📢 CASO LOAN; "LA VERSIÓN DEL ACCIDENTE NO LA CREE NI UN NIÑO" - Marcel Hanson
👉 En comunicación, el abogado Marcelo Hanson sostiene: "NO HAY INDICIOS DE QUE HAYAN INDUCIDO A LOAN"
"NUNCA EXPLICAN LA MECÁNICA DEL ACCIDENTE"
"NO HUBO NADA CONCLUYENTE SOBRE TRATA"
"NO COINCIDO PARA NADA CON CODAZZI"
👉 Seguí en #AndinoYLasNoticias
👉 En comunicación, el abogado Marcelo Hanson sostiene: "NO HAY INDICIOS DE QUE HAYAN INDUCIDO A LOAN"
"NUNCA EXPLICAN LA MECÁNICA DEL ACCIDENTE"
"NO HUBO NADA CONCLUYENTE SOBRE TRATA"
"NO COINCIDO PARA NADA CON CODAZZI"
👉 Seguí en #AndinoYLasNoticias
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Dr. Hanson, Dr. Hanson, how are you? Good morning.
00:04Good morning, Guillermo, how are you?
00:06I don't know if you heard the note we made with Dr. Kodasi.
00:10Were you watching?
00:12No, no, I'm from the study.
00:14He pointed at me at the beginning.
00:16What are you doing, doctor?
00:18No, no, I think he's watching and he's saying no.
00:20He pointed at you as if you were supporting the theory that would benefit your own defendants,
00:26which is the theory of the accident, but you are going against that theory that you want to implant another.
00:29He doesn't understand why he doesn't finish internalizing the hypothesis of the accident,
00:35which would be beneficial for Ramírez and Mischapi.
00:41Mischapi, yes, yes.
00:43Look, Dr. Kodasi, whom I respect a lot,
00:47the truth is that his way of seeing the law is very peculiar
00:51and of appreciating the facts in a judicial cause.
00:55I don't agree at all with the theory of the accident,
00:59which he intended to make him say, according to his sayings,
01:06next to Lina, the version of the accident, because not even a five-year-old child believes it.
01:12I don't believe that version of the accident.
01:15In no way.
01:17I don't know if I was clear.
01:19What are the points that make this hypothesis puerile?
01:24And first because it does not explain the mechanics of the accident
01:30and it never clarified in the Laudelina version,
01:36according to Kodasi, he said perfectly, but he didn't,
01:41what she saw, if exactly the accident
01:45or just that they were carrying the child in the cargo box with the cupola of the truck.
01:52Well, they are very different issues
01:55and the state is also very different from what she could have imagined,
02:00than what she saw.
02:02Okay, so one thing is to carry a boy in the context of a treatment
02:05and another thing is to carry a boy after an accident.
02:08Is that what you are saying, doctor?
02:11Yes, in the context, because also that of the treatment,
02:15the investigation did not come to a conclusive conclusion
02:19that any of these people had any connection with any organization.
02:24And necessarily, if it is treatment, there should be some clue that indicates that.
02:30And there is not.
02:31There is no treatment, there is no accident.
02:33What is it?
02:34An intrafamilial revenge?
02:36A revenge aimed at some of the Loan brothers?
02:40Which is the firmest theory?
02:43Because the 1075 FUJA of the self-processing does not make anything clear.
02:48No, yes, obviously it does not make it clear
02:51because it is like it is fluctuating between one or several hypotheses
02:56of an accident, so to speak, not a traffic accident specifically.
03:02But the thing is misunderstood when it affirms, on the one hand,
03:07that Loan came before to the grandmother's house
03:10and then when it reinforces the theory of a traumatic event that has occurred,
03:16which could have been an accident or something else,
03:20that they all conspired to hide it.
03:23I mean, let's suppose that this happened on the farm.
03:27What interest would two totally strange people have
03:32to the place, as Pérez and Cahillaba would be,
03:35in collaborating to hide that?
03:37Yes.
03:39I mean, no, no.
03:40It has no logical explanation.
03:42How come it has no logical explanation
03:45that Ramírez and Millarpi, if they saw it,
03:48did not say it until now?
03:50Of course, of course.
03:52Dr. Codazzi talks about a meeting after the accident
03:56that includes Loan's father,
03:58where, from what we infer,
04:01he implied that there would have been money offered
04:06for them to keep quiet
04:08as long as they did not want it to be known
04:10that neither he nor his wife,
04:12supposedly with a prominent political career,
04:15had run over and killed a boy.
04:17And he, supposedly drunk.
04:21Okay, but they are all conjectures
04:24that there is no evidence in the cause
04:26that it happened.
04:28Not even, which I have also contacted,
04:32the political aspirations,
04:34because they are all mere conjectures
04:37that eventually, before a candidacy,
04:40an accident of guilty transit could harm them.
04:44Regarding the statement of Codazzi,
04:46I don't know if he finally stated it,
04:48in the case with EXA,
04:50because the lawyer who just spoke to us
04:52had a preponderant role in the first hours,
04:54and later too,
04:56and now he is installing the theory,
04:58or practically the closed hypothesis,
05:00that it was an accident.
05:02What happens with that cause?
05:04Why doesn't it advance?
05:06Why is Codazzi out today,
05:08representing Cositorto in another cause?
05:10Why is he not linked,
05:12having such an important role,
05:14especially with one of the accused,
05:16which is the violinist?
05:18Look, Germán,
05:20I don't assign him such an important role.
05:22I do assign him a role of having gotten involved,
05:24perhaps to do some favor,
05:26or something to someone,
05:28in a very responsible way,
05:30very regular in a criminal cause,
05:32which meant, at the very least,
05:34a hindrance in the investigation,
05:36in the way he addressed
05:38the situation
05:40that arose with Odelina.
05:44You know what happens?
05:46I'm sorry to interrupt you.
05:48He didn't have a preponderant role,
05:50but Alan Cañete, Elisabeth Kutay
05:52were arrested,
05:54and they had, for me,
05:56similar roles,
05:58although they were with minors.
06:00That's what I don't understand.
06:02Why is he moving forward with these people
06:04from the Dupuy clan,
06:06and not with Codazzi, for example?
06:08Well, let's go step by step.
06:10I'm going to answer as far as I can,
06:12as a defense lawyer
06:14of the deputies Ramírez and Millapi,
06:16and my professional opinion
06:18of what I can see.
06:20And in any case,
06:22whoever can better realize,
06:24and has the obligation to do so,
06:26is the prosecutor,
06:28that is, to explain
06:30why he has not yet declared it,
06:32whether he will declare it or not,
06:34and in what character.
06:36The only one who has that cause
06:38at the moment
06:40is Dr. D. Guzmán,
06:42who is in charge,
06:44delegated to the investigation
06:46by the Supreme Court of Pujado.
06:50Now,
06:52what happens to us,
06:54and also surely to the public,
06:56a lot of what you say
06:58can be credible,
07:00they are objective data,
07:02they are data that are in the cause,
07:04but I say,
07:06I could agree with what happened,
07:08but they are dissimilar,
07:10or they are opposite.
07:12They make a 180-degree turn, right?
07:14We go from an accident,
07:16from a guilty homicide,
07:18to a humiliation for the treatment of people.
07:20That's what we,
07:22as journalists,
07:24as citizens,
07:26cannot have full discernment.
07:28Do you understand, doctor?
07:30Yes, Guillermo, I understand you perfectly,
07:32and I also understand that sometimes
07:34it is difficult to read
07:36the judicial documents,
07:38but in the self-proclaiming,
07:40if you want, I will point it out
07:42with a page and paragraph,
07:44where the judge directly discarded
07:46the sexual assault,
07:48discarded the treatment,
07:50and everything related
07:52to the narco track, so to speak.
07:54That is,
07:56there is only the disappearance
07:58of Lohan, which attributes
08:00to a subtraction,
08:02by the way it disappeared,
08:04but it does not explain
08:06how that subtraction was executed.
08:08It does resort to
08:10justify that something happened,
08:12whether it is a traffic accident,
08:14a home accident,
08:16that they decided
08:18to remove it from place
08:20to hide it, that is,
08:22there it already indicates
08:24that there would be a precedent crime,
08:26that although it does not define it,
08:28it does not indicate how it would have been executed,
08:30which is what at this point
08:32for self-proclaiming
08:34the judge needs to be sure
08:36that it probably happened
08:38regardless of whether a trial
08:40is tried or not.
08:42Just now Dr. Codazzi, in fact,
08:44for me it was an affirmation
08:46that Lohan is in some of the lagoons
08:48that were pointed out as wrong,
08:50misguided, wrongly traced.
08:52Is there that concrete possibility
08:54and that drainage
08:56that was spoken about,
08:58it will never be done, in short, right?
09:00Well, that's why,
09:02but they are all conjectures.
09:04I can say that Lohan is at this moment
09:06walking through Brazil
09:08in some favela
09:10because it was sold there,
09:12but they are mere conjectures
09:14that do not indicate any precision,
09:16the lagoons were traced,
09:18the place was
09:20tracked several times,
09:22no trace was found,
09:24if it were
09:26that it reached a lagoon,
09:28something will remain,
09:30that is, the dogs
09:32that traveled the area
09:34never marked a clear trace
09:36towards the lagoons,
09:38that is, if they had transported it alive or dead,
09:40there would have to be evidence
09:42of that at the time,
09:44because it no longer makes sense
09:46to make a trail with selling dogs,
09:48let alone those that follow
09:50the trail of living people.
09:52Dr. Hanson was known
09:54because when we spoke
09:56with Dr. Codazzi a few minutes ago,
09:58he said, keep in mind
10:00that there was a lot of alcohol
10:02that had been taken,
10:04when in reality
10:06José, Lohan's father,
10:08has denied it,
10:10I don't know if at some point
10:12he was drunk,
10:14which could have
10:16run over Lohan,
10:18this was not known
10:20and it will not be known anymore.
10:22No, the only thing
10:24that is in the photo
10:26of the lunch
10:28that you can see there clearly,
10:30how many bottles,
10:32please make a zoom
10:34and tell it.
10:36We see one
10:38without interview,
10:40this is the first one,
10:42behind there is another one.
10:44What do you mean, doctor,
10:46that there was wine,
10:48that alcohol ran on that table?
10:50Yes, you have to see it,
10:52apart from that,
10:54it also depends a lot
10:56on the particular situation
10:58of the drinker,
11:00because an alcoholic
11:02takes a glass of wine
11:04and is already drunk,
11:06on the other hand,
11:08it all depends,
11:10I don't know,
11:12I don't want to judge that situation,
11:14if there is a testimony
11:16that speaks of that situation.
11:18But we have come
11:20to the conjecture
11:22at some point
11:24that it was also a hypothesis
11:26that they wanted to get
11:28José drunk,
11:30Lohan's father,
11:32to leave him sleeping
11:34and carry out the
11:36subtraction-hiding
11:38of minors,
11:40which contradicts that title
11:42with the later theory
11:44that he disappears alone
11:46or that there is an accident,
11:48I say, they have been
11:50multiple hypotheses
11:52and today we have nothing in particular.
11:54I think there is a confusion
11:56there and it is pointed out by several
11:58appealers in the chosen criminal type,
12:00because if they bow
12:02because there was a previous event,
12:04in any case,
12:06it would be a cover-up
12:08of an event that happened
12:10and you are still without identifying
12:12the fact and the authors,
12:14that is, that is why
12:16that question is still
12:18mere conjectures,
12:20the issue, as I said, of the plan
12:22was ruled out by the judge
12:24by saying that it was not
12:26expected that it was Lohan
12:28at lunch and that he arrived
12:30because the father,
12:32that is, there is no possibility
12:34that they have planned
12:36to subtract Lohan
12:38in the conditions in which
12:40the hypothesis gives to think.
12:42Of course, because Lohan
12:44was not on the list of the guys
12:46who were going to be present.
12:48In the face of that, why is it processed?
12:50It is not proven
12:52that someone
12:54induced him to return
12:56to the house alone,
12:58quite the opposite,
13:00because it was proven
13:02from the testimonies of the minors
13:04in the first and second chamber
13:06that the decision to return
13:08was unforeseen and of the minor himself.
13:10Of course,
13:12what we do not know is the reason,
13:14for example, he missed his father,
13:16he wanted to be with his mother,
13:18or if someone told him,
13:20that is what is not known,
13:22they are not minor details,
13:24if someone told him, Lohan,
13:26come back, your father is looking for you,
13:28Guillermo, you are incorporating
13:30something that is not in the cause,
13:32and if it is in the cause,
13:34that it was Lohan's decision to return alone,
13:36a boy does not say it,
13:38there are several.
13:40Does everyone agree in the Gessel chamber
13:42that the boy decided to return alone?
13:44Yes.
13:46And then in the second Gessel chamber,
13:48who motivates the boys
13:50to say that another person
13:52appeared, a hooded man,
13:54and why does that direction
13:56or that intention
13:58of directing
14:00the statement of the boys?
14:02With a gun.
14:04I understand your question,
14:06and obviously they ended up being processed
14:08for their action, 10 people,
14:10that regardless
14:12of their intention,
14:14the truth is that they have influenced
14:16in the testimony, because they did
14:18a totally irregular procedure,
14:20and out of order in the cause,
14:22that is, whether they had
14:24intention or not, the mere fact,
14:26as we have also put in
14:28knowledge the activity of the Querella
14:30in that sense, the mere fact of making
14:32them speak to the minors about what happened,
14:34without a doubt,
14:36will influence any
14:38subsequent testimony.
14:40Well, Dr. Hanson,
14:42thank you for this contact,
14:44as always,
14:46and we will talk again.
14:48Goodbye, Germán.
14:50Goodbye, see you later.