Photo: Daniel Dabove.
The following are the main arguments for which judges Osvaldo Rossi and Esteban Andrejín signed the acquittal of Nicolás Pachelo in the trial for the crime of María Marta García Belsuncewith the dissent of the third judge Federico Ecke.
– They questioned the account of the three adolescents who said they had seen Pachelo jogging near María Marta, because they were related to the victim’s family:
“Note that (Santiago) Asorey, (Marcos) Cristiani and (Pablo) Aspiroz have a personal relationship or belong to the friendship group that linked them with the nephews of the Carrascosa-García Belsunce couple and with the godson of this couple, the Bártoli and the Taylors. ”.
– There is no certainty that Pachelo entered María Marta’s house:
“Certainty must be sought by looking at other evidence that demonstrates by itself that Pachelo entered the victim’s house, or that elucidates for certainty, that what was stated by Aspiroz in the debate held was faithful to what happened and allows us to define positively that Pachelo continued on the occasion the tour of Carrascosa’s spouse and, in addition, he introduced himself with her…”
– The theft of the labrador retriever Tom was not considered a motive:
“It only maintains a speculative quality for the hypothesis that Pachelo maintains as a person who stole the pet from the neighboring couple and carried out an extortion maneuver -the demand for a price for the return of the dog-. But, even if the hypothesis in question is granted, Nor is an indication of guilt to the detriment of Pachelo seen with efficient entity -even enough-: if it occurred, beyond a dastardly attitude on the part of the extortionist, the action is classified as of little significance so that, faced with the option of not paying, generate anger or enmity against their selected victims to the point of determining the decision to kill them”.
Nicolás Pachelo is acquitted and the crime of María Marta García Belsunce remains unpunished
– It was not proven that the crime was a homicide on the occasion of robbery:
“No probative material has been collected that allows a valid predication that the homicide of María Marta García Belsunce had been committed during a robbery, nor to prepare, specify, facilitate, or ensure the success of a crime of seizure of other people’s property, or for finding that the victim was an obstacle that prevented its commission”.
– The impossibility of escaping through the funds of the houses after the crime.
“If it were a matter of establishing an escape duct behind the houses, it should be noted that the personnel employed by (the neighborhood) Cazadores and the residents of Carmel were resolute in highlighting the impossibility of joining lots in the rear sectors”
– The modus operandi used by Pachelo in other robberies was not endorsed.
“Therefore, a similar dimension was not determined between the quality of criminal activities verified in the head of Pachelo, with the hypothesis of a robbery execution with a fatal outcome that kept Pachelo initially, with the decision to enter the home of the person in the same place. At a precise moment, he would pass him on board his bicycle and arrive at the home destination; And if it had been the other way around, the victim, without exceeding jogging speed, upon seeing the invasion of his functional unit, did not give any notice requesting help, avoiding going inside his home, despite the fact that Carmel was aware of the Pachelo’s fame as a thief or dangerous”.
Photo: Daniel Dabove.
– They once again sowed doubts towards the widower Carlos Carrascosa and the García Belsunce family.
“Now that the status of res judicata has been consolidated – and unrestricted respect for such quality – in criminal proceedings unrelated to the one substantiated here, the doubt has favored those who were then accused, even both for concealment, granted in terms of the chance of ignorance or error recognition of the real situation (a violent death suffered by the victim at the hands of an armed person, with shots that penetrated the cranial vault). So that it is fully understood: the firm quality endures in recognition of the acquittals arranged, but the probative material presented in this current trial allows us to assess and extract reasons that become transcendental to define the situation of the now accused, since in the conduct of For those already acquitted, there is still evidence of a deliberate simulation favoring the concealment of the known reality, or at least its possibility -because, not even a negative certainty was reached that would exclude the chances- “
– The judges did not value the testimonies of the employees of a service station in Pilar who compromised Pachelo because his departure from the country was not registered the morning after the crime of María Marta:
“The entry and exit transfer sheets of Carmel did not record the use of Pachelo’s member’s card; and the verification of the use of the Guardia card that does not prove Pachelo’s departure on October 28, 2002 for the hours of 6:00 and 7:00 only deserves to be assigned a speculative quality; neither projectable to Pachelo’s departures that for October 29 and 30 will show that the use of his cell phone does not correspond to location in Carmel but in the tosquera “.
– No complicity was found between the security guards and Pachelo:
“No premise has emerged from the trial held that provides a positive assessment of an armed conspirator by security personnel to ensure Pachelo access to neighboring homes; rather, a mere lack of contraction to work by unskilled labor, poorly paid and lacking in incentives”.
– For the judges, Pachelo had already been investigated by the prosecutor Diego Molina Pico:
“Unwise consideration given that the Pachelo supposition was considered by the prosecutor Molina Pico from the beginning -telephone tapping and other measures adopted-, but that line of investigation would have later been left aside based on the evidence gathered in relation to the intervention and family behavior.