A seis meses de la sustracción de Loan Danilo Peña en un paraje de 9 de Julio en Corrientes, habló la jueza Cristina Pozzer Penzo con el equipo de #QCD.
👉 Seguí en #Alerta24/7
👉 Seguí en #Alerta24/7
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00That is based on the resolution. I have to follow the process.
00:04The parties, I understand, have made the resolution known.
00:08And all that debate and contradiction, in my case,
00:12has to be part of the process to safeguard the reserve.
00:16Because we are in a reserved instance, despite all the publicity it has had.
00:21So, really, those aspects are impossible for me,
00:25because of my function of debating it with the best predisposition I have
00:29to understand.
00:31But, doctor, taking into account that the judges, as you speak,
00:34through your resolutions, for the little we could read in such a short time,
00:38because it is very long, we observe that this appears,
00:41that until now there would not have been, right?
00:43We say this in the text of the resolution,
00:45that there would not have been a clue related to the treatment,
00:48and that there would not have been any intrafamilial attack
00:51or revenge against the family.
00:53This, at least, is confirmed by what it says in the resolution.
00:57That's why I say, no matter how much the resolution is known,
01:00I cannot mention what the resolution contains.
01:03Very well. Very clear.
01:06Of course. What's going on, Diego?
01:09Talk to you.
01:11I was talking to the doctor and you were looking at the wall.
01:15You're wrong, Diego. You're wrong.
01:18Let's see. What do I think we should leave it?
01:21Work. It is true that they speak for the failures.
01:24The judges, all the judges, speak for the failures,
01:27and not at the television level.
01:31It seems to me a mischievous, evil play
01:38to ask for political trial now, to her,
01:43for a single reason.
01:46Because when you are focused on a cause,
01:49fighting for a cause,
01:51and they put you in a trial,
01:53just when you are working,
01:56it distracts you and you can't concentrate on what you are doing.
02:00You have to be defending yourself.
02:03What?
02:05You look at me weird, Diego.
02:07You forgot about Codazzi and Pellegrini, didn't you?
02:09No, Codazzi and Pellegrini should be declaring.
02:11Yes, of course.
02:12Well, maybe...
02:13What?
02:14This jury has to do with the fact that,
02:17in the case of Gustavo Vera,
02:19there was a partiality.
02:21Who denounced her?
02:22The judge.
02:23Who denounced her?
02:24She left justice aside.
02:25Vera.
02:26To politics.
02:27And she was...
02:28No, she was just fired.
02:30She was notified of the article.
02:31Of course.
02:32The cause has just begun.
02:33She also has to have political support.
02:35Of course, she denounces.
02:36It's not that I go,
02:37how are you, good afternoon, I denounce,
02:39and the next day this woman stops being a judge.
02:41No, no, no.
02:42No doubt.
02:43I know judges who have been in a trial
02:46for years and years
02:48and never finish.
02:49They retire and the jury is not resolved yet.
02:52Maybe the question...
02:53Yes.
02:54Was if there was...
02:56Pablo's question.
02:57Have you heard of...
02:58If there was or not, try.
02:59Have you heard of...
03:00He said no.
03:01Let's see.
03:02He didn't say anything.
03:03He said it clearly.
03:04He said...
03:05You follow a personal line.
03:07Yes, yes.
03:08It is seen that it hurt you.
03:09Did the action of Nauber hurt you?
03:11No, I don't have actions.
03:12Something happens.
03:13He did it, he did it.
03:14No, it's the same.
03:15It's the same.
03:16It's the same.
03:17It's the same.
03:18It's the same.
03:19Listen to what I'm going to say.
03:20It's the same as the senator who went to Paraguay with $200,000
03:26and was arrested.
03:28I know you know Diego.
03:30How?
03:31No, it's a lie.
03:32Well.
03:33Go and check it out.
03:34Go and check it out now.
03:36Ah, well.
03:37Go.
03:38Go.
03:39Omar denounced you.
03:40It's crazy.
03:41I don't know him.
03:42Where am I sitting?
03:43You see?
03:44Where am I sitting?
03:45You see?
03:46But he clarifies that it's a lie.
03:47Well, I clarify that it's a lie.
03:48And I'm going to clarify that it's a lie about the judge.
03:49But they all saw it live.
03:50There is nothing to clarify.
03:51The important thing is that I understand that he discarded.
03:52It's a lie.
03:53Let's make a parenthesis of seriousness.
03:54Yes.
03:55Pablo asks him.
03:56The deal is approved.
03:57The deal is discarded.
03:58The deal is discarded.
03:59Exactly.
04:00Of course, because what is not in those 1,000 pages is like a lie.
04:01It's a lie.
04:02It's a lie.
04:03It's a lie.
04:04It's a lie.
04:05It's a lie.
04:06It's a lie.
04:07It's a lie.
04:08It's a lie.
04:09It's a lie.
04:10It's a lie.
04:12It's a lie.
04:13It's a lie.
04:14It's a lie.
04:15It's a lie.
04:16It's a lie.
04:17It's a lie.
04:18It's a lie.
04:19It's a lie.
04:20It's a lie.
04:21It's a lie.
04:22It's a lie.
04:23It's a lie.
04:24It's a lie.
04:25It's a lie.
04:26It's a lie.
04:27It's a lie.
04:28It's a lie.
04:29It's a lie.
04:30It's a lie.
04:31It's a lie.
04:32It's a lie.
04:33It's a lie.
04:34It's a lie.
04:35It's a lie.
04:36It's a lie.
04:37It's a lie.
04:38It's a lie.
04:39It's a lie.
04:40It's a lie.
04:47for a matter of treatment,
04:48and then we'll have to see what the end is.
04:50And in the middle of the way,
04:51the police will take it out and resell it.
04:54For me.
04:55And that's why Maciel,
04:57and that's why Maciel is now being framed
05:01in the subtraction as a necessary participant.
05:05That the prosecutors didn't do it.
05:07The prosecutors accused Maciel of covering up,
05:11but not of being a participant.
05:12Do you still believe that Loan is alive?
05:14I believe that Loan is not alive.
05:16Ah.
05:17I said it, and I apologize,
05:19and I apologize to the family, and everything.
05:23And more...
05:24Ah, but it's the first time you're saying it
05:25with consequences.
05:26Let's see, I'm going to be very honest about something.
05:29If this creature, like many that are missing in the country,
05:34is being subjected to abhorrent acts,
05:39I prefer that it be under the mantle of God.
05:42I'm not going to lie to you, okay?
05:44I think that after six months, almost seven,
05:47that we don't have a single proof,
05:49not a single sign of Loan,
05:54I don't think it's either on July 9th, nor in circulation.
05:59And hopefully, if it's like Saker says, alive,
06:02that I have it in a good family, I don't know.
06:05But I don't think we have any news
06:07with respect to Loan here in Argentina.
06:12Strong.
06:13But it's what I think, guys.
06:15Do you want me to lie?
06:16Of course.
06:17I lie.
06:18It's what I think.
06:19That's why when they write to me and tell me,
06:21Loan is already in Argentina,
06:22that now, that the 18th, that the 5th, that the 8th,
06:24that for the Christmas tree, that now it has it,
06:27that it talks to the mother, that the aunt had it, that...
06:31Proof.
06:32I want proof.
06:34I don't care about the judge, or the prosecutors,
06:38or Pellegrini, or Kodasi, or Tello, or the American.
06:43I want Loan.
06:45I don't even care about Loan's family anymore.
06:47I'm going to do...
06:48I want Loan.
06:50Today, well, the judge said, I don't know if it's in that court,
06:53that we need to produce 50%...
06:56Of the expertise.
06:57Of the expertise, not 50%.
07:00I consulted with some sources that are within the cause
07:03and they tell me,
07:05she took math to Mars, right?
07:08Who?
07:08And well, I'm not going to say who,
07:10but some lawyers, okay, defense lawyers.
07:12For more or for less?
07:14No, for less.
07:15For less.
07:16That there is not so much proof to produce.
07:18And the truth is that what one saw,
07:20because what is in those 1,075 pages,
07:22Omar, that's all, let's say what is there.
07:25There, the judge has to put everything in the process.
07:27Of the whole cause.
07:29It has to put absolutely everything,
07:30and the theory of the case is that she managed to prove it
07:32until now.
07:33And the parallels?
07:34Also.
07:35It's all there.
07:36It's all there.
07:37It's all there.
07:38There can't be no...
07:39You could read the...
07:39Yes, I read it.
07:40I read it from yesterday morning that I was reading it
07:42and now it's...
07:43Oh, that's why you missed it.
07:44No, I didn't miss it yesterday.
07:44Oh, you didn't miss it yesterday.
07:45Yesterday I came.
07:46The day before yesterday, yes.
07:47But this came out yesterday.
07:48And when, I was frozen directly
07:53when I saw a functionality that is not reflected
07:56in the evidence.
07:57It's not there.
07:58That is, the probationary plexus does not carry...
07:59What do you think is going to happen in the camera?
08:02The camera is going to confirm.
08:04Oh, really?
08:05Yes, yes, it's going to confirm.
08:06There it makes some small modification.
08:08I understand, with some roles that should not be necessary,
08:13but secondary, and raises the trial.
08:15And in court, what happens?
08:17I, particularly, the trial has to be...
08:21First, there will be no jury,
08:22because the federal judicial system does not admit
08:26the trial by jury.
08:27There will be three school judges.
08:28Three judges.
08:29In principle, I believe that there is not enough evidence,
08:32as the law says, to reach the certainty
08:35that a conviction requires.
08:36First point.
08:37What does the court see?
08:38Does the court analyze the evidence?
08:40No, the court comes to the trial...
08:42Well, don't get angry, tell people.
08:44Sorry, I'm getting nervous.
08:46Yes, I see you.
08:47The court comes to the trial without having touched the file.
08:50You can't know anything that's in the file,
08:54because what has to do
08:55is what develops in the oral trial.
08:57First point.
08:58And with all this that has to develop in an oral trial,
09:01do you think that three judges
09:03will have the necessary conviction
09:07to be able to sentence a sentence
09:09that goes up to 15 years in prison
09:12to seven characters without having a positive certainty?
09:15The odorous test of the vehicles.
09:19Can I reject that?
09:20Yes, of course.
09:21That's a null test.
09:22First, we're going to see it all,
09:25asking for the nullity of that test.
09:28Who's going to decide that?
09:29The camera will decide.
09:31The camera will decide.
09:33And if it accompanies the judge's request,
09:39the oral trial will be nullified.
09:41There's no one talking.
09:42Let's put it on the stage,
09:44at least what has been raised so far.
09:46No one is talking.
09:47No one confesses.
09:48No one says, well, to reduce my sentence,
09:51I'm accused of repenting.
09:52Guys, they did business.
09:54Well, but for...
09:55Understand it, they did business.
09:56They're going to a penalty.
09:57Many have no record of those who are arrested.
10:00They go to a practically minimal penalty
10:02with a criminal penalty that starts
10:05from six years in prison.
10:07So, give them seven...
10:09But with the characters...
10:10If you were...
10:11I'm going to ask you a question.
10:12Yes.
10:13What happens if the court,
10:14when this is held at an oral trial,
10:16and the oral and public trial is held,
10:20what happens if the judge says,
10:21this is all wrong, I'll do it again.
10:23The investigation goes back to zero.
10:25Can it happen?
10:26Of course, it can happen.
10:27Not the court.
10:28It can also go to a chamber.
10:30A chamber, it's called resubmission.
10:32It can say that the conformation
10:34of this trial is wrong,
10:36it was not understood, it returns.
10:39It has happened, Carrascoza case,
10:41it has happened in several cases.
10:44And with what evidence?
10:45How?
10:46They are all...
10:47Addicted.
10:48Produced.
10:49Ah, addicted.
10:50Of course, well, there it is.
10:51For example.
10:52There it is.
10:53The proof of the smell.
10:54The smell.
10:55How do you do it?
10:56It can't be reproduced.
10:57It can't be done.
10:58Hey, the boot was planted.
10:59It can't be reproduced.
11:00It can't be reproduced.
11:01Hey...
11:02Experiments.
11:03Exactly.
11:04Any other thing that has to be done again,
11:06there are many that can be done and reproduced.
11:08And with what do you do a trial?
11:10You do it with what you have.
11:11And that's called, later, undoubted pro-reo.
11:13Of course, it's called undoubted pro-reo.
11:15But what happens?
11:16You also have to understand who is negotiating.
11:18The detainees are negotiating with the future sentence.
11:21What is the best business?
11:23Let's close our mouths.
11:24Let's go to a penalty scale of 6 to 15 years in prison.
11:27And at 12 years you're out.
11:28It is very feasible that none of us,
11:30we all lack a criminal record,
11:31clean reincidence,
11:33the body of the crime is not there,
11:35the undoubted pro-reo, without being able to convince,
11:38can also act in the quantification of the sentence.
11:41Yes, the whole scenario would favor the detainees.
11:43Everything would be, well, 6, 7 years in prison.
11:45Yes.
11:46At two-thirds of the sentence, they enjoy a conditional.
11:48At half of the sentence, they can already access the transitory exit.
11:52We do business.
11:54Because here you have to understand
11:55that there is a death, crime and chaos.
11:57I have that almost proven.
11:58Speaking of secondary characters,
12:00who were you referring to?
12:01To Mishavi, for example?
12:02No, to Maciel, Maciel, Maciel.
12:05They are giving him a primordial role.
12:08You're going to have a big problem.
12:10As much as you are convinced
12:11that Maciel had an active role
12:13in that functional association to disappear the minor,
12:17you're going to have to prove the purpose.
12:19Because Maciel is a third party,
12:20that when the boy was disappearing,
12:22he was morphing asado as if he didn't care.
12:25And when they called him on the phone,
12:27they said, it's approved, it's recorded.
12:30Yes, yes, I'm going, I'm going.
12:33He hung up.
12:34If he were a functional to the criminal plan,
12:39he would have been getting up,
12:40leaving the asado,
12:41he put more chimichurri to the asado,
12:43he kept eating
12:44and looked at the cell phone like this,
12:45as if saying, they are bothering me now.
12:48I tell you, yes, it's fine, Omar,
12:51but it is the one who receives the call,
12:53the modulation, where they say,
12:55Loan appeared, he is scared.
12:57And what do they say?
12:58A police officer.
12:59A police officer?
13:00Well.
13:01There is no scientific proof.
13:02It is not identified.
13:03How not?
13:04What the defense is going to do,
13:05What not?
13:06What the defense is going to do,
13:07the police officer is going to charge him
13:09with three more police officers,
13:10and three police officers are going to say,
13:11I didn't hear anything.
13:12No, I didn't hear anything.
13:13But Laudelina heard it,
13:14another of the accused heard it.
13:16He said it, Maciel said it.
13:18In fact, Maciel recognizes it and says,
13:20and when I went, no,
13:22it was the confusion that a drone,
13:24a drone took the little horse
13:26turning around.
13:27What proof do you have
13:28to refute the opposite?
13:29Who has to claim and prove
13:31and overcome the presumption of innocence
13:33of Maciel is the state.
13:35Do you know I'm very scared, Omar?
13:37And speaking out of all jokes,
13:40what was that, a shot?
13:43Hey, you're not taking shots, are you?
13:45It's okay, it's okay.
13:46Otherwise it's time to escape, guys.
13:50What I'm afraid of
13:55is that all of this is nothing.
13:56It is that everything comes out of freedom,
13:58like the indulgent delivery,
14:00lack of merit, because...
14:01Not in freedom, I'll explain one thing.
14:04Not in freedom.
14:05Not in freedom, to this day.
14:06But with a six-year sentence,
14:08it's practically the same.
14:09I'm going to explain why.
14:10Because here there is a criminal death.
14:14Where is the body?
14:15Well, since the justice system does not have the capacity to find that body,
14:20what is going to happen is that they are not going to charge him with that crime that would take them to perpetuity.
14:24They are going to charge him with any other kind of crime, such as deportation.
14:27But if you had to condemn them with the elements that we know,
14:31which are what are available on those 1,075 pages.
14:35And what do you do?
14:36You can't condemn them.
14:37Well, but you make the intellectual effort to condemn them.
14:39Of course, you condemn them with the same evidence.
14:41Because there is pressure, obviously there is media pressure.
14:44Of course.
14:45Society is not going to accept that this is in a limbo, that they all come out absolved.
14:49So be creative.
14:51How do you condemn them?
14:52By concealing the minor.
14:54What happens is that I'm going to...
14:56How do you prove it?
14:57Of course, how do you prove it and how do you justify the end?
15:00There is something worse that people do not know, while they are sending messages and looking on Instagram,
15:06there is something worse.
15:07It is very feasible, and it sounds hard, but it is so,
15:11that the minor is no longer among us, that he is dead,
15:15and justice cannot prove the aggravated homicide of Article 80,
15:21crime is cause.
15:23And it will not be able to prove it until now.
15:25Crime is cause is to commit a crime to cover another.
15:29To cover another.
15:30What happens?
15:32Now, to this day, with that process that we all read and we want to be satisfied,
15:38it is a fallacy.
15:39It is the abduction of a minor at 10 years.
15:41Of course, we know that well.
15:43We understand that the minor, unfortunately, will not appear anymore.
15:47He has disappeared with a presumption of death.
15:51Therefore, that they cannot qualify Article 80, that is the problem.
15:56That's the serious thing.
15:57So people, instead of sending a message,
16:00that Loan appears,
16:02really judge what is happening with this justice,
16:06that clumsily wants to leave us satisfied,
16:09with a trial, up to 15 years in prison, disappeared.
16:18But it's a reality.
16:19So, that's what people don't realize, guys.
16:22That's what people don't realize.
16:25People...
16:26Speaking of people, there are two messages.