Contradictions
Ocampo indicated during his testimony that he did not know where Uliarte came from on the night of September 1 and that he learned about everything that happened on television. She said that Brenda never spoke to her about it that night, but when asked by the prosecutor she said that the young woman saw when Sabag shot. “How do you know that if you didn’t talk to her about it,” Baigún asked. “Because it’s in all the videos,” he responded. “No, there is no video where Uliarte is seen shooting Sabag”the prosecutor told him, so it was not clear how he knew that Uliarte had seen the shot.
Then, the prosecutor showed him the chats from September 2 at 5 p.m., where he writes to Uliarte: “I told the truth, that you didn’t know that the crazy man was going to react like that and etc. and that you snapped out of your fright.”
The prosecutor asked him where Uliarte “came from.” Ocampo could not be precise in his response: “About what Sabag would have done, about the attack.” The prosecutor insisted that he clarify where Brenda left and Ocampo was unable to specify. “I don’t know where the attack went,” he apologized.
“Why did he call her so many times on September 2?” the prosecutor questioned. “I wanted to know if I had fixed his problem,” he said. As he explained, he cared about her and had affection for her because he and Brenda were lovers. “Did they have sex on the night of September 1?” Baigún wanted to know. “No,” the witness responded.
One of the points of the statement that left a shadow of doubt was the weak explanation that the young man gave about a chat he had with Uliarte after the attack. There he suggested that she say “that they forced her to do it.” The judge asked him why he suggested that and Ocampo recounted a situation of sexual abuse by Sabag Montiel. However, she did not clarify whether she was referring to saying that Sabag forced her to attack Cristina or to accompany him that night, although that is what the messages suggest.
Regarding Brenda’s personality, Ocampo said that a few months before the attack she began to become politicized and violent. “She wasn’t like that. Years ago she wasn’t like that, she was also an extremist with Kirchnerism and things like that. She changed too much” (sic). “He got a lot of hate” (…) “He watched videos of Presto (with whom he had had a relationship) and things like that (…) loaded with a lot of hatred that attacks all politicians and we watched two or three videos and I told him that will change that.”
He Cristina Kirchner’s lawyer, Marcos Aldazábal asked him when Uliarte started talking about politics. “About six months before the attack,” he said. From which – he explained – she changed completely and began to distance herself from him.
Ocampo said that he was in a relationship with Uliarte for three or four months and that afterward they were friends and lovers. During all that time he said he did not know what she did and that he believed that his father sent him money. “I found out on TV that she worked with the copitos. I only knew that she worked in a business,” he assured the Court.
false testimony
Miguel David Robles He met Uliarte through the networks and through the sale of sexual content. On the same day of the attack, he paid her one thousand pesos through Mercado Pago in exchange for an erotic photo. She said that in the talk (the chats were shown in the audience) Uliarte told her that her boyfriend had tried to kill Cristina. That he humored her, but didn’t believe her.
Robles related this at the beginning of what would become an extensive and tense statement, to the point that the prosecutor Baigun He requested his arrest for false testimony. “The witness is lying,” said the official.
The inconsistencies manifested themselves when it was not clear whether or not he knew the main accused, Fernando Sabag Montiel, and when they began to show him chats and audio messages that he himself had sent after the attack.
His voice sounded in the courtroom when they played an audio that he had sent to his partner at the time, whom he had scheduled as La Tóxica: “They offered money to the lazy man, money they were going to put him in prison for a year, then they would to pretend to be dead in the style of Néstor Kirchner and what is it called and I don’t know what else, a trip. They were going to keep it hidden something like that. Those who sent her to shoot Cristina are the same people as Fernández. Didn’t you see that the custody of her was such a disaster? This guy was sent by the people of the government themselves, they sent the old woman to be killed and when she fell they told her ‘Attentive to the consequences if you fail and if you say that Fernández sent you or the people themselves to prison “They’re going to kill you.”
Asked insistently by all parties, the witness said that it was only his theory, that it was not true and he could not support those statements. “What I said to the girl in those audios is not true”He said visibly nervous.
Judge Namer asked him what is not true. “I wasn’t with Brenda. What this conversation really has is what Brenda tells me.” “What does she tell you?” they insisted. “I wrote to Mariela what I told her in the audio is all invented.” “But what he was talking about about the weapon that he did not know how to assemble is what happened,” added the prosecutor. “I heard it on TV. What I know I found out from Brenda,” he reiterated.
Some audio from Robles’ phone, according to the PSA’s expertise, was deleted. Time and time again the witness assured that he had not deleted them, but he could not exactly remember their content either. Cristina’s lawyer, Marcos Aldazabal He reminded him that the deleted audios were in the context of a conversation about Uliarte’s participation in the Federal Revolution organization.
One of the questions that did not have a clear answer from the witness was whether or not he knew Sabag Montiel. He tried to explain that he didn’t know him, but his partner did (Florencia Canosa and that when he says he knows him it is through references, but not “physically” and through mutual friends on Facebook).
After a fourth intermission, the court decided to defer the request for false testimony against Robles at the time of sentencing. Prosecutor Baigún, in a harsh tone, said that she could not continue asking who is lying.
Uliarte’s friends
The other witnesses of the day were the young people with whom Brenda Uliarte had some type of virtual or real friendship relationship.
Serena Victoria Suarez He said that he knew her by the nickname Daki, that he did not know that she worked selling sugar flakes and that he was aware of her activity on Only Fans, where she sold erotic content.
The young woman declared that she saw a photo of Brenda with a gun in April 2022: “On the networks, it is not her WhatsApp, she uploaded a photo to her status and I asked her what was up and she told me it was for an ex-boyfriend who had threatened her.”
He said that when the attack occurred he wrote to him to ask what he had gotten himself into. But Uliarte never responded. And he said he was surprised by what happened. That he knew Brenda’s side of political hatred but that he didn’t think “that it was going to go so far, to such a thing.”
Another of Uliarte’s friends, Franco Matías Merigi He said that Brenda once showed him a weapon and that he knew that Uliarte had gone to some marches in Plaza de Mayo (in reference to the hate demonstrations called by the Federal Revolution organization).
Source: Ambito
