Thursday March 23, 2023 | 2:30 p.m.
After being detained for a year as suspects for the homicide of Gladis Beatriz Gómez (39), the day before Mario Antonio A. (28) and Santiago Miguel S. (27) were benefited from the lack of merit and were released by order of the Instruction Court One of Oberá.
In this way, the investigation into the crime of the Obereña merchant and catechist returned to zero, which generated great indignation among the victim’s relatives.
“On March 13, the judge told us that there was evidence to bring the case to trial, but ten days passed and the suspects were released. The only concrete thing here is that they murdered my sister and now they are taking away the possibility of doing justice. Let them get their act together and investigate, they cannot play with the pain of a family”, claimed Rafaela Gómez.
In dialogue with El Territorio, the victim’s sister explained her surprise at the judicial decision to release those who until yesterday were accused of being the motochorros that on March 2 of last year assaulted the Piedrabuena street store and shot the owner.
As a result of a bullet wound to the head, Gómez agonized for eleven days at the Samic de Oberá Hospital, where he finally died on March 13.
“The truth was that it was a surprise, we still don’t believe it. We don’t even tell our parents because we don’t know how they will react,” Rafaela acknowledged.
Visibly upset, she regretted that “for a year they assured us that there was enough evidence, but it was not like that and now we have to start from scratch. Here it is clear that they grabbed two parsleys and did not investigate as they should.”
double tragedy
Mario Antonio A. and Santiago Miguel S. were in the custody of the Provincial Penitentiary Service (SPP) and were released yesterday morning, after being notified of the lack of merit ordered by Investigating Judge One, Pedro Piriz.
Sandra Llamosas, plaintiff on behalf of the victim’s family, stated that she adhered to the opinion of prosecutor Elías Bys “because there really was no conducive evidence to bring the case to trial as it was.”
For her part, María Cristina Salguero, private defender of Santiago Miguel S., questioned the investigation of the case and regretted that a year was lost to find the true culprits of the crime.
“The reality is that there was no evidence against my client or the other suspect.
The accusation cannot be sustained only for the fact of having detainees. I have never seen such an armed cause. First the famous anonymous call, then not even an expertise, ”she questioned.
According to Salguero, while two innocent men were imprisoned for a year, the authorities “lost the opportunity to investigate well to find the real culprits.
I imagine that for the victim’s family this is a double tragedy.”
The summary of the case was in charge of the First Section of Oberá and the investigations under the supervision of the head of the Investigations Division of the Regional Unit II, commissioner Augusto Britos.
Dubious key witness
From the outset, the defense of the defendants questioned the instruction and the alleged anonymous calls that directed the police investigation towards the two suspects.
According to the file in charge of the First Investigating Court of Oberá, on March 9 of last year a call was received to line 101, where a man -who did not provide his information for fear of reprisals, was recorded- assured know the perpetrators of the act, accusing Miguel “El Chueco” and Marito M.
Meanwhile, on September 19, Lucas R. declared before Judge Piriz that he had provided information to the heads of UR II, which led to the arrest of the defendants.
The witness said: “(…) I was with the two heads of the Regional Unit three days after the event, they put pressure on me because of Marito because of a video they had from the security cameras. I recognized Marito in the video, a Barcelona shirt he had caught my attention, that’s why I recognized him, and the one who got down I didn’t recognize him because he got down suddenly and the camera wasn’t focused. They asked me if I knew anything about the weapon, if Marito had a weapon or if he had knowledge, and I told him that I did not know about it.
As to why the Police sought him out for information, the witness replied:
“Because the bosses know that I have a record for attempted murder. I have two, one with a firearm and the other with a knife. Because of the issue of weapons they went to look for me and it had been four months since I had returned from Rosario”.
stark contradictions
The defenses also pointed to the testimonial evidence and the discrepancy regarding the statements of the victim before the police personnel and what the witness RQ said about what she heard from her.
On the one hand, in the record of verification and visual inspection of March 2 at 9:18 p.m., it was recorded that the victim was at the scene of the event “(…) where when asked about their characteristics or description or of the motorcycle, due to the state in which it was found, he stated that he did not know ”, signed the assistant officer Leandro Fraga.
Then the report of March 9, signed by the deputy officer Luis De Mora, is cited, which says: “Upon arriving at the aforementioned place, which is a commercial premises, from the kiosk category, we are received by a female person , who told us that they had shot him with a firearm in the area of the head, presenting severe pain and that he did not feel well”.
“When asking her to tell us how the event occurred, she told us that a person entered to buy something and at one point this person took out a firearm, pointed it at him and shot him, then fled after getting on to a motorcycle with an unknown destination. Regarding the characteristics of the aggressor, he could only say that he was thin, tall and dark-skinned, and he could not provide information on the motorcycle he rode on, only that it seemed to him that it was a small motorcycle, similar to the 110 cc “, it is added.
Meanwhile, a testimonial statement was also received from a neighbor of the victim, who contradicted what was stated by the Police in previous reports.
The witness mentioned that Gómez did not provide characteristics of the driver of the motorcycle, but did provide characteristics of the passenger, whom she defined as “big, dark-haired and that the tune was not from here.”
no trial support
Regarding the technical report made by the Cybercrime Directorate on the film monitoring of the alleged perpetrators of the act -after the victim named motochorros-, it is detailed that at 9:00:27 p.m. on March 2, the security cameras of a address on Calle Piedrabuena “they allowed us to see the passage of a motorcycle, dark in color, not being able to specify its characteristics due to the distance from the camera, with two occupants.”
“The driver was wearing a white helmet, he was wearing totally dark clothes and the passenger was wearing a white helmet, he was also wearing totally dark clothes. They headed in the direction of Concordia street ”, it is quoted.
A second sequence captured at 20:58:08 at another address on the same street made it possible to verify the passage of “a motorcycle, dark in color, presumably 150 cc that has fenders similar to a cross, with no control attached, with two occupants. Both the driver and the occupant were completely dressed in dark clothing and wore a white helmet.
At 21:01:13 the same shot was seen on Piedrabuena street towards the Municipal Sports Center. Beyond the detail of the monitoring of the cameras in the area, Cybercrime did not find a film record of the case under investigation and the report clarifies that “the commission of a criminal act is not observed.”
