👉 Víctor Varone, experto legal, discute la estrategia del abogado de Patricia Scheuer, la actriz y empresaria acusada de atropellar y matar a un turista brasileño y herir gravemente a su esposa. Según el abogado defensor, la mujer sufre de un trastorno llamado síndrome de despersonalización, lo que podría haber afectado su conciencia en el momento del incidente. Varone analiza las implicaciones legales y médicas del caso, incluyendo la necesidad de probar si la acusada estaba médicamente apta para conducir en el momento del accidente.
👉 Seguí en #ElNoticieroDeA24
📺 a24.com/vivo
👉 Seguí en #ElNoticieroDeA24
📺 a24.com/vivo
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Victor, how are you? Good day, good afternoon.
00:04Good day, Javi, good day to everyone, good day to the table, happy new year to everyone.
00:08Likewise, thank you for attending us, Victor.
00:11Let's see, you know we were talking because apparently the strategy of this lady's lawyer
00:18who ran over and killed the Brazilian tourist,
00:21is to explain to the court that this lady suffers from a disorder of depersonalization syndrome.
00:31As if she lost consciousness at that moment.
00:34And we ask ourselves, what strategy plays the limit, right?
00:40First, point number one, we have to divide several things.
00:44The first thing I say is, perfect, let's say I have whatever it is,
00:48whether it's depersonalization syndrome, fainting,
00:51I've had a case that took me more than 8 years of a diabetic person who had a peak of diabetes.
00:58Yes.
00:59And a baby died, and a person in their thirties,
01:02and obviously they ended up absorbing this person, but why?
01:07Because they didn't get into a situation that, I say this happened to me, to get out of the situation.
01:13Sure.
01:14This is like when, the typical example of the faculties,
01:17I get drunk or I take drugs and then I go and kill someone.
01:20So since I was drunk, I was drunk, I am indisputable.
01:24So that's called acter iberi in causa, but well, beyond the Latin term,
01:29what you have to do is you have to test that situation very well.
01:32And I believe that both the judge who is now investigating it,
01:35as well as the prosecutor who intervenes, who is a very good prosecutor,
01:38they are going to investigate a lot on this subject.
01:41Let's see how far this person really suffered the disease that he claims to have suffered.
01:46And on the other hand, and I'm going one step further back,
01:50let's see, can you drive a person with these characteristics?
01:53Sure.
01:54Obviously, power can, because I was doing it.
01:56Now, it must drive, well, this is the issue,
01:59regardless of whether they give you the record or not,
02:02whether they give it to you for a year, for five or whatever.
02:05You have to go, you have to say, look, I have this disease
02:09and I want you to authorize me to drive.
02:12Because if the government of Buenos Aires, or the province that it was,
02:15or the institution that it was, authorizes you to drive,
02:18well, perfect, it is authorized.
02:20On the other hand, if you know that you are not well,
02:22both the professional doctor and the person have to automatically say,
02:26sir, you don't drive.
02:27I had a hernia a week ago and they told me, hey, you don't drive.
02:32Yes, yes, it's my fault to say, well, I'm not in a position to drive.
02:36Many people who have panic attacks decide not to drive for a moment
02:40and don't touch the car because they realize that, of course, it suffocates them.
02:45It's repetitive, because some can have it from time to time.
02:50And the vertiginous syndrome, although it comes to you at a certain time,
02:54gives you the possibility, if you are driving or walking, to stop.
02:59But there are other symptoms, other diseases,
03:01that catch you at the moment and, you see, it's almost like a fainting.
03:05Of course, of course.
03:06Here, Víctor, it is also fundamental in the background,
03:08because if they raise what they have been raising,
03:11but they tell you, it's the first time it happens to him driving.
03:15How can you certify what was happening before,
03:18that maybe, I don't know, at some point it happened to him at home,
03:20without hurting anyone, but driving, he didn't think it was a danger?
03:24Mechi, it's called medical expertise.
03:26Here the fundamental thing is going to be medical expertise.
03:30Sure, sure.
03:31To determine if this woman, I insist, can drive.
03:34Obviously she can, because she was doing it.
03:36She must drive.
03:37Well, there we go.
03:38First, by the institution that has to control her and tell her,
03:41I give it to you or I don't give it to you.
03:42With all the criticisms that the driving test can have.
03:45Agree?
03:46Yes.
03:47But first that.
03:48And then, oneself.
03:50Say, I drive or I don't drive.
03:52This is exactly the same as drinking alcohol.
03:54Sure.
03:55You decide if you drink or you drive.
03:57People, nobody tells you, don't drink.
03:59Here they are telling you, don't drive.
04:01And here we are telling the lady, look, unfortunately you have this disease,
04:05this disease.
04:06Perfect.
04:07You decide if you should or shouldn't drive.
04:10But what does the law say about this, Victor?
04:12I mean, does the law establish something, the law of transit or something?
04:16If she is able to drive and has a record that she is able to drive,
04:19it is identical.
04:20She is able to drive.
04:21Yes.
04:22But if she didn't intend to.
04:23If she didn't intend to.
04:25Is the penalty the same?
04:27Let's say, if it is proven by expertise that she didn't intend to,
04:30that it was something that happened.
04:32Is the penalty the same?
04:33No.
04:34No, no.
04:35Let's see.
04:36First, what you call intention, since she didn't have it,
04:39nobody grabs a car and says, well, yes, there is someone.
04:42But in general, nobody has a situation in a transit event,
04:45in a transit crime, in an intentional way.
04:48But, let's see, if she knew she felt bad and left.
04:51If she took the medication.
04:53Maybe she didn't take the medication that day.
04:55Sure.
04:56You can say, but how can you know?
04:57Yes, you can know.
04:58By the analyzes that you can do, you can know perfectly
05:01if she was taking the medication well, if she was taking it more,
05:04if she had visited her doctor, if she hadn't visited him.
05:06There are a lot of situations that need to be analyzed.
05:08That's why I told Marcela just now,
05:10let's see, this is a matter of medical expertise and proof.
05:14Yes.
05:15We have to prove that this woman had the record enabled,
05:17had a license to drive for a year, for two or five,
05:21ready, she could, she was in condition,
05:23she was legitimately able to drive.
05:25She had to drive or not, the doctor and her.
05:28That's it.
05:29Now, when you go to get the record or renew it,
05:33they ask you, among other things,
05:35do you have any disease, do you take this or that medication
05:39or something, and they ask you.
05:41You omit to tell them.
05:43And then you crash, or you have an accident,
05:46or you kill someone.
05:47And it can be determined that this person,
05:50suppose, I don't know, had epilepsy.
05:53Yes.
05:54That's where justice falls on this person,
05:57because I imagine that they are going to ask for the clinical history
06:00of this woman, to see with which doctor she is treated,
06:02where, in which sanatorium she is treated.
06:04And they are going to ask for the clinical history
06:06to later define the imputation, or not?
06:10As is.
06:11First, that's why I tell you,
06:12apart from that, you can have another crime.
06:14It's going to be a little bit of ideological falsity,
06:16because you, let's see, if you falsify your data,
06:19if not, I, for example, I am, as you say, epileptic.
06:22And I don't say that I am epileptic,
06:24that later it is proven by my clinical history that I am.
06:26Yes.
06:27Well, you're going to have another crime.
06:29There it is.
06:30In this case, I was talking about diabetes.
06:31This person not only went, but went and said,
06:33and took all his exams.
06:34And he said, look, my doctor calls me so-and-so.
06:36Of course.
06:37That's why this person ended up released.
06:39Yes.
06:40Because he said, let's see, what happened to me
06:43was absolutely something that can happen.
06:45Yes, it was absolutely involuntary.
06:47And I said, all right, I took the medicine.
06:48And I said, all right.
06:49And well, it happened to me.
06:50Of course.
06:51Like anyone in the world can catch a heart attack,
06:52a heart attack.
06:53Yes, yes, yes.
06:54There are cases.
06:55But I say, a case, for example,
06:56we were talking yesterday about Roly Serrano, right?
06:58He had plenty of sleep, he was driving.
07:00He falls asleep for a moment.
07:02He collides with a family.
07:04Thank God nothing happened to that family.
07:06He ended up in the hospital for nine months.
07:09But that situation of sleep,
07:11if something had happened,
07:12he was guilty, responsible.
07:14Would it be a bit similar?
07:16I always say, and it's a phrase that I repeat,
07:19that a very good penalist, Dr. Pugliese,
07:22told me many years ago when I studied.
07:24What does not give you knowledge,
07:26does not give you reasoning.
07:28So, if you don't have the will
07:30and you don't direct your actions,
07:32you are not guilty.
07:33Of course.
07:34Because you don't do it voluntarily.
07:36There is no will,
07:37on the other hand, there is no imprudence,
07:39there is no negligence.
07:41Yes, yes.
07:42When there is no political action,
07:44we don't have any,
07:45we don't want to do it
07:48and it doesn't come out
07:49because I caught a cold,
07:50because I caught a stroke,
07:51because I fell asleep in the middle of sleep
07:53or because I had a vertiginous syndrome
07:55or whatever it was.
07:57Victor.
07:58But I didn't handle it.
07:59Well, I'm unimpeachable.
08:00And that's what the article 34 of the Code says.
08:03Sure.
08:04We discussed a little while ago
08:05the possibility that she would wait
08:07for the judicial process
08:09in a jailed way, right?
08:11Already going to her house,
08:13obviously with custody
08:15and at the disposal of justice.
08:17For that case to happen,
08:18what has to happen?
08:20Two basic things.
08:22Two basic things that are fundamental.
08:24The first thing is that she has not wanted
08:25to go to the court
08:26and that she does not hinder
08:28the action of justice.
08:29That is, she did not want to run away
08:31and she will not hinder the investigation.
08:34I think she didn't want to run away.
08:36In fact, they say that she went down
08:37to the university
08:38when she was mentally ill.
08:39Yes.
08:42So there I would also tell you
08:43that we have to see
08:44if the person is aware
08:45that something happened to her
08:46and that she has to do
08:47an alcohol test.
08:48There are a lot of things
08:49that have to be seen.
08:50Sure.
08:51As far as I realized
08:52what was happening, no.
08:53Exactly.
08:54And forgive me,
08:55but why are some people
08:56jailed for the same crime?
08:57Serious, right?
08:58And others?
08:59Others not.
09:00Others are detained.
09:01As in the case, for example,
09:02of Bepo.
09:03Yes.
09:04This boy who was driving
09:05the car.
09:06Bepo's case is very clear.
09:07Libertador,
09:08almost where it is,
09:09channel 7.
09:10It is very clear.
09:11The first surprise
09:12of the person
09:13He ran over
09:14the people.
09:15He ran over
09:16the traffic controllers
09:17and killed one of them.
09:18Exactly.
09:19To the traffic officers
09:20at the door of channel 7.
09:21At the entrance of channel 7.
09:22That's because
09:23he was coming at high speed.
09:24First, he was coming
09:25at high speed.
09:26Second, he ran over them.
09:27He doesn't stop.
09:28He leaves the car
09:29somewhere else
09:30and takes a taxi.
09:31Yes.
09:32Evidently, that man
09:33escaped
09:34and evidently
09:35he wanted to go
09:36to the court.
09:37Aha.
09:38That is, because
09:39he followed him,
09:40he is detained, let's say.
09:41No.
09:42No.
09:43It's a little complicated.
09:44There is…
09:45thanks
09:46to the work
09:47of many
09:48within the Mothers of Pain
09:49on 27,
09:50they were modified
09:51and two articles
09:52were added
09:53to the code.
09:54The 84 BIS
09:55and the 94 BIS,
09:56which are aggravated
09:57culposes,
09:58that is,
09:59injuries in the homicide,
10:00aggravated culposes.
10:01One of the aggravations
10:02is not
10:03assisting the victim
10:04or leaving the place.
10:05Sure.
10:06Another is
10:07driving with alcohol
10:08but then…
10:09And on the other hand,
10:10Santiago,
10:11I always say, you stop, you go down, you say, look, I was wrong, how did this lady do it?
10:16Look, here I am, she didn't leave, this lady didn't leave the place, they took her to the police station,
10:21it's in the 15th street, here in Zacarito, in fact, the inquiry is taken by Zoom,
10:26and well, that woman didn't leave, she doesn't want to go to the police station.
10:31Exactly, in the case of Bepo, absolutely, in the case of Bepo, it's different, it's very different,
10:38the car was parked, she took a taxi and left the car parked elsewhere,
10:42she clearly wanted to hide the situation.
10:46Victor, Pablo Vinocur greets you, I want to ask you,
10:49what happens if the lady was driving well, beyond this disorder or whatever,
10:54and she ate the cord, let's say it's a bad maneuver or something like that,
10:59what happens to her, what happens to her judicial situation?
11:03No, Pablo, let's see, let's go by parts, what is being judged here is whether there was imprudence,
11:08imperialism or she did not fulfill the duty of care that she had to have,
11:12that's why we're talking about a guilty case.
11:15If she had had the intention, that's a painful fact.
11:19Sure.
11:20If she ate the cord, because she was looking at the cell phone,
11:22because she was accommodating the radio, because she dropped, I don't know, a coffee she came to drink, right?
11:26Yes.
11:27Well, obviously it's imprudence, imperialism,
11:30and she did not fulfill the duty of care that she had to have.
11:33So the situation does not vary.
11:36What I think here, as well, and I go back to the beginning of our talk,
11:41it is risky to say, well, she had a medical condition,
11:47because you have to prove that she did everything very, very, very, very well,
11:52and that at the right time she was not aware of how to stop.
11:55Sure, how do you prove those five minutes prior to the fact?
11:5830 seconds.
11:59How do you prove it?
12:02With 30 seconds.
12:03With medication.
12:04For example, you said medication, but what else can you prove?
12:08How do you measure that disconnection, medically?
12:11How can it be proven?
12:13That can be proven, with the ratio, obviously, of time,
12:18but it can be proven if she had been fulfilling her treatment,
12:21what diagnosis she had, what treatment she had, if she had been fulfilling it.
12:25And it's not five minutes, it's 30 seconds or less.
12:29You think that a car at 40 kilometers per hour, in a second, moves 7 meters.
12:33It can be a second.
12:34It's a second.
12:35Or less.
12:36And there are 14 meters, it was two seconds at most.
12:38And you hit the curb, as it happened, you lose control and there is no return.
12:42And speed.
12:43Guys, two seconds is one, two.
12:45Yes, okay.
12:46In that case, what possible sentence can you have?
12:50When it was directly a bad maneuver that cannot be justified in anything,
12:55in doctors or anything.
12:57The maximum sentence you have today,
12:59in aggravated homicide, is six years.
13:01I can't even think that this was a painful fact.
13:05As it is.
13:06Well.
13:07In aggravated homicide, it's six years plus liability for 10.
13:10Exactly.
13:11Victor, a huge hug, as always.
13:14A hug for everyone and have a nice day.
13:16See you later, Victor Barone talking to us.
13:18We are going to talk to the doctor, in this case a psychiatrist, Ricardo Corral,
13:23who is also the president of the Association of Psychiatrists.
13:28Now, in a second, nothing more.
13:30But I go briefly to our cell phone with Selmira.
13:33The image impacts me.
13:34Selmira, let's see if we can put it again,
13:36of the driver, of Yeguer, transferred.
13:39When they get her off the patrol car, she is lying on her back, on her arms.
13:45Selmira.
13:46Everything is fine.
13:47Everything is fine.
13:48Yes.
13:49She was detained at the time and was transferred here to the mayor's office number 15.
13:53Let's remember, at the time of the accident, we covered it live.
13:57At 15, 20 minutes, everything happened.
13:59She got out of the vehicle by her own means.
14:02She was very moved.
14:03She sat down to cry.
14:04But at all times, she showed predisposition with the city police.
14:08In fact, the scientific police came to the place to do the alcohol test.
14:12It was negative.
14:13She had the record and everything was in order.
14:15Now we can confirm that the statement is over.
14:20Apparently, from what they tell us, she would be released.
14:23We are going to confirm this in half an hour.
14:26Let's see if the lawyer comes out directly with Patricia.
14:29Now a gray vehicle with polarized windows entered.
14:32She could get out in the vehicle or on foot.
14:36But we know that the inquiry is over and apparently she would be released.
14:40We have to see if she comes out under bail, if she comes out waiting for a trial and also with what imputation.
14:46The reality is that Patricia is responsible for the death of this 60-year-old Brazilian man
14:52and also for the very serious injuries that the woman has,
14:55who is now hospitalized in the Fernández Hospital with skull trauma, fractured ribs, among other injuries.
15:02But the inquiry is over and apparently Patricia would be released.
15:07A point that transcended has to do with what the judge asks.
15:10The judge asks, on the one hand, for the clinical history of the woman
15:13and is also analyzing if there is any health issue.
15:16That is why he asked for the clinical history and, in addition,
15:19what he is requiring are also antecedents of road accidents that she may have been able to play earlier.