For the Justice of Entre Ríos, Nahir Galarza’s strategy was always aimed at disassociating herself from the murder of her boyfriend, Fernando Pastorizzo, no matter who was involved. This behavior was evident from the minutes after the murder, which occurred on December 29, 2017, between 5:10 and 5:18, in Gualeguaychú.
According to the file, Nahir tried to sow suspicions about his father from the beginning of the investigation. Just over half an hour after shooting Pastorizzo in the back and finishing him off with a second shot, the 19-year-old began planting false leads to divert the investigation. in the direction of other suspects, including his father and a friend of the victim who had a police uncle.
“The first thing that Nahir Galarza intended after the event occurred was not to prevent her father from being suspected, but to remove any suspicion regarding her, which can be seen with absolute transparency in the two WhatsApp messages that she wrote to Fernando Pastorizzo’s phone at 5:52 on December 29, that is, with the victim already deceased, recording ‘Can you cut her?’ and ‘I already told you that I didn’t see anyone’, contained in CD No. 26″, the judges of the Oral Court of Gualeguaychú maintained when detailing the grounds for the sentence that established the life sentence against Nahir for the murder of Fernando .
This means that the alleged maneuver of the defendant to divert the attention of the investigators to her father is not new, but was present from the moment after Fernando’s murder. At that time the court did not believe the version that Nahir would have tried to install.
Four years later, in another family context, after the separation of her parents, the defendant insisted on the strategy of linking her father to the murder. This time it would have been more direct and pointed to him as the alleged material author of the shots.
But this accusation, presented by Nahir’s defense, was rejected, last Monday, by the Gualeguaychú prosecutor’s office, which considered that the summary for the murder of Pastorizzo was “res judicata”.
“It is clear that the purpose of those messages was to indicate that the night with Pastorizzo had ended as it usually happened, trying to show an absolute ignorance of his tragic ending, with a manifest desire to try to throw any suspicion on her, not on his father”, expressed the judges in the sentence that sentenced Nahir, issued in July 2018.
When Fernando was murdered, Marcelo, Nahir’s father, was working for the Entre Ríos police. According to the case file, Pastorizzo was killed with a 9mm caliber pistol provided by the provincial security force.
During the investigation carried out by the fiscal Sergio Rondoni Caffa It was determined that Nahir took his father’s gun from the top of the refrigerator, got on the motorcycle with Fernando and, upon reaching General Paz at 500, shot him in the back, almost at close range. According to the expert reports, Nahir finished off Fernando with a bullet to the chest.
Later, according to the investigators’ reconstruction of the murder, Nahir returned home on foot. At trial, witness Joaquín Osorio recalled that the accused smiled when she crossed it. He had a sweatshirt in his hand, which according to prosecutors, he would have used to hide the weapon. Arriving home, he placed the gun in the same place where his father kept it. Half an hour later, as recorded in the sentence, Nahir began to send messages to cover his tracks.
This sequence that appears in the file was confirmed in the oral trial by the taxi driver Roberto Correa Masaferro, who heard two rumblings when he reached the corner of Artigas and Avellaneda and saw “how Fernando moved his head to both sides at the same time that the blood”. The scene described by the witness was completed with a young woman with similar characteristics to Nahir, next to Fernando’s body and the motorcycle. He didn’t see any weapons though.
Oscar Otero, who works on a grill, said he heard two rumblings at that time of the morning. Two security cameras recorded the passage of Fernando’s motorcycle with a companion.
The recordings of two security cameras were also added to the file in which the passage of a teenager, dressed in clothes similar to the person who was traveling as the victim’s companion, was recorded on her way back to her house, near the scene of the crime. minutes after the murder.
With these elements, added to a battery of expert reports, the Gualeguaychú court, made up of Alicia Vivián, Mauricio Derudi and Arturo Dumón, sentenced Nahir to life in prison for the aggravated homicide of Fernando.
Three courts agree
Chamber II of the Criminal Cassation Chamber of Entre Ríos, made up of judges Silvina Gallo, Darío Perraud and Aníbal Lafourcade, ratified the sentence of the Oral Court of Gualeguaychú. In addition, the chamberlains confirmed the amount of the sentence and considered that there was no prior situation of gender violence exercised by Fernando against Nahir, as indicated in the appeal filed by one of the defendant’s defenders.
Last April, the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, made up of Claudia Mizawak, Miguel Giorgio and Daniel Carubia, rejected the challenge presented by Nahir’s defense against the sentence of the Gualeguaychú judges.
This means that Nine magistrates from three courts, from three different instances, reviewed the case and agreed that there were no mitigating circumstances or justification for alleged acts of gender-based violence that Nahir would have suffered from the victim.
Neither in the oral trial nor in the different presentations before the courts of Entre Ríos, as in the complaint resource before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, the defendant’s defense referred to Nahir’s father as the alleged perpetrator of the homicide. .
During the development of the process, Nahir provided different versions of the murder of Fernando
The same day of the crime, at 10 o’clock, he said: “I found out that the weapon with which they killed Fernando belonged to a police officer. I know that Fernando had a schoolmate who had a father or a police uncle. Twelve hours later he changed his version and said: “The person who shot was me. I did it with my dad’s gun that was on top of the fridge, I took it out without him knowing. I fired both shots with that gun.”
On January 16, 2018, the defendant provided the third version of the same event: “I didn’t even look at how I grabbed her and at that moment when she stopped suddenly I felt the first explosion. And there we both fell on our sides”.
Another change of position
A week ago, Nahir’s defense, when basing its accusation against the father, indicated that the defendant was the victim of manipulation, that she was forced to testify against her, that the statements were written for her and that she repeated them.
The lawyer indicated that the maneuver to blame Nahir in order to favor the father would have been devised by Marcelo Galarza and the two lawyers who represented her in the first part of the process.
In addition, in the presentation, the new defense maintained that Nahir suffered from a neurological pathology similar to that of her brother, which was never revealed by the experts who interviewed her during the process.
Nevertheless, In the file, there was no element that placed Nahir’s father at the scene of the crime. For Justice, it was determined that Marcelo Galarza was at home on the morning of the murder. During the morning, he took the gun from the top of the refrigerator, where he always left it, and traveled to Gualeguay. There he received the call in which he was ordered to return to Gualeguaychú because he had to appear at the prosecutor’s office.
From the reconstruction of Galarza’s movements, carried out by the investigators, it would have been determined that Nahir’s father returned home, changed his clothes, left his weapon again on top of the refrigerator and went to the prosecutor’s office. There they notified him that they needed his weapon because they had found a projectile and a 9mm caliber casing in the place where Pastorizzo was killed. Then, Galarza returned home with other police officers who, together with two witnesses, seized the weapon, in the same place where Galarza had left it minutes before. So it was that Nahir’s father was in the sights of the investigators during the first hours after the murder.
“All of the above makes it clear that what Nahir Galarza declared in the debate is not credible, making his story absolutely implausible,” the judges expressed when sentencing.
Currently, Nahir has two options: that the investigation into the alleged abuse against a relative who would have been protected by his father advance and that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation review the appeal filed by his defense and consider that there was arbitrariness in the sentences pronounced against him. If the proposal is rejected, the conviction will remain firm and he will continue in prison.