MYSTERIES

The hypothesis behind the MYSTERY OF THE TRUCK in the LOAN case: the PLOT and TWO other KEYS

While The investigation into the disappearance of Loan Danilo Peña is approaching 8 months The complaint insists with the request to deepen several investigations that they consider that at the beginning of the investigation were done poorly or were not carried out at all. In that sense, in recent days they asked that new tests be carried out on the Ford Ranger truck and the Ford Ka car to find out what movements they could have made on the day of the minor’s disappearance and the subsequent days when the couple left the town. Corrientes on July 9.

According to the file, the truck was analyzed at several points: the experts already worked on the fenders, even removing a cover from the truck and also on the headlights and the bottom of the truck. These investigations were carried out after Laudelina reported that Loan was run over by Carlos Pérez and Victoria Caillava and then they put him in the truck and took him away. With these expertise they denied that complaint and determined that there were no traces to confirm that the little boy had been hit by the truck when the couple was leaving lunch. Besides, They still could not locate in the criminal plan why they found traces of Loan in the car that was not there on the day of the disappearance in the field.

We do this project collectively. Support El Destape with a click here. Let’s continue making history.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE DISCOVERY

The expert José Mazzei confirmed that “they will use new skills and technological analysis” to completely disassemble the fronts of the vehicles and look not only for physical traces but also analyze the computers and systems. In this way, for example, look to see if there is any tracking device or map that allows us to know which roads they used and whether there were arrests in those trips. So, for example, They seek to verify a hypothesis that assures that Carlos Pérez and Victoria Caillava met with the then commissioner Walter Maciel during the first hours of the disappearance and before the couple and the police chief went to grandmother Catalina’s field. This hypothesis that the investigators based on a cell phone examination was not completely confirmed by the Justice Department, although it was never completely ruled out nor did any of the three defendants confirm or deny it.

On the other hand, The examination of the truck did not reveal a collision but rather traces of the minor in the bed of the vehicle. With these data, Justice rejected the idea that he was run over and some other hypotheses added strength. For this, they added the analysis of the psychological expertise that was added to the file in mid-November and that marked a key suspicion about Carlos Pérez for the complaint. Upon reading these reports, the plaintiff lawyer Juan Pablo Gallego assured that “the report on Mr. Pérez, who is a sailor, gives things similar to the people I have put in jail. “He is a person who could have a sexual determination linked to minors.” With that look, the suspicion gained strength that Loan could have been recruited for a sexual attack, although they were also unable to advance the hypothesis of whether he was handed over for that purpose or the attack was by one of those currently accused.

There investigators continue trying to put together the criminal plan for the attack on Loan. According to the accusation, they understand that Laudelina Peña, Carlos Pérez and Victoria Caillava were the leaders of the attack. Along these lines, the complaint indicates that Macarena Peña should be joined although she has not yet been charged in the case. The second line, for the accusers, is occupied by Antonio Benítez, Mónica Millapi and Daniel Ramírez who took the minor to the orange grove along with the other boys and in that circle they add former commissioner Walter Maciel as the architect of the cover-up. There they understand that the police chief took the second lines to the police station; Benítez, Ramírez and Millapi; He cleared the way for the absence of Pérez and Caillava and kept Laudelina and Macarena in the field to be able to divert the investigation, and they were the ones who later found the little boy’s loot, proof that today no one disputes that it was planted.

In this waythe new expertise demanded by the complaint seeks to focus on the fact that Carlos Pérez would be the architect of Loan’s transfer after he was captured in the field while other members of the band distracted José, the little boy’s father. Thus, Justice could set a framework for the investigation into the abduction and concealment of the minor, knowing that they found no traces in the rural area, which indicates that he was taken away from there, and they will seek to answer not only who did it but also where.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button