Eleven months after the attempted assassination of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Comodoro Py is reluctant to investigate the role of congressman Gerardo Milman, who 48 hours before the attack pronounced the phrase “when they kill her, I’m on my way to the coast” before two advisers. While Chamber I of the Buenos Aires Federal Chamber takes all the time in the world to decide whether or not to kidnap the cell phone of whoever was Patricia Bullrich’s right hand, judge María Eugenia Capuchetti and prosecutor Carlos Rívolo rejected evidence requested by the lawyers for the vice president to deepen the investigation into the manipulation and deletion of the cell phones of the trio in question, which according to one of the former advisers was carried out in the offices of the pre-candidate for president on Avenida de Mayo 953, headquarters of the “Institute of Studies Strategic,” which Bullrich also uses to raise campaign funds.
Milman’s striking “when they kill her…” took place on August 30 of last year at the Casablanca bar, a few meters from Congress. On September 1, Fernando Sabag Montiel fired a trigger centimeters from CFK’s face. The two young women who, in that bar, were listening to the PRO man turned out to be his collaborators Carolina Gómez Mónaco and Ivana Bohdziewicz, who, summoned to testify, said under oath that they did not remember that appointment, and they retracted it when they were shown the footage that refuted them. Capuchetti refused to seize their cell phones, a step he only took on December 1 when the House ordered him to. Bohdziewicz then said that she, with her advice, had deleted the contents of the phone to preserve her privacy. In May, on the other hand, she voluntarily appeared to clarify that, strictly speaking, she did not delete it of her own free will, but rather they took her to the Bullrich offices, where Milman and the expert Jorge Adolfo Teodoro, himself, were waiting for her – according to the lawyer and candidate Juan Grabois – who is now listed as a “technological representative” of Together for Change.
Rívolo then asked to kidnap Milman’s cell phone but Capuchetti denied it, arguing that he was not accused and that he has parliamentary privileges, a decision that the prosecutor Carlos Agüero Iturbe questioned as “arbitrary” and “to the detriment of the truth” when sustaining the request before the Camera. The decision, which is expected, is in the hands of the PRO legal team: Leopoldo Bruglia, Pablo Bertuzzi and Mariano Llorens. The judge did agree to seize a second phone from Gómez Mónaco, which was not in his name and from which the results of his analysis are awaited.
It was within this framework that CFK’s lawyers – José Manuel Ubeira and Marcos Aldazábal – requested the measures now rejected. They demanded that it be identified if there is a cafeteria in the vicinity of where –according to Bohdziewicz– she was summoned by Gómez Mónaco “before taking her to Avenida de Mayo to erase the cell phones”, and that a letter be issued to the Buenos Aires government to inform if there are security cameras in that area and send the footage from November 1 to 30, 2022. They also demanded evidence measures on the Avenida de Mayo 953 building and asked that the lawyer identified as Diego who “would have provided his advice” be investigated about how to evade the investigation.”
Capuchetti relied this time on Rívolo’s arguments to consider a measure of evidence “unreasonable” when the prosecutor himself ruled that “at the moment it is not appropriate to give rise to the proceedings requested by the complaints.” “At least so far, from the elements collected, there is no indication that the cell phones” of the advisers “recorded elements of interest related to the planning and / or execution of the attempted murder,” he assessed. “This point of verification is reinforced by the conclusions of the reports prepared by the Airport Security Police and by the General Directorate of Investigations and Technological Support for Criminal Investigations of the MPF (Datip) regarding the analysis of the information contained in the devices contributed by the named ones”, he wrote. To advance in the investigation into “the possible participation of third parties”, he suggested waiting for “the result of the analysis” of the phone seized from Gómez Mónaco and the one used by Milman, as long as Bertuzzi, Bruglia & Llorens deign to give the order to hijack the device. It is unlikely that the pig whistles.
