When it became known that the death of María Marta García Belsunce was a homicide, the victim’s brother, Horacio, met with the lawyer Roberto Ribas. “He gave me his condolences — Horacio told this Friday at the trial — and he told me: ‘there is a rogue in El Carmel for whom I am a lawyer, his name is Pachelo. He’s a weird, complicated guy. How many shots does María Marta have?’ I answered that five and the pituto. ‘That one would have emptied the entire magazine because he is capable. If he had 20 shots, he hits all 20. But it’s weird, because he didn’t call me,’ Ribas told me. Sitting nervously, Nicolás Pachelo listened to the story of how, at the time of the murder, his own lawyer considered him a suspect.
In this trial, the defendant asks for confrontations immediately, but this time neither he nor his lawyer said anything. Minutes later, the other sister of María Marta, María Laura, recounted the two times that Pachelo threatened her and, finally, two psychologists who studied the accused in 2003 declared as a result of the robberies in the houses of her friends: “We conclude that he is a psychopath. He is not a trait. It’s a disorder.” professionals said.
Prosecutor Molina Pico, “the great accessory”
The statement of the two brothers of María Marta, however, betrayed a tremendous harshness with the prosecutor Diego Molina Pico, who was in charge of the case. “He was the great cover-up,” they both said.
At that point, Horacito’s testimony (as they call him) abounded in explain what in these 20 years were the central arguments to accuse the family of covering up.
- “The prosecutor and the head of Investigations of the Buenos Aires Police came to El Carmel at my request. I was the one who spoke with Juan Martín Romero Victorica and that is why they came and saw the body and the scene. It was because we thought that a coroner had to come and Romero Victorica was going to summon that coroner.”
- ”Someone told me the police were coming. In no way did I tell Commissioner (Angel) Casafús not to come. I just told him to be considerate, nothing more.”
- ”I handed over the death certificate to the prosecutor. And I didn’t even read it. So there was no cheating.”
- ”All the funeral home did was ask us for an address in CABA because it was essential to bury in Recoleta. But there was no cheating either. The funeral service was held from El Carmel, so that everything was public and evident.
- “It was proven that Guillermo Bártoli’s signature was forged by someone from the funeral home in the request for the service.”
The meeting with Ribas, Pachelo’s lawyer
In any case, the most shocking thing about Horacio García Belsunce’s (h) story were the details of his meeting with Ribas, who was also sitting this Friday – and this is the case in all hearings – next to Pachelo. Horacito made it clear that the defendant was a suspect even for Ribas, something that the lawyer commented on several times in Court and to different people.
It’s more, there are wiretaps that Judge Diego Barroetaveña ordered in the García Belsunce case and it is said that in those wiretaps there are dialogues between Pachelo and Ribas in which he asked the neighbor of El Carmel several times if his blood was going to be found (from Pachelo) at the crime scene. The neighbor did not answer that he was not in that house, that he had nothing to do with it, or something like that. He only replied that his blood was not going to be found, that is, he did not bleed. At that time, Ribas was not formally a lawyer for Pachelo because he was not accused by Molina Pico. He was Pachelo’s lawyer in the numerous robbery cases.
Horacio (h) remembered one of the evidences that exist against the neighbor. The day after María Marta’s death, when everyone believed it had been an accident, Pachelo went to a service station where he used to have breakfast and asked: “What happened to the old woman who was killed in the country?” At that time, no one knew that it was a homicide. It is quite possible that some of those present at the service station will testify at trial.
The timetable issue
María Marta’s brother emphasized that the family never changed their version of events: they watched the soccer games on television, María Marta passed briefly after interrupting a tennis match and then Carrascosa left in his truck for the family home.
“On the other hand, Pachelo said first that he was not in the country, then that he was in Paseo Alcorta and it turns out that his cell phone worked in Pilar at the time of the crime. The cameras of El Carmel showed that he left at 7:00 p.m. and the murder was at 6:30 p.m. ”. In addition to this evidence, three boys testified that they saw Pachelo jogging near María Marta’s house at the time of the murder.
The threats
María Laura García Belsunce, sister of María Marta, recalled the two times she met Pachelo by chance.
On one occasion, on Paseo Alcorta, while she was having lunch with her husband, the neighbor came from behind, took Maria Laura’s plate, put it close to her face and said “take it, take it to Carrascosa, he must be shitting himself.” starvation in prison.
On a second occasion, on Callao Avenue, he approached María Laura and told her “I am going to kill all of you.”
psychological expertise
At the hearing this Friday, two psychologists, Patricia Ferreyra and María Elena Chicatto, also testified that they made an expert opinion on Pachelo as a result of the accusation -he was later convicted- of robberies in the houses of his friends.
The testimony of both psychologists was very harsh. They pointed out that he has a higher than normal intelligence, but that there is “absence of guilt and remorse, aggressiveness, he establishes something as if it were the truth, he is a transgressor of social norms.”
Of course, nothing is easy to prove 20 years after a fact. At this point it is also clear that Pachelo was very violent, that he lied, that he stole from houses, that in some cases he used a weapon in a robbery, and that he was very close to María Marta minutes before the murder. It’s not little.