The Attorney General of San Isidro, John Broyadalso ordered that two other prosecutors with extensive experience be incorporated for this trial: one of his deputies, Patricio Ferrari, and Diego Callegari. Meanwhile, the representatives of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) argued that the central axis for the challenge was the “loss of impartiality” of the magistrates and substantiated it by questioning a series of decisions made by OCD 4.
Among them, they listed the cutting of witnesses proposed by the prosecutionthe division of trials that Pachelo will face -first for the García Belsunce case and later for a series of robberies in countries, something that the prosecutors wanted to be done together- and the alleged irregular appointment of the third judge for the debateAndrejin, without following the formal channels.
“It was deliberately chosen to deprive us of the power to question the victims of different robberies in which the defendant Pachelo participated, before and after the main event”indicated the prosecutors in their statement, to which Télam had access.
They also questioned that “Capriciously or without explanation, the order of the trials changed without any foundation and almost by magic”in reference to the fact that in November 2021 the TOC 4 had decided to start with the trial of the robberies that have kept Pachelo in prison since 2018 and then for the crime in Carmel, but finally last April, He changed his decision and ordered to start on June 1 with the debate on the murder of García Belsunce.
The MPF also denounced in its statement that it was “Harassed” by the Court to reach an abbreviated trial agreement with Pachelo’s defense in the cause of the robberies that has him imprisoned with preventive prisonsomething to which prosecutors opposed.
The challenge –rejected by TOC 4, but now it must be dealt with by the Court of Appeals– was accompanied by a double offensive in which the MPF raised a series of annulments of procedural acts adopted by the court, based on the previous intervention of a judge –Albert Gaig-, who had been the secretary of one of the prosecutors who intervened in the Belsunce case and who, according to the current prosecutors, could have “contaminated” his colleagues Ecke and Rossi.
According to judicial sources consulted by Télam, all the decisions questioned by the MPF, from their point of view, are signs of “lack of objectivity”, of “an acquittal that could already be decided in advance” and threaten the theory of the case that they intend to demonstrate: that Pachelo always had the same modus operandi, which he repeated before and after the murder of the sociologist, and which consisted of breaking into the houses of acquaintances to rob.
“It is crazy that with all these proposals the trial starts on June 1”, a judicial source linked to the MPF told Télam. And he also considered that, beyond what is now resolved by the Court of Appeals – where prosecutors Ferrari and Callegari requested a oral hearing to broaden its foundations-, “All this has to be reviewed by Cassation, where there is already a favorable opinion from the prosecutor of that court to one of the proposals”.
In this third trial, the accusation against Pachelo (45) and the then security guards Norbert Glennon (56) and Jose Ramon Alejandro Ortiz (44) is for “aggravated robbery by the use of a weapon in a real competition with aggravated criminal homicide”crimes that foresee life imprisonment.
For the prosecutors, María Marta was shot to death when she caught thieves inside her house. The key to the imputation was the new murder time -fixed by a coroner- at 18:30. In addition, Pachelo was located in Carmel on the day of the crime between 5:34 p.m. and 6:59 p.m., that is, he left 29 minutes after committing the homicide.
For the first time in the history of the case, in this trial, the widower Carlos Carrascosa (77) will act as a witness and private victimafter almost 20 years in which he was suspected, accused, arrested, released, tried, sentenced first for cover-up and then to life as the perpetrator of the homicide, being imprisoned between 2009 and 2015 in a prison and one more year in house arrest, recover your freedom and be definitively acquitted.
García Belsunce (50) was found dead on October 27, 2002 in his country house Carmel de Pilarwith his body half submerged in the bathtuband her husband Carrascosa always declared that he thought she had suffered a “accident” and had hit his head on a ceiling beam and taps.
The autopsy performed 36 days after the event confirmed that he had been killed with six bullets to the skull with a long 32 caliber gun. five shots penetrated in the skull and the sixth -“el pituto”- bounced.
The original prosecutor in the case, Diego Molina Pico, always had the conviction that Carrascosa and other relatives were the murderers and accessories. And for that he charged them and brought them to trial, but the ruling of the Buenos Aires Cassation – which acquitted the widower in 2016 and became firm in 2020 – highlighted serious irregularities in the investigation of the judicial officer.
The case has a series of enigmas never solved: the murder weapon never appeared and there are three mysterious DNA of two men and a woman never identifiedwhose traces of blood were left on a wall at the crime scene.