In a new hearing of the trial for the attack against Cristina Kirchnerthe defense and the prosecution sought to elucidate what happened to the cell phone of the Fernando Sabag Montiel after the attacker was arrested. This is because the device was surprisingly found to be factory reset when it was opened in Commodore Py.
Amidst doubts and contradictions, the two police officers who signed the arrest warrant for Sabag Montiel and a building manager who became very nervous and burst into tears when they asked him to clarify whether the accused’s cell phone was on or off when he was kidnapped for investigation on the night of the attack gave their statements on Wednesday.
The state in which the cell phone was seized Samsung SMA 50a key piece of evidence in the case, was the focus of questions to a new round of witnesses who were present on the night of September 1, 2022.
Broken screen?
What happened to the cell phone? Fernando Sabag Montiel This is the most important mystery in this case. The most sensitive investigation of the last years of democracy has a stain that seems impossible to clarify around the key evidence of the case. It is that the answer to the question of the intellectual authorship and possible financing of those who tried to kill the then Vice President of the Nation The attacker’s phone could have been on it, the chain of custody of which was broken and its contents erased. This specific fact is being investigated in a case that is being processed in the court of Maria Servini. But, in parallel, in the trial for material authorship of the attempted assassination, the testimonies began to focus on knowing what happened to the cell phone while the first actions were being carried out after the arrest of the accused. In that sense, this week’s hearing left more doubts than certainties.
The controversy is total. Sabag Montiel He stated that when his cell phone was seized, it was intact. In fact, the arrest report does not indicate any damage. However, the police officers who testified on Wednesday and others who did so during the investigation and in the other case, stated that the screen was broken and that it had no battery.
First, he declared under oath Julio Cesar Soria (49 years old)inspector commissioner of the investigations area of the Federal Police. He is the officer who informed the federal court on duty of the incident.
The man said that he had not been searched before arriving at Sabag Montiel. He said that when he arrived at the place the attacker “was notified of his rights and the search was then carried out in the presence of witnesses.” He said that the detainee was inside a police car and for the search he was made to get out of the car and was searched in the gazebo. He said that at that moment they found his cell phone and that is why they called the forensic science personnel.
Consulted by phone Sabag He said that the screen was broken. But then they read him the report that he himself signed, which did not mention the alleged breakage. Regarding this, the witness clarified that the report included what the cybercrime division had indicated about the state of the device and that he had never personally manipulated it. He said that at that time they sought five witnesses for these first actions and that the entire procedure was recorded in the relevant report.
Secondly, a young PFA officer testified. He is the police officer who made the arrest report for Sabag Montiel. Facundo Hector Nahuel Balberdi, 28 years oldalso belonging to the judicial intervention division and Soria’s second in the chain of command.
Asked specifically by the prosecution and the defense, Brenda UliarteBalberdi said he did not remember if he saw the damaged screen of Sabag Montiel’s cell phone. The prosecutor Gabriela Baigún conveyed her doubts to him on the matter and the officer explained that the person responsible for the description of how the cell phone was was the cybercrime officer. Gonzalo Ruizwho personally hijacked Sabag Montiel’s device.
“If the phone was broken, should that have been recorded in the report?” asked one of the lawyers. “Yes,” he replied without hesitation.
Balberdi then gave his version of how the phone was transferred from one person to another. He said that he was given the cell phone at 00:30 in a sealed envelope and that at 00:40 he handed it over to Ruiz in the same conditions for “remittance and examination.” In other words, it was in his possession for ten minutes. He explained that he did not receive the phone “loosely” enough to notice if the screen was damaged. He also clarified that the chain of custody protocol applied that night was not that of his division but that of the anti-terrorist division. According to him, these are different procedures from those of the brigade to which he belongs.
Balbedi was also the one who asked the obligatory questions to Sabag Montiel. Asked by the prosecution, he said that he observed the attacker “located in time and space.” “He did not object to any question I asked him. He always answered me accurately,” he said.
Cloak of suspicion
After the police, the last witness of the hearing added to the confusion. Juan Ramon Mesathe manager of a building on Juncal Street, located one block from Cristina’s apartment, appeared extremely nervous in front of the 6th Oral Court.
The man had been brought in as a witness “because he had gone out to gossip,” according to his own words. Mesa was one of five witnesses who were in the gazebo where the man was searched. Sabag Montiel and where the cell phone was seized.
With a trembling voice, the man initially said that a police officer had tampered with the phone. “He turned it on and off”he said. The prosecutor asked again if he had actually seen the cell phone on, since all the previous witnesses testified that the phone was off because it had no battery. Mesa began to get more nervous. He tried to outline an answer. He said that at times he saw the blue screen and then he saw it off. The prosecutor did not understand and asked him to show her with his own cell phone how he interpreted when it was on and off and what it meant that the screen was “blue.” Mesa’s hands were shaking. He began to apologize. “I apologize for the cell phone thing. I have a daughter, I have a job. I apologize,” he said.Judge Sabrina Namer tried to calm him down. The witness tried to explain again. However, it was never clear whether he saw the device on or off. At that point he started crying. “Please don’t cry on me,” the presiding judge told him. The man took a drink of water and tried to continue.
“Did you receive any threats?” one of the lawyers asked. “No,” she said, sobbing. The judge ended the testimony and ordered a recess.
Although the hearing was to continue, it had to be interrupted because the judge’s blood pressure rose and she had to be assisted. The trial will resume in two weeks.
Source: Ambito
