Patxi Laralawyer of Yaronknys Miguel Jimenezmain accused for killing Alfredo Ogando in Villavamaintained yesterday with a firm position that his client He did not commit a murder but a “homicide”. For half an hour on the clock, Lara explained that
”It is not known with certainty what happened” and noted that the deceased was able to defend himself “to a greater or lesser extent”, an idea that the prosecutor rejected during her speech.
The lawyer of the main accused also reflected on the moment of the attack, reporting that “the knife with which the crime was committed was not Yaronknys Jiménez’s”. “It was the victim who put it on the scene,” Lara said. “The blood on the knife is only Alfredo Ogando’s, but the handle has DNA from both of them,” she argued, trying to imply that the victim was the owner of the knife.
During his presentation, the lawyer recovered the testimony of the psychiatrist expert to remember the “personality disorder” that his client has suffered “since childhood.”
Patxi Lara also wanted to delve into the idea of the “voluntary” return of the main accused to Spain to surrender, a fact that, according to him, “partially repairs the damage because the family of the deceased He is seeing how the perpetrator of the crime is tried. For this reason, the lawyer requested that he be judged as a “homicide” and that five mitigating circumstances be taken into account: self-defense, mental disorder, drug disorder, outburst as affectation and confession and reparation for damage.
In the turn of exercising the right to the last word, Yaronknys Jiménez apologized to the victim’s family and made itself available to repair any damage it may have caused.
“She is nothing more than a witness to what happened”
Patxi Lara also defends the wife of the perpetrator. She asks for absolution: “she is nothing more than a witness to what happened. She hasn’t done anything criminal.“, held. At the outset, the lawyer described as “fantasy” the version of the private accusation that the crime could be due to a drug issue – “the only reason was the infidelity of the four” – and that the woman was aware of everything. . “If so, why is the geolocator needed? The images of the recordings are stubborn. She freezes when she leaves the hotel and sees her husband’s car. When she knows what has happened she screams, she cries… she suffers for what has happened to the person she was going to spend the night with.” He also rules out that the accused were going to kill Alfredo Ogando at the doors of the first nightclub they were in, as he maintains in the private accusation. ““I wish it were like that, she would be excluded from the topic”. The lawyer maintained that her client did not see what was happening outside the hotel and had an impact on that previous fight between her husband and the victim. “The hotel worker saw a man outside in a fight and the clothes he described were what the victim was wearing” (the prosecutor defends that it is irrelevant, that the witness focused on what was important, not on colors). Lara also denied that the woman committed a crime of cover-up. First, because he already told the police that she suspected her husband, “the one he did not see at the scene.” And because if it is not a crime to cover up for a couple (as stated in the law), she could not offer information about her friend either because in this way she would be harming her husband (the prosecutor maintains that jurisprudence would not cover such a case).