The mystery of the conversation between Loan and Laudelina to which no one paid attention and today is key: the hidden details

After the disappearance of Loan Danilo Peña and with more than 7 months of judicial investigation, Mónica Millapi was benefited from home prison when, together with the other 6 detainees, she had been charged with the subtraction and concealment of the child. That benefit allowed him Also accused, Daniel “Fierrito” Ramírez. In these interviews, the woman gave a key detail that the investigators marked and the complaint claims that it was not investigated or advanced during the women’s testimonies in front of Judge Pozzer Penzo.

When Mónica Millapi told how lunch was and the way out to Naranjal He said in different interviews that he saw “Laudelina talking to Loan” when together with the minors and Camila Núñez they went out to the field. The first woman arrested in the cause said: “I did not hear what the aunt said” to the little boy, but clarified that this situation took minutes before the disappearance. He also said that that afternoon “Laudelina did strange things” and stressed that “Someone has to have taken it ”for how the search was when they no longer saw it. These journalistic statements opened a series of questions since sources linked to the investigation assured that these sayings are not reflected in the same way in the file and that Mónica Millapi avoided telling those details in front of Judge Pozzer Penzo when Laudelina Peña was still free, What could have given more time to those who planned the uptake to hide tests and divert the investigation.

Faced with these questions, the complainant lawyer Juan Pablo Gallego assured The uncover: “It is very notorious that Millapi modified his sayings and as the events happened” and questioned that “a few hours after obtaining an absolutely undue benefit, he went out to give interviews as if it were a vedette when she is prosecuted for a very serious crime such as the Subtraction and concealment of a minor. ” In addition, José Peña and María Noguera’s lawyer stressed that “it is an element that keeps a certain logic” with what since he assumed in the case he was highlighting in terms of the existence of poorly made or points in the cause that were not carefully observed at the time and said that “I think that these journalistic interviews can be self -incriminating and will be warned by the magistrate. ”

Faced with this situation, in communication with The uncoverdefense lawyer Marcelo Hanson criticized the questions and stressed that “that phrase Mónica Millapi declared it in the file and in fact did it while the reconstruction was carried out in the place.” That reconstruction in the El Algarrobal site was held on June 21, a week after the disappearance, and “the lawyer Roberto Méndez participated and asked Millapi questions,” the defender said. This reconstruction was filmed and is part of the file investigated in the Federal Court of Goya.

Sources close to the file assured The uncover that they did not remember those expressions in the cause but indicated that they are looking to respond to each observation that is made on the investigation, since since the beginning of the case there were suspicions with each performance that was performed. The same sources also assured that it is “rare” that if that information was in the investigation, it has been delayed both to cite or arrest Laudelina Peña. This questioning was repeated several times since for the complaint Loan’s aunt is one of the main links of the plan, while for Mónica Millapi Laudelina he did strange things although he insisted that “I do not accuse anyone, I only say that we (for her and her husband Daniel Ramírez) we are innocent. ”

For its part, Juan Pablo Gallego insisted that “we will have to review again in which part of the file those statements are including” although he remarked that “the change of story and contradictions in Millapi and justice should make it weigh” is evident. “. This is because the complaint insists that “it is pending resolution to make prison again and the benefit of house arrest is revoked.” He also added that since his intervention and the imputation made , and the other marriage (Pérez and Caillava) appears with another range of power, “he said and stressed that” we are clear that Laudelina is the one who installs the loss of Loan when she was not on the orange and maintains messages with Caillava when she and Pérez They were not in El Naranjal, “so he understands that” those laudelin movements with Millapi and communications with Caillava close the circle of how the fact were synchronizing. “

While the questions grow for the participation of each of the accused and if there will be new inquiries and detainees, the federal chamber is expected to resolve if it confirms the prosecutions and progress in the possibility of taking the accused, Antonio Benítez, Laudelina Peña, Daniel Ramírez, Mónica Millapi, Carlos Pérez, Victoria Caillava and Walter Maciel to trial for the subtraction and concealment, while establishing what happened and where Loan is.