A judge prosecuted the mayor of La Matanza Fernando Espinoza for sexual abuse and disobediencefollowing a complaint that had been filed against him by a young woman, the girlfriend of a businessman friend, who worked under his orders as private secretary in the municipality. The judge did not order the arrest of the community leader but she maintained the prohibition of contact with the victim and ordered an embargo of $1,500,000, according to the ruling to which she agreed. Infobae.
When testifying in the case, Espinoza rejected the charges against him. “The victim’s story claiming to have suffered these indecent touching of her body without her authorization is supported by the conclusions of the specialists in the matter who interviewed her during the development of the investigation,” said the judge.
“I will have to take the release of the accused as a vain attempt to improve his compromised procedural situationgiven that it bases its defense on questioning the victim throughout the development of this case, making a value judgment on the way in which (the victim) should have reacted to the reported events – which for the court does not “It gives more than a hint of the fear she experienced precisely as a result of what happened – without her statements, strictly speaking, finding support in any other evidence in the record.”
The complaint, which was filed three years ago, was on the verge of being closed at the request of the prosecutor’s office because the victim had left the country and had not promoted the action. But after back and forth the judge Maria Fabiana Galletti ordered the prosecution of the communal leader of Peronism for “simple sexual abuse” and “disobedience”, for having tried on the young woman after the complaint was filed and a restraining order was issued.
According to the case, the young MJR assured that the Peronist leader sexually abused her by touching her inside the apartment where she lived in the Federal Capital, on May 10, 2021. The mayor had gone to her house after telling her that he wanted have dinner with her She said that she had started working at the Municipality on April 28, 2021, that the hiring was “in the dark” since they never registered her, that they called her by a false name “not knowing the reasons for this and that she should to serve as a private secretary with a promised remuneration of $150,000 per month.”
In her complaint, she stated that on May 3, during a work day, the defendant told her that they would have dinner at his house that night, which took her by surprise because it seemed like an imposition. She told him that she did not understand and Espionoza responded “what she did not understand.” She said she felt she had no choice. Her boyfriend told her that the situation was normal and that she couldn’t go to a restaurant because she was a public person. She stated that that night “they had dinner normally, but she felt very uncomfortable.” A few days later the scene was repeated. She even believed that the accused put “something” in her drink, but that during that night he did not “extend” to her, he only asked her questions of a very personal nature. She reminded him that she had been in a relationship for six years. The third time was the episode on which the complaint focuses.
During the early hours of May 11, according to the victim, the defendant reported having neck and back pain. He claimed that he was contractured and she offered him a remedy. But Espinoza asked her for massages. She told him no and sent him to rest, but the response was: “Don’t be afraid, go ahead.” In an intimidating manner he unbuttoned his shirt, the complaint states. She told him not to be afraid because ““His friends’ wives had mustaches.”
“Fernando, I don’t know what you’re going to do but I’m asking you not to, I’m asking you to leave my house” and “that everything was fine but she didn’t feel comfortable,” the young woman told him, according to her complaint. But Espinoza “once inside the room she took off her pants, the shirt that she had previously unbuttoned and was left in her underwear.” When she again asked him to leave her, “the accused held her tightly, the victim indicating that she did not remember exactly how it happened, but that he managed to end up on top of her in bed.”
And during that period, the accused began to kiss her breast area and touch her over her clothes while telling her “STAY CALM, I ALWAYS WANTED YOU, EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE WELL” and asked her to perform oral sex on him.in turn trying to take off the clothes she was wearing against her will, which would have led to him tearing the shirt she was wearing, in addition to trying to pull down her own underwear, which she did not succeed because the victim was using force to prevent it.
Faced with the refusal, the communal chief became upset and said: ““OK, READY, IT’S ALL OVER, I’M LEAVING, THAT’S IT, DON’T WORRY.” The victim said: “He told me in a threatening way, like a tone of power that he knew was my boss.” There was an argument. “I felt outraged. “I didn’t have, eh, that man took away my desire for everything.” The young woman asked him if he was going to fire her, and the mayor replied no, that “what happens at work is a work thing.” When he was leaving, “angry with an aggressive look and a threatening tone, he told me: “YOU ARE AN DUMB, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE MISSING BUT WELL, YOU’RE HERE.” He stated that he was afraid and even thought about committing suicide. A few days later they told him that he was doing things wrong at work and that his days were numbered, “which he interpreted as a death threat.”
He second fact for which Espinoza was denounced She maintains that on July 1, 2021, in the afternoon, when a restraining order was already in effect against her as a result of the complaint, the mayor would have contacted her again.
“When the time has come to resolve the procedural situation of Tomás Fernando Espinoza, I anticipate that he will be prosecuted (…). It should be clarified that in this type of crimes where experience has shown that they take place in an area of absolute privacy without the presence of witnesses, the facts begin to be defined from the abused person, that is, from the victim. Note that here the victim herself indicated regarding event 1, that it occurred while she was alone with the accused inside his apartment. Therefore, in crimes against sexual integrity, the testimony of the victim is naturally decisive evidence, since they are events that, by their very nature, usually take place in areas of intimacy and trust, free from the gaze of third parties”, it was held in the failed.
For the judge, “beyond the fact that the actions specifically displayed by the accused have not been observed by third parties who could testify about it, a result that he probably intended by carrying out the touching away from the gaze of others, as generally occurs in this type of episodes, taking advantage of the circumstance that he was alone with her inside her apartment because, as (the victim) indicated, it was the third – and last – time that he was present, arrogantly forcing the meetings; This is not an obstacle to arriving at the temperament that I proclaim here. This is because the victim’s story claiming to have suffered these indecent touching of her body without her authorization is supported by the conclusions of the specialists in the matter who interviewed her during the development of the investigation.
The judge rejected Espinoza’s version. “The defense hypothesis was based on denying that the victim carried out tasks in the Municipality, but later it was recognized that she did work and for the brief period of 15 days, although indicating that the employment was not formalized because ‘she did not carry out the qualifying procedures’ ( issue that, if proven, would only reveal in some way the informality in the labor modality). Also, an attempt was made to deny the accused’s attendance at the victim’s apartment, alleging that everything reported was false, but then Espinoza acknowledged that he did go to his home but only to talk about ‘work issues’ (having started working a few days ago in his municipality), and that it was just one opportunity, not remembering when (and not 3, as the victim claimed).”
“The defense’s unfounded hypothesis of explaining even becomes significant, knowing the result of the telephone antennas that were activated demonstrating the physical location of the accused in the area where the victim’s apartment is located (…) . Beyond the inconsistencies, in short, the defense introduced by the accused is not sufficient to separate him from the responsibility that he bears here prima facie for facts 1 and 2 attributed, given the forcefulness of the evidence collected, and cannot be seen more than as a “false and implausible refuge raised in pursuit of providing some explanation for the compromising situation he faces,” pointed out the failure.
According to the judge, on the contrary “it seems more accurate and natural to think that the victim unexpectedly suffered indecent touching of her body without her consent by the person who was her boss at the time and a public person, and in the manner “She was able to report what happened, with anguish and disturbance as a result of the accused’s surprising and deliberate actions of subjugating her sexual freedom by taking advantage of his authority, which naturally places her in a disadvantageous situation due to her role.”
The resolution was issued last week and It is assumed that the defense will appeal the decision to revoke the prosecution.
