Legal Proceedings Begin for Accused Murderer John Nelson Poulos in Bogotá Femicide Case

After several attempts to evade justice, The legal proceedings against John Nelson Poulos formally began, the US citizen accused of committing the murder of DJ Valentina Trespalacios in Bogotá earlier this year.

During the presentation of the parties, The defense of the alleged feminicide, led by lawyer Belisario Vela Galeano, presented a request for annulment of the process under the argument of an alleged violation of the right to defense.

However, the office did not accept the request after listening to the positions of the victims’ defense and the Prosecutor’s Office who asked to reject outright the request of Poulos’ lawyer.

For his part, the lawyer Miguel Ángel del Ríorepresenting the victims, said that they had already made this request in a previous procedural stage.

And along those same lines, the Prosecutor’s Office requested to reject the application for annulment, since I had already prepared all the evidentiary material and that even all the witnesses are present in the room.

For his part, the judge in charge of the case gave a strong call to attention to Poulos’ defense lawyer. “No one said that the lawyer is there to hinder the procedures, he must help ensure that justice is prompt. I don’t know what has happened to the concept of a lawyer,” said the man in the robe.

To begin the trial, the judge gave the floor to the Prosecutor’s Office, which was in charge of narrating the events. In this context, the investigating entity explained that the trip of the American citizen, Poulos, He had a single objective: to murder Valentina, with whom he had a romantic relationship.

Immediately afterwards, the Prosecutor’s Office explained Poulos’ conduct that led to the belief that it was a premeditated act. “He inspected her networks, made complaints to her, monitored her friends and as a result of his jealousy he confessed that he had hired a private investigator to follow her,” said the Prosecutor’s Office.

These behaviors, according to the investigating entity, greatly affected Valentina, who felt like an object owned by Poulos. Besides, The Prosecutor’s Office added that Poulos supported Valentina financially in order to dominate her.

After presenting the first facts and arguments to point out Poulos as guilty of an alleged femicide, The defense of the accused presented his theory and said that there was no femicide and that there was no premeditation either. They pointed out that the excessive use of drugs and alcohol led the man to commit manslaughter.

After listening to the parties, the Prosecutor’s Office presented the first witness in the case, Laura Hidalgo, mother of Valentina Trespalacios.

But the hearing had to be suspended for almost two hours. Although at the beginning of the hearing Poulos announced in a written note that he was not going to attend, The decision changed during the appointment, so he was transferred from La Picota to the Paloquemao complex.

At the time of resuming the hearing, Poulos asked to speak to request that the hearing be postponed to have more time to meet with his main lawyer, Jhon Fredy Espindola, arguing that, although the lawyers present at today’s hearing are part of the same firm, they are not known and has never met them. However, the judge denied the request and asked to continue with the hearing.

Given the judge’s refusal, Poulos came up with a new strategy and requested a recess to change lawyers. Poulos explained that he makes this request under the argument that the lawyer Espindola has omitted key evidence for its process, such as a video showing Valentina obtaining hallucinogens from a supplier and assured that it is an important element for his case.

Likewise, the American citizen He wants to revoke the power of attorney he gave to lawyer Espindola to represent him in the case because he believes that “the lawyer seeks to serve as a judge and is trying to destroy his case.”

In response to Poulos’ request, the Prosecutor’s Office expressed total concern, since they had already been summoned for more than 15 days to continue with the proceedings, and Poulos was informed. “Today he says that he did not want to come and now he is reporting that he wants to revoke the power, I don’t know if it is a defense strategy,” said the prosecutor in the case.

Likewise, the Prosecutor’s Office indicated that in the letter that Poulos sent to the judge to inform of his non-attendance at the hearing, The defendant said that his own lawyer told him that he did not have to attend. A detail that draws all the attention of the investigating entity.

In turn, Poulos explained that in the last hearing in which he was able to see the lawyer, He told her that he was going to request a report on narcotics related to cough and ecstasy that, according to Poulos, Valentina had consumed. However, Poulos explained that he has been isolated for several days without access to a telephone, so he has not been able to establish communication with his lawyer.

Thus, the judge asked him if he definitely agreed with removing his lawyer’s power, to which Poulos responded yes and that He needed more time to find a new defense.

In this context, the judge began to explain that from the beginning of the hearing the actions of Poulos’ defense were not clear and pointed out that if the accused says that he does not agree with his new lawyers, then you are free to appoint the defender you want.

Along the same lines, the judge explained how the hearings are composed, since Poulos is a foreign citizen. He told him that the first hearing was for formulating the accusation, then there was a second hearing in which the accusation was carried out and it was also a preparatory hearing. That is to say, today the oral trial began where tests will be carried out to demonstrate the existence of punishable conduct and responsibility.

That explanation is key because at this stage of the process Requests to collect evidence can no longer be made, as the defense attorney told Poulos. The judge explained that this was not viable, since the request does not correspond.

Likewise, he explained to Poulos that today he was not summoned to a procedural hearing, as his lawyer would also have told him. In that sense, The judge decided to certify copies to the Judicial Disciplinary Commission because he considered that Poulos’ defense lawyer did not act with loyalty and was not transparent in his processes.

Thus, the office accepted Poulos’ request to revoke the power and asked Poulos to appoint a new trusted defender, but made one reservation and that is that If within the agreed period until the next hearing, Poulos does not have a new defender, then the Ombudsman’s Office will be asked to assign one ex officio for the following sessions of the oral trial.

In the face of eventualities, A new date was set for December 4 and 5 starting at 8:00 am The judge closed with a final warning for Poulos. “I hope your lawyer is not going to bring you here to postpone the hearing,” he concluded.