This is Mayra Marisol Mansilla Cuadros. For prosecutor Gabriela Baigún, she lied when she claimed that she was Gabriel Carrizo’s partner.
For the third time the prosecutor’s office asks that a witness be accused of false testimony in the trial for the attack on Christina Kirchner. It is about Mayra Marisol Mansilla Cuadros, who said he was the current couple Gabriel Carrizo.
For the prosecutor Gabriela Baigún and the former president’s complaint, the young woman lied in her statement during the investigation stage and this Wednesday she incurred obvious contradictions.
The suspicion of accusation the thing is In reality, the accused and Mansilla were never dating.. What he warned Baigun to the Court is that this witness had been summoned at the beginning of the investigation, because she was the one who offered to lend her home so that Carrizo could eventually, at the request of his defender, establish that place for house arrest. And, although today Mansilla Pictures tried to prove that they were a couple, the prosecutor and the victim’s lawyers They warned that it was untrue by confusing dates and not even being able to define exactly what her supposed boyfriend did. “The coexistence, if there was one, was four days after the attack. There was no link,” stated the representative of the Public Ministry.
In addition, he pointed out that the chats that were read to the witness at this Wednesday’s hearing showed that they were not typical dialogues of a couple. “There is not a single photo of the lady and Reed on the cell phone Reed, Contrary to what the lady says (…) “I do not believe that someone can lie with such impunity as this girl lied today in front of the Court, trying to maintain a relationship that never existed because we have been able to determine it,” Baigún added. And he concluded: “I didn’t even know what (Carrizo) worked for, how many children he had, whether they were boys or girls… Obviously, when he went to prosecutor Rívolo’s (in the investigation stage) it was with a statement prepared for that purpose and here it was shown that it was not.”
The hypothesis of the accusation is that they sought to establish domicile in the house of Putty because it was not a safe place and could allow the accused to escape.
Two other witnesses complicated by lying
This is not the first time that a witness in this case has been accused of false testimony during the trial. The first was Miguel David Robles, who knew Brenda Uliarte through networks and the sale of sexual content. On the same day of the attack, he transferred a thousand pesos to the accused and spoke with her on several occasions after the attack.
The other witness who complicated her situation was the defendant’s cousin, Martin Alejandro Uliarte. A manuscript with the rule of Tueller found in the house of Uliarte during a raid. At trial he denied having taught Brenda how to shoot.
Both witnesses They exhibited blatant contradictions and a striking lack of memory during their statements.
Source: Ambito
