Marcelo Hanson, abogado defensor en el caso de la desaparición de Loan, revela detalles sobre su investigación exhaustiva, incluyendo visitas a la zona del incidente y análisis de testimonios. Asegura que la desaparición del menor no ocurrió en el naranjal como se creía inicialmente. Además, cuestiona las declaraciones contradictorias y los elementos incriminatorios contra Benítez, otro sospechoso en el caso.
"No descarto que Loan Haya sufrido un accidente"
"Es raro que no encontremos sangre de Loan"
"Loan volvió solo del naranjal"
👉 Seguí en #QuienCuandoDonde #QCD
"No descarto que Loan Haya sufrido un accidente"
"Es raro que no encontremos sangre de Loan"
"Loan volvió solo del naranjal"
👉 Seguí en #QuienCuandoDonde #QCD
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Marcelo I wonder how many times you reviewed these plans, how many times I think you personally went to try to understand what route each one could have done, I think it was practically five months of investigation, right?
00:14Hello Pablo, good afternoon, hello Bobby, there were several trips to the area on July 9 to try to understand from the testimonies and statements of the defendants who were at the first moment where each place was, each movement they made.
00:36And going over, going over, there is no way that the disappearance was in the orange grove, without a doubt today I can say that it was after they were in the orange grove and Lohan returning alone to his grandmother's house.
00:53That is to say that Lohan returns alone, as the boys say, at the same time in another point are Mishap and Ramírez Iberite, they realize that the boy is missing and there or he was lost, strange because they did not find him, or someone intercepted him and took him away.
01:12Yes, yes, something happened there, something happened that obviously the most logical for the way the cause is presented is to maintain that they took him, but it also does not cease to draw attention to the possibility of an accident and that it has not been seen by the rest of those who were there in the house.
01:37Or do you say an accident, Marcelo, a car accident, as Kodassi presented and through Laudelina, or do you speak of another type of accident that the boy has suffered?
01:49Yes, it could have been, the issue is that this theory is missing a few data, for example, there is no presence of any of the reports that there has been a crash, there is no blood, there is no braking, there is no ...
02:07Normally, some sequel to the accident is going to be a very large truck, the boy is very small, I do not think that if they pass over a creature, there is no trace of blood or a trace, it will remain because we are not talking about crashing with a bicycle, it is a huge truck that they drove.
02:32Yes, because of what happened later, which is the presence of traces in the two vehicles of the marriage, it makes you think that something else could have happened.
02:45That data is inevitable, because it is one of the few objective data that is still valid today.
02:54Marcelo, the work of a defense lawyer like you and your partner, Dr. Monti, is to present the theory of a case in relation to its clients, not having to explain to society what happened to Lohan.
03:09Yes, to present a theory of a case where they unlink their clients, where it is given for not proving their participation in the fact, and that is what you have done with a presentation in the last hour.
03:21Now, as a citizen, as part of the cause, you may have asked yourself a thousand times, what reasonable explanation is there for this? What would be yours, even if it does not have to be your main task?
03:34I believe, and I spoke to Monti, that L.N. was taken away, and that of the people who were at lunch, at least one or two know what happened.
03:48What I tell you at this point, and looking at this analysis, I really have more and more doubts about Audelina, because Audelina is the one who ends up getting to a point and letting go of the child that she herself took.
04:05That is what really makes a lot of noise. I don't know if it is the subtraction with exploitation purposes that is in the cause, and what the judge has to determine. Do you believe, Marcelo, that the evidence ...
04:20Look, the imputation is only subtraction and concealment.
04:25Subtraction and concealment?
04:28The other was from the province, which was not collected in the federal courts.
04:36But, excuse me, then, subtraction and concealment is being worked on by the federal courts. Is it not for exploitation purposes of some kind?
04:45No.
04:46Only subtraction and concealment?
04:48No. The legal qualification, for the moment, has not suffered much.
04:53I was told by judicial sources that the charge can also be extended. Be careful, it is not that it is something that is fixed and everything, but at least it has to be able to be sustained with evidence.
05:03Evidently, until now, until now, in principle, do you think that with Millapi and Ramírez there is evidence to detain them? Or have you not seen any?
05:12No, no. It is precisely what you must have in the document, what we tell substantially in writing, to show that everything that Millapi and Ramírez declared was proven, and none of that shows that they were the last people to be in contact with Lohan.
05:35But let's see, Marcelo, but this theory, this analysis, this that they have presented, does it excuse or remove the suspicions of Benítez himself, beyond the fact that he is not your representative?
05:46No.
05:48No, no, no, because Benítez has other elements of charge, which will obviously be in charge of his defense, to see how to mitigate the consequences of his own statements.
06:03He contradicts himself.
06:05Of course, in a contradictory way, and there are also many witnesses with the issue of the clothes and so on.
06:12Very well.
06:13Dr. Hanson, I was a little surprised when you talked about the position of the accident. Look at this issue. I share with you that there is no evidence and that there had to be a lot of evidence if they really passed the truck to the poor little boy up there.
06:30But there is another issue. There are first-line lawyers who would have told their client, please, if there was an accident, say it, because you are going to be, at most, three years in prison.
06:40That's why it's hard for me to believe.
06:42I had that conversation with Dr. Tito González, a young boy who has a lot of experience and has the trajectory of his father, who was a great criminal, whom I met.
06:57He died in a violent accident. He has a lot of experience, he said, and the first thing he asked his client was what you say, and they confessed that there was no accident.
07:13That's why I say that it is difficult for the main parties involved to self-imply. I'm not saying there was no accident. I prefer a 25-year sentence to a six-year sentence. It's very strange.
07:23No, but the sentence in expectation at the moment is from 5 to 15, right?
07:30Of course, of course.
07:32Marcelo Hanson, lawyer for Ramírez and Millapi, thank you very much for contacting us and we will keep you informed of everything that is going on in the cause.
07:39I want to tell you, before giving the urgent information, the lawyer of the Juan Pablo Gallego family is currently in Spain.
07:46There are versions that there is some kind of short-circuit in relation to the family and the lawyer Juan Pablo Gallego. I don't know if you agree with everything.
07:57The truth is that Gallego does not appear, but under the signature of Roberto Méndez, both María and José are actually signing arrest warrants.
08:08Let's see how that ends. For now, it has not ended anything more than a scandal, because there were too many.