Attack on Cristina de Kirchner: Brenda Uliarte’s cousin was accused of false testimony

In a tense hearing, the cousin of Brenda Uliarte testified as a witness and was accused of false testimony. Given the contradictions and surprising memory gaps, the complaint and the prosecution requested that an investigation be opened into the young 22-year-old police officer, who He could face a two-year prison sentence for lying.

Before him Federal Oral Court 4, Martín Alejandro Uliarte denied that his first cousin, the accused Brenda Uliarte, had asked him to teach her how to shoot.

Faced with the prosecutor’s insistent questions Gabriela Baigun and Cristina Kirchner’s lawyers, Marcos Aldazábal and Juan Manuel Ubeira, The witness appeared elusive and had a lack of memory during the more than three hours in which he was interrogated.

First he said that he had received numerous calls from Brenda on the day of the attack. But when they showed him the forms with the communications to his cell phone, only one communication between the two was verified, the content of which he said he did not remember. Nor could he explain how a manuscript in his handwriting with a protocol for shooting weapons arrived on the defendant’s desk.

During a search at Brenda’s house in San Miguel, a writing of Tueller’s rule was found that was found to belong to the young man. This is a protocol from US police schools that studies the time a person has to draw a weapon and shoot before it is taken out.

When questioned by the prosecutor, Uliarte tried to explain that the paper on which he had Tueller’s rule written was part of his study material.that he only forgot it there because he went everywhere with his materials from the police cadet school of the Province of Buenos Aires and that he never showed those instructions to Brenda.

He said that he always talked to his cousin about anime series and movies but that she never asked him about weapons or how they work.

Regarding the writing of Tueller’s rules, the prosecutor pointed out that this paper was, as determined by the expert, in his own handwriting, so it is “doubtful” that if he never discussed weapons with her, that writing was in Tueller’s house. Brenda. The witness explained that at the time he took the course he was going to the defendant’s house and that “that writing must have been left there,” but he could not give more details.

The dialogue between the prosecutor, the complainant and the witness was tense and the judge had to intervene on more than one occasion.

“I have records of several calls with Brenda on the day of the attack. I want to know exactly what they talked about? I have an eleven-minute call and a four-minute call. “What did they talk about?” Baigún said emphatically. “I don’t remember,” the young man answered again and again, who had previously stated that he did not remember if he had called her before the attack on September 1, 2022.

According to the records at 4:01 p.m. that day there is a phone call to Brenda Uliarte which came from the cell phone of the witness, who said that that day at that time he was on duty, that is, working. The biggest doubt arose at the hearing because the witness himself had said that when he was on duty he could not talk much on the phone.

But the records also revealed two other calls after the attack, after nine at night on September 1.

“Why, if you had no contact since August 21, do you try to call her from her workplace on the day of the attack at 4:01 p.m., at 9:04 p.m., at 9:27 p.m. and at 9:38 p.m.? Did you seek to talk about something in particular?”Judge Sabrina Namer questioned. “No, nothing in particular.” When questioned and cross-examined, the witness was never able to specify how many times he spoke with the accused that day.

In one of the obvious contradictions, Uliarte first said that “he wasn’t interested” her cousin’s life, but later said that she became worried about her when Sabag Montiel, who was Brenda’s partner, tried to kill the then vice president.

At 11:44 on Friday, September 2 – one day after the attack and two days before Uliarte’s arrest – there was another communication between the cousins. “He told me about the attack and asked me if Sabag Montiel could go to prison,” said. There were more calls that day. However, the witness said he did not remember almost anything of the contents of those dialogues. That day there were three calls with only a few minutes between each of them.

“If you are innocent, why aren’t you at home?” He said he asked her in those conversations. “I said, Brenda, why aren’t you here if you’re innocent?” “And what did she say to him?” “I don’t remember exactly.” “Why did you call Uliarte two hours before the attack?”the prosecutor insisted. “I don’t remember,” the witness reiterated.

Given the repeated inconsistencies, lawyer Ubeira asked to open a file for false testimony against Martín Alejandro Uliarte. The witness continued to testify, while awaiting the Court’s resolution, which will open a case against him.