The complaint of the fact was filed by the teacher of the neighborhood where the minor attended, without the knowledge of the adolescent’s parents. The ruling questioned the witnesses and the work of the Prosecutor’s Office.
General Pico (Agency) – Judge Marcelo Pagano yesterday acquitted a 35-year-old man, who came to trial accused of “simple sexual abuse, as a continuing crime” to the detriment of a minor. Despite the fact that one of the psychological experts described the story as “credible”, she also made observations that raised doubts for Judge Pagano, who also highlighted the lack of precision on the part of witnesses and, at the same time, blamed the Prosecutor’s Office for the lack of some evidence to reinforce the story of the affected adolescent.
The oral debate took place on April 19 and 20, with the participation of prosecutor Luciano Rebechi, Jerónimo Altamirano as plaintiff on behalf of the victim’s parents, and defense attorney María Laura Vaquero.
The complaint of the fact had certain peculiarities, since it was filed by the teacher of the neighborhood where the minor attended, without the knowledge of the adolescent’s parents, because she refused to speak to avoid “problems”, both to the accused who was close to the family and his own parents, who found out about the situation at the police headquarters.
The 15-year-old victim reported a series of simple sexual abuse events to the teacher, who recommended that she speak with her parents and, given the refusal, in May 2020 she filed the complaint by her own means and without further details of the events. concrete.
The first professional who listened to the minor, referred to kisses and touching on several occasions by the accused man, in a car and most of the time during weekends when families gathered, episodes that were repeated throughout at least one year. By way of conclusion, Ms. Brito clarified that her work was a report and not an expert opinion, so she cannot “verify whether or not there was falsehood or omission in the facts.”
In her turn, Ms. Pirás, who listened to the minor in the Gessel Chamber, reproduced what the adolescent said and concluded that it was a “homogeneous and consistent” account of “credible characteristics.”
Along these lines, the judge highlighted in his ruling that the same attorney stated in court that the young woman “may incur in over elaboration of what is perceived tending to oversize the experiences, fundamentally those where defenselessness is involved, although without this implying a fabulation tending to tell things that he has not lived…”.
Pagano remarked that the same professional added that the minor “due to her own fearful characteristics, overestimates the facts that she experiences, that is why she over elaborates and adds in the story some detail of how she experiences what she tells, but this does not imply storytelling, understood as recounting facts. unlived…”
Given this, Pagano observed that “in the absence of questions from the accusing parties that tried to clarify this point, it is not possible to ensure with total certainty that the events have occurred in the way that the minor narrated them because, if it magnifies what was lived, then I I ask: What of what is narrated is real and what is invented? Beyond the fact that the psychologist says that S. does not fable, the truth that this assertion does not necessarily entail the certainty about whether all the narrated events occurred and the way in which they occurred. This point was not duly clarified and generates doubts in the undersigned, preventing certainties about the facts discussed and analyzed”.
On the other hand, the judge mentioned that “there is no uniform story maintained over time as proposed by the accusing parties.” And he later cited that the complainant “contributed practically nothing about the facts.” He also remarked that the minor “has told her parents little” and in the complaint from the police headquarters “there is no narration of any event.”
Pagano later observed that “frankly I do not notice the repetition of the story of the victim through time and people, based on the premise that the longest story has been the one given in Gesell camera and none of the witness stories is similar in its entirety to what the minor said there.”
The judge also considered “the lack of post-traumatic stress in the victim, despite an innumerable number of reported acts of abuse”, a condition that was demonstrated in other events such as “the death of her grandmother, the separation of her parents and an alleged abuse suffered at 10 years of age”.
Finally, the judge attacked the performance of the Prosecutor’s Office, for not carrying out an ocular inspection and drawing of the accused’s house, to reinforce the hypothesis of touching in a bathroom and on a glass table, which was used without a tablecloth, for which considered unlikely to happen. The Prosecutor’s Office was also unable to verify that one of the abuses occurred in the defendant’s car, who denied having one, since he was traveling on a motorcycle.
By way of conclusion and prior to issuing the acquittal, Pagano considered that the accusers ran into the “great stumbling block of the expert report”, “the weakness of the evidence” to corroborate the minor’s statements, added to certain data that “does not were duly investigated by the MPF.” And he summarized that “the work carried out by the accusing parties has not managed to generate in the undersigned the necessary certainty about the existence, or details of the accused facts analyzed that lead to a conviction; doubts have not been dispelled.”
We wish to say thanks to the writer of this article for this outstanding content
They acquit an accused of sexual abuse in General Pico