00:00the lawyer of Nina, the employee, we are going to talk about the issue of the jury, but I want to
00:08tell you that in a little while we are going to get fully into the head of the river, because there were
00:13psychological psychiatric tests that were also added to the cause and that we are being
00:19Claudio Greco with us, we want to get into the mind of a possible parricide, that's why it's so
00:25interesting, thank you Claudio for coming, now we go directly with Hugo Carrivero live,
00:30Hugo, how are you, good afternoon, we understand that there are statements about at least five,
00:37attention, five of the twelve jurors who have on the bench of the river, right?
00:43Good afternoon everyone, how are you? Yes, in fact, we are men of the law and well,
00:51we have observed this circumstance with great concern, this situation was just getting ahead,
00:59this concern, a juror who cries, who is moved, can guarantee a fair trial? I don't think so,
01:06even taking into account that the system of trial jurors comes from Anglo-Saxon culture
01:15in the United States and in many states, especially in Texas, the nullity of the trial has been achieved by the defense
01:23precisely because of the emotion, because of the crying of some judges, some jurors, and well,
01:32this was understood that they were not in a position to dictate impartial justice, but nothing happened to me,
01:38so in a trial that seems completely unfavorable to the river, Monica Chivin,
01:44your lawyer, has an ace up his sleeve that could make the jurors who have broken up point out?
01:50Yes, he does, yes, he does, what happens is that, in my opinion, he should have anticipated it,
01:55because if he did it now, he would run the risk that it would be an extemporaneous approach,
02:01but he should have done it, in my opinion, right? It is an opinion, but I say this because in the Anglo-Saxon system,
02:09sometimes they have nullified the trial for these circumstances.
02:12What Dr. López Carribero is telling us is very important, I even want to thank him for his intellectual honesty,
02:21because he is a lawyer of someone who had a very bad time, who had a very bad time at times, if you will,
02:29of Martín del Río, because who deposits the suspicions in Nina, in the lady who was going to work
02:36for more than a decade at that house, who was a caretaker, and ends up eating 13 days in jail,
02:42and ends up eating those days in jail, and has a terrible time, with anguish, with health,
02:47with a situation that has not yet managed to recover, a job stability, with a son who was also under suspicion,
02:53with all that accumulation of situations, with how bad Nina had a time, his lawyer says,
02:58be careful, because it would be convenient for him to be declared from the grudge to Martín del Río,
03:03and I even charge myself, if you will, from my temperament, how bad my client had a time.
03:08However, he has the intellectual honesty to say, be careful, I don't like jurors who get excited, who cry,
03:13because in a way they are taking partiality, they are losing objectivity before the assessment of the trial.
03:19What López Carribero tells us is very important.
03:21Let's add to all the doubts that still remain in the case.
03:27Because we are just talking about something fundamental, which is the gun.
03:30How does the gun get to a safe in the brother's house, if there is no indication that Del Río himself...
03:35Before we get into this, before we get into the doubts, Hugo, how should the approach have been?
03:40In the very process, in the very hearing, when the defense lawyer, or the defense lawyer,
03:46sees that there is a juror who is, from his emotion, from his cry, being partial,
03:52does he have to point it out at the moment?
03:54Yes, yes, yes, that's why there are subordinate jurors, right?
04:00Of course, I mean, look, this person, the titular jury, is crying.
04:04It is being a sign of accepting what the witness says.
04:09Or, on the contrary, it is denying what the witness says.
04:12This jury is emotionally broken.
04:15We have to replace them, that's why there are also subordinate jurors, right?
04:19But it worries me a lot.
04:21I want that if Martín Del Río is guilty, he is condemned.
04:25But not in any way, not in any way.
04:28Let's see, Claudio Greco, tell me, because you have a contribution to this.
04:32Yes, hello Carribero, how are you, doctor?
04:35Nice to meet you, nice to meet you.
04:37How are you?
04:38Something interesting that is happening and that is going to start happening with the issue of popular jurors.
04:43The jurors are not experts.
04:46The jurors are not experts.
04:48Therefore, to their good knowledge, understanding and objective evaluation,
04:53I want to stay and stop at this word.
04:55Objectivity is a chimera.
04:58Objectivity is an utopia.
05:01There is always subjectivity, especially in an evaluation,
05:06in something as limited as condemning someone to life imprisonment or not.
05:11What do I mean by this?
05:12That we all, men of justice, but also those of us who work on psychological experiments
05:18and understand the emotional and emotional and cognitive processes,
05:23what is the reading that can be done about the emotion of a jury?
05:27Of course, the reading that one can do will always be subjective
05:31because one cannot give full certainty that because someone is crying,
05:35he is determining such or such thing in favor or against the accused of a certain cause.
05:43What do I mean by this?
05:45That we are going to have to build knowledge, because although, as the doctor said,
05:49there is a history of disqualifications, of impugnations,
05:54it is very linear and very, as our friend Fito Baque says,
05:58the thin, thick line between the interpretation of the emotional movement of a jury
06:05and understanding and interpreting the metaphor of a cry, for example, is very limited.
06:11Yes, now in a little while we will surely be in contact with Fito Baque,
06:14who is in the audience at the moment, and it is very interesting,
06:18because it opens up a defense to Del Rio himself.
06:21But also, how not to get excited?
06:24Because if you are a jury, for example, of a case of abuse, of rape,
06:28and you listen to the victim,
06:30how as a jury are you not going to get excited if it is a story that blinds you?
06:36Now, after that same jury will have to evaluate all the other evidence,
06:42even the scientific one, to determine if that fact that they are telling moves me,
06:48committed by that man that I am seeing sitting there.
06:52Sure, but I say this, right?
06:55There is no problem for a jury to get excited and cry.
06:58There is no inconvenience for that.
07:00What you have to do is just replace it.
07:02Sure, but you would also spend it in some cases replacing a lot of people.
07:06I understand, this is the key to the question.
07:08Yes, surely, because otherwise the defendant would not be being judged by an impartial jury.
07:14The thing is that emotions are flowing, Hugo is asking you,
07:19Hugo, just Claudio said with very good criteria,
07:23that crying does not mean that it goes to one side or the other.
07:27Well, but in doubt, you have to replace it.
07:30I want a jury that does not get excited.
07:33I want a cold jury, a jury that gets excited.
07:36Hugo, but you want robots.
07:39We are human beings, we can get excited.
07:43But precisely, the one who is being judged is also a human being, or Del Rio is a robot.
07:48I give an example of this same trial, so that people understand.
07:54One of the statements that also moved the jury,
07:58is when the brother, Diego Del Rio, declared.
08:01At a certain moment, Diego Del Rio says,
08:04what tortures me as a brother and as a son,
08:08is to think that in the dynamics of how they killed my parents,
08:12which is absolutely proven in the trial,
08:15that it is someone who sits in the car, in the back,
08:20when the car is still in the back seat,
08:23behind the wheel, the mother of the Del Rio brothers.
08:26We are going to put it in these terms,
08:28because it was the one who was driving due to some physical impediment of the father.
08:31In the seat of the companion, the father, that is, in front, the two victims.
08:35And someone from behind sits down, gets in that car and kills them.
08:40The father gets three bullets and the mother gets one.
08:46What the brother says when he declares, he says,
08:49it tortures me to this day,
08:52to think that one of the two, the one who was the second murdered,
08:57and I think in that case it is my mother,
08:59was aware, even if it was for a second,
09:02that it was her son who was giving them death.
09:05So when he says this,
09:07several members of the jury are deeply moved,
09:10because one empathizes with that description.
09:13Now, at the same time that one is moved,
09:16he is also saying, the murderer is my brother.
09:20So how to discern one from the other?
09:23And the latter, in my view,
09:27the prosecution could not prove it during the trial.
09:31The prosecution could not prove
09:33that the person who sat behind the Mercedes-Benz car
09:36was Martín del Río.
09:38And I'm going to this, Hugo.
09:40But said so,
09:42coming out of the mouth of the victim's son,
09:45he expressed it that way.
09:47In the same sentence he is saying something
09:49with which he connected the whole jury,
09:51and at the same time he is saying, the murderer is my brother.
09:53So people are left with that.
09:55Let's take a minute with this that we refer again.
09:57The last words of Martín del Río,
09:59before the fourth intermediate.
10:01Pay attention to the two things he says,
10:03because there is his line of defense.
10:05There it is, there it is, where it points.
10:07And then we get into it,
10:09with the mind of a possible parricide,
10:11while we wait for the sentence.
10:13Let's listen again to the last words of Martín del Río.
10:16Good morning to all.
10:18I already told you yesterday a little.
10:20I want to tell you that it is impossible
10:23to have committed this act
10:25without being in the place,
10:27without the murder weapon
10:29even being close to me,
10:31that I am completely innocent,
10:33that I love my parents,
10:35I love my children,
10:37and that I miss them very much.
10:40Every day I pray for them,
10:42and I want the prosecution
10:45to prove who are the culprits
10:48of the murder of my parents.
10:50Nothing else.
10:52Thank you very much for everything,
10:54and I hope this is resolved
10:56and to be able to know
10:58who killed my parents.
11:00Nothing else.
11:02Thank you very much.
11:04The state of the place
11:06and the dilemma of the weapon
11:08are the two strong positions
11:10in a trial that seems to be
11:12all against this,
11:14but the jury plays in his favor.
11:16His defense strategy is very clear,
11:18in very few words,
11:20when given the opportunity
11:22in these two concepts.
11:24They have not been able to prove
11:26that he is the one who entered the house,
11:28there is no trace of him in the car,
11:30there is no DNA of him.
11:32Then the other issue,
11:34the weapon,
11:36how do they prove,
11:38and I believe that in the trial
11:40it has not been proven,
11:42that this weapon passed through his hands?
11:44How does it appear there?
11:46If the weapon with which they kill
11:48in Vicente López,
11:50and his parents later,
11:52they have not connected
11:54that he has entered that private neighborhood.
11:56There are, but very few lines,
11:58the two elements.
12:00Then, in the times in which the images play,
12:02I would have advised him
12:04to dress differently,
12:06I do not want to tell Dr. Chiribín
12:08and the defense,
12:10in these times of how even
12:12the metamessages,
12:14the issues of the order of the symbolic,
12:16because he talks to a bus
12:18and so much was debated,
12:20if the walking man was not him,
12:22with a bus that also Nina
12:24and several who have declared,
12:26even his brother,
12:28they say it was a dad's bus.
12:30I would have advised him
12:32until he looked like
12:34how the walking man looks in the videos.
12:36Getting closer to the time of the sentence,
12:38where I had no doubts,
12:40I begin to have them.
12:42Because I say,
12:44some of the 12,
12:46but the prosecution does not have it
12:48checked inside the car,
12:50but the weapon, these doubts that we are raising,
12:52one of the 12,
12:54two of the 12,
12:56and finally that can play in favor.
