Gang rape in Palermo: why a judge believes there is a “mass sexual assault plan”

“(...) This situation forms part of the context in which a 'plan of mass sexual assault on victims' was formed, and on that basis constitutes an act of execution to confirm that the victim is not capable of resisting such attacks (...)”.

Marcos Fernández, who is investigating gang rape in Palermo, talks about “that situation” in Criminal and Correctional Judge No. 21. In the prosecutor's office announced this Monday, they say a video that everyone who is the defendant and the victim can see in a kiosk: they were transported to Volkswagen Golblanco parked at 1.300 in Calle Serrano.

. (23), (21 ) (24 ) (22).

According to the judge, for the alleged gang rape of a 20-year-old girl in Palermo near Buenos Aires, six prisoners must receive the same charges, in addition to their respective roles. In addition, he ordered an embargo for 35 million pesos for each defendant.

For both Prosecutor Eduardo Rosende and Judge Fernández, on February 28, there was a “previous common plan” that was completed “to freely agree to sexual acts, taking advantage of the obvious and visible state of vulnerability that the victim presented because he was not in a psychophysical state.”

According to the two investigators, six prisoners took advantage of a critical moment to carry out the abuse. It is the moment when a friend of the victim who accompanied her that night decided to retire home. “(The plan) developed over time and crystallized when T.A.I. withdrew home from that place.”

At the trial, the judge summed up in paragraphs what, according to him, the plan was agreed upon by everyone. “In fact, they almost immediately take a friend from the victim under the pretext of accompanying her to a group that will drive her private.Physical access with vehicle VW Goal White”.

It's not just that. Judge Fernández points to Thomas Fabian Dominguez And for Alexis Kuzoni planned “start” Responsibility: “(...) It began to develop and devise over time from the time when Domínguez and Cuzzoni witnessed and contacted in the local Ro Techno bar where the victim interacted with her (...)”

Judge Fernández points to Thomas Fabian Dominguez and Alexis Kuchoni as the “initiator” of the plan.

For Judge Marcos Fernández, it does not matter if all the prisoners knew each other or had some degree of friendship. In short, the magistrate emphasizes that the six defendants assumed “a joint action that culminated in the development of a plan to complete the physical approach in which he was a victim.”

In this sense, for researchers, the clearest example of this plan has emerged from the security cameras of the “Curiosity” kiosks, where Thomas Dominguez and Alexis Cuzzoni apparently appear to touch and seek victims whose abilities have changed. The judge makes it clear that these circumstances alone allow him to consider crimes such as simple abuse.However, he knows that these events are the beginning of a plan aimed at sexual abuse.

“(...) These abusive acts must be read in the context in which a plan of mass sexual assault against the victim was formed, and for that reason constitutes an act of execution to confirm that the victim is not capable of resisting such attacks (...)”.

The clearest example of this scheme can be seen from the security camera of the “Curiosity” kiosk in Serrano Square.

The only two defendants who spoke in this file were Ignacio Letondo and Franco Rican. Basically, the magistracy did not believe them. “The version they tried to use does not take pity on the facts related to the case and the fact under consideration, and the disclaimer should be considered as a vain attempt to improve the procedural situation of the file.”

Judge Fernández also placed special emphasis on Lykan's statement, which he considered “an attempt to justify.” And he pointed out that it was not consistent with what the two bakers who witnessed the incident said. “It is appropriate to point out the discrepancy between what was said by your account and the witnesses and the film samples obtained on the scene of the event.

The magistrate claims that Lykan entered the car between 13:00 and 13:30, while the security camera sees him entering “doing so jointly with other defendants and victims at 14:47:06, that is, more than an hour after he spoke.”

Fernández also did not believe in Letondo, especially at the moment when the defendant met the victim: “While he was in contact with the victim beyond the discrepancy regarding the time he mentioned, the evidence raised an explanation of the victim's location in another place, but the truth is that he was in the event, and outside the vehicle where the sexual assault occurred, he approached more than once, knocked on the window of the vehicle and grabbed the door handle.”

As for the witness's record, the judge thought they were “clear, consistent, and circumstantial.” He added, “There is no complaint about their credibility, and there is no hostility towards the defendant.”

Continue reading