.
13:37No, this is true.
13:39And now there is a parquetist
13:41who at 18 years old ...
13:43Well, the comparison was made
13:45of a genetic profile that was taken out
13:47a short time ago,
13:48instead of having taken it out
13:4917 years ago, if you want, not 18.
13:52And now this arises,
13:53after so long.
13:55Well,
13:58we have to thank something,
14:00that we come to the truth
14:02that was clearly,
14:03not only impunity,
14:05but with an uncertain truth, right?
14:09Yes.
14:10Yes, of course.
14:11But let's go again,
14:12let's go back to Garcia Belsunce's case.
14:15That is, the case ...
14:17Well, so many other cases
14:18that have prescribed,
14:19I say, beyond Belsunce,
14:20have prescribed.
14:21Now the family is going to ask
14:23that the prescription be lifted,
14:24because the case has already been prescribed or not?
14:27Well, we'll have to see it.
14:29We'll have to see it.
14:30If the justice understands
14:33that at some point
14:34the prescription deadline was suspended,
14:37as Facundo said,
14:39it begins to count again.
14:40Of course.
14:41What happens is that ...
14:42Let's see, let's remember.
14:43What interrupts?
14:44Now we are going to put a lawyer
14:46to deepen this issue
14:48and that we can talk about it more technically.
14:50Does the prescription deadline interrupt?
14:53Let's remember, let's see.
14:54Crimes have a time
14:56where they prescribe.
14:58Now, there are certain budgets
15:00that can interrupt
15:02that prescription deadline
15:04and that the count is not
15:06from November 25, 2006,
15:10where Nora is killed,
15:11where the crime is consumed,
15:13but from the moment that happens
15:15that interrupts the prescription deadline,
15:17which is, for example,
15:19a request for extradition for the crime,
15:21which in this case there is not.
15:23What happens is that many indicate
15:24that when the police report it
15:26to the Justice Department
15:27that an event occurred,
15:28that's when the pieces start running.
15:30Well, that's why.
15:31No, no, in reality ...
15:32The commission, Raul, of a new crime,
15:35or the first call to testify also.
15:37The issue is that the first call to testify
15:40in this case is as a witness,
15:42only as a defendant.
15:43We will have to see there.
15:44If we are not facing a prescription case,
15:46it is a crazy thing.
15:47You know what I think,
15:48allow me to intervene simply,
15:50I'm wrong there,
15:51but what I think
15:52that the press conference
15:53that this prosecutor gave today
15:55to tell the justice itself,
15:57eye, there is this data ...
15:58Prescribes, huh?
15:59They do not prescribe it.
16:00And well, but ...
16:01Leave that parenthesis that the justice has
16:04to be able to define the prescription law.
16:0618 years, Javier.
16:07You have to look for a data
16:09that interrupts ...
16:11Now that this DNA is supposed to be positive,
16:15which now I'm going to ask you a question, Raul,
16:17the big challenge is to work over time.
16:21Exactly.
16:22I wanted, if you allow me, Facundo,
16:24I wanted to conclude a little bit
16:25what Javier was saying.
16:26Let's see.
16:27In the case of GarcĂa Belsunce,
16:29NicolĂĄs Pachelo was called to inquiry,
16:32practically when they were about to turn 15,
16:35which is actually the time of prescription,
16:37and from there they start
16:39to count 15 years again.
16:41If something similar happened in this case,
16:44the interruption of the prescription
16:46begins to count again.
16:48For example, the call to inquiry ...
16:50No, but there was no call to inquiry, Raul.
16:53Barzola was called as a witness.
16:55I'm asking Noelia, our producer,
16:58to tell me this photo that we are seeing,
17:00when is it?
17:02That's the trial where MacarrĂłn was acquitted.
17:04Of course.
17:05He declares himself as a witness
17:07because he visited the house and did his homework.
17:09What happens is that they had never asked him
17:11for the genetic profile until that moment.
17:13It is seen that later,
17:14when they found this other proof,
17:16they said, well, let's call the rest,
17:18we are missing.
17:19Let's see, who are the ones who declared the trial?
17:21The trial was in 2022.
17:23I don't know, I think I understand that,
17:25because of what happened.
17:27And after that, they made the profile and said,
17:29boom, here we found it, it's this one.
17:31Of course, April 27, 2022, that photo.
17:34But I insist, that photo that one sees
17:37is the photo, the x-ray of a testimonial statement.
17:41Testimonial of the trial.
17:43That statement is not part of the interruption of time
17:47to start recounting the prescription period again.
17:52Do you understand, RaĂșl?
17:54No, no, it's very clear.
17:55I said, I saw the example of the GarcĂa Bersonce case,
17:59where the prescription was interrupted
18:01by an inquiry call.
18:03It's not this case.
18:04Of course, of course.
18:05And RaĂșl, where did you find, sorry,
18:07where did you find the hematoma,
18:09that one under the polished, the plastified?
18:11On the floor, on the floor,
18:13which had been plastified.
18:15Of the room?
18:16Of the room or of the...
18:18Of the scene of the crime.
18:20Of the room where he says,
18:22I lead to death in the hour of death.
18:24RaĂșl, in order to deepen a little this,
18:26which is as terrifying as challenging, right?
18:31For us to understand what happened,
18:33how 18 years later,
18:35a cause hits an unexpected turn.
18:38Consult, I mean, to respond,
18:41someone who works with their hands
18:43in a complex job such as the polishing of a floor,
18:46where their body, their hands intervene.
18:49I say, can't there be a test or a sample
18:52or a hematoma
18:54attentive to the fact that in the middle of the activity
18:56that he is developing,
18:57he gets hurt and his DNA is left there?
19:00No, but this is not the case.
19:02Can I ask you a favor, Facundo?
19:05Yes, RaĂșl, please.
19:06This with respect to the victim.
19:08Are you having a sexual party in the bar?
19:11No, no, no.
19:12This is a crime against the integrity of the body.
19:14No, it's clear. I hadn't read it yet.
19:16Stay calm, we'll modify it.
19:18I respect the victim and the family, right?
19:21Then I come back to the question.
19:23Do you know what happens?
19:25That in this case, the genetic sample
19:27has been tied to the belt of the robe,
19:31which had been placed twice
19:34on the victim's neck to strangle.
19:36Good, good.
19:37To assure the death result.
19:39And in a hair in the pubic area.
19:43Therefore, it cannot be something that is casual.
19:47It is someone, something casual.
19:49It is someone who has come into contact
19:51with the body of the victim.
19:53Very clear.
19:54That's why I understand,
19:55I don't talk to them, by the way,
19:57but I understand that the Public Prosecutor's Office
19:59is giving this with so much certainty.
20:01Yes.
20:02No, and apart to pressure,
20:04I think it is self-pressuring, right?
20:06I don't say the same prosecutor,
20:08the justice, I suppose the guarantor judge,
20:10the judge who understands the cause,
20:12to say, gentlemen,
20:13this case does not have to be closed
20:15because we have a clue.
20:16Of course, what has to be clear is that
20:18Javega, who is the sixth prosecutor,
20:20achieves this advance.
20:22It is a scientific test.
20:24Already at the time, RaĂșl and his team
20:27had spoken of a scientific test,
20:29because, RaĂșl, it is important,
20:31I always ask you,
20:32to differentiate between a direct test
20:34and an indirect test.
20:36It is not here an analysis that is made
20:38of a crime scene.
20:39Here we are talking about a DNA,
20:41it is a scientific test,
20:42it is undoubted,
20:43and there, well,
20:45it takes another value
20:47in the clarification of a fact, right?
20:49Well, in criminal investigation
20:51there are, as you say,
20:52two types of tests,
20:53the initial tests
20:54and the adjacent tests.
20:56This test belongs to the second category.
20:59It is an adjacent test
21:01that a certain person
21:03has taken direct contact
21:05with the corpse,
21:06with the victim's body.
21:08Then, if he killed her or did not kill her,
21:10let's be honest,
21:11this should be brought to justice.
21:13Of course, of course.
21:14And these stains...
21:15Forgive me, Michi,
21:16and let's see if I can get RaĂșl back.
21:19And I'm going to add Dr. Marcelo Chumbita.
21:21Prepare Chumbita for me,
21:23because I want to work on the subject
21:25of the passage of time
21:26in relation to the prescription.
21:27It seems extremely important to me.
21:29Here, someone tells me that the prosecutor
21:33is a medium-long explanation.
21:35He reviews the file.
21:40They explain to me that they also work,
21:42agents of the Cordova Operational Investigation Division,
21:45that a mapping is made
21:48of more than 200 people
21:50who passed through Nora's house.
21:53He gets in touch with the laboratory
21:55associated with the FBI
21:57and they tell me about the CEPROCOR,
21:59which I understand is a provincial entity, Javi, right?
22:01Yes.
22:02They manage to isolate,
22:03they manage to isolate,
22:05as RaĂșl explained,
22:07from the belt of the robe,
22:09which is the murder weapon in this case,
22:12a DNA that did not belong
22:14to the victim, nor to the husband,
22:16nor to the son,
22:17nor to any of those who at some point were suspects,
22:19nor to Perejil.
22:20Of course.
22:21When they manage to isolate that genetic trace,
22:24they begin to match it with the 200 who passed.
22:27Yes.
22:28And there he gives them.
22:29Because I told him, in principle,
22:31they had not asked him for the genetic trace,
22:33like others,
22:34because they did not accept the genetic profile,
22:37they have to ask for it.
22:39I, I...
22:40It can be denied to give a genetic profile,
22:42if I am not a deputy.
22:43Yes.
22:44If you allow me, Javier,
22:45I, for the public,
22:46who many times ignores this type of data,
22:49hundreds of cases in the United States of America
22:52were reviewed
22:54when the DNA
22:57was used as a formidable tool.
22:59Of course.
23:00With which criminal investigation counts.
23:02And there were many people
23:05reviewed and acquitted.
23:07And they were serving sentences
23:09in prison units.
23:10In the United States,
23:11especially the vast majority
23:13for crimes against sexual integrity.
23:15That is, the other way around.
23:16Many innocents
23:17ended up getting out
23:19in freedom.
23:20And if they don't take it badly,
23:22I'll leave them.
23:23Yes, yes, yes, Raul.
23:24Big hug.
23:25Thank you for your collaboration as always, Raul.
23:27It's always a pleasure to listen to you.
23:29Thank you for your attention.
23:31A hug. Congratulations, Raul.
23:32Let's recap.
23:33Javi, Mechi.
23:34I already hear you, Mechi,
23:35who just wanted to talk.
23:37Unexpected turn in the case of Almaso.
23:40Do you remember
23:41the crime of Nora Dalmaso
23:43that has shocked so much Argentina
23:45at the end of the year,
23:46on November 25, 2006?
23:49One of the many police events
23:51that kept impunity in Argentina.
23:54And whenever this story was associated,
23:56there was talk of the chance
23:58of a perfect crime.
23:59There was talk of the politics of Cordoba.
24:01There was talk of the family environment.
24:04No, us.
24:05The investigators of the case themselves.
24:08The experts of the case themselves.
24:10They involved the political power of Rio Cuarto.
24:14They involved Cordoban politics.
24:17They involved the husband of Nora,
24:21or ex-husband of Nora Dalmaso,
24:23their son, their family environment.
24:26But for the crime scene,
24:28in the following days,
24:30working between two and three days later,
24:33that November 25,
24:34about 200 people had passed,
24:37or several people.
24:39Little by little,
24:40that list shrank to 45.
24:42The house was under renovation.
24:44And from there,
24:46they worked with the FBI itself
24:49in the search for genetic traces
24:53found in the scene of the murder.
24:55They found a trace.
24:57They managed to isolate a genetic trace of the robe
25:00that Nora Dalmaso was presumed to have
25:03on the night of her murder,
25:06her final night,
25:07the night of the crime.
25:08And that's where the search began.
25:10But the problem is now the passage of time.
25:1318 years have passed since Nora Dalmaso's death.
25:16She prescribes the crime.
25:18She prescribes this murder.
25:20So we find out who killed Nora Dalmaso,
25:23but we can't charge her with anything
25:26because she prescribes the criminal action
25:29because of the passage of time.