2024-04-05 09:49:43
Máximo Thomsen believes that he was not represented in the best way during the trial for the crime of Fernando Báez Sosa. Designated during the debate as one of the main aggressors, and after the ruling of the Court of Criminal Cassation that confirmed his life sentence, the rugby player asked Francisco Oneto, his new lawyer, to testify before the Court to tell everything he did not say. before.
It was Oneto who, in dialogue with TN, spoke about how his client feels about the Cassation decision: “He is distressed by this circumstance and has renewed hope in the face of this new defense.”
The lawyer confirmed to this medium that next week he will go to Melchor Romero’s Warden No. 1 to meet with his client to begin drawing up the guidelines for what his request for a statement will be. Thomsen wants to tell everything that they didn’t let him say before.
Although Oneto avoided giving details of the content of his statement, TN learned that Thomsen will focus on the origin of the conflict inside the Le Brique bowling alley, on his role during the beating of Fernando and on everything that happened that morning on January 18, 2020.
“His intention was not for this to end in anyone’s death. “I told him that I could not guarantee results, but I did tell him how we are going to use the tools of the law to improve his procedural situation,” said Oneto. And he added: “He is going to tell things that he never said.”
The lawyer will focus on two issues when defending Thomsen: intent and premeditation. “Homicide in aggression punishes when there are multiple attackers; when you cannot know who caused the death and everyone is condemned,” he explained.
Lawyer Francisco Oneto is the new defender of Máximo Thomsen (Photo: Instagram @fraoneto).
“In this case, Cassation discards that rule and says that it can be known. What I will seek to explain to the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires is that Casación makes an error, because it makes the difference between aggressive homicides and intentional homicides in the impossibility of individualizing the aggressor or the person who commits the homicide,” he continued. .
“If someone sees the result of their behavior and seeks that result, it is intentional homicide. But there is no fraud here. Máximo did not see this result coming. Every weekend they had fights similar to that one, which had not ended in anyone’s death. Fraud is a subjective element, it cannot be evaluated,” he indicated.
Read also: The plot behind the fight between the rugby players for their defense in the crime of Fernando Báez Sosa
The lawyer remarked: “Was it okay for them to do that? No not at all. That is why he deserves a punishment, but not a life sentence.” The Justice sentenced Thomsen to life imprisonment as a co-author of “homicide doubly aggravated by the premeditated collaboration of two or more people and by treachery, in ideal collaboration with minor injuries.”
“(Juan Pedro) Guarino and (Alejo) Milanesi, friends of the group and witnesses to the event, said that they had similar fights in Zárate. Even a taxi driver, a witness in Villa Gesell, saw that Tomás D’Alessandro (a friend of Báez Sosa) was beaten in the same way. There was no fraud in his conduct, fraud cannot be deduced. “I think we are in a homicide in aggression,” he said.
The 8 rugby players before the sentencing for the crime of Fernando Báez Sosa (Photo: Diego Izquierdo / Télam).
Oneto stated that “even if there was malice, we cannot narrate premeditation.” And he completed: “The premeditated contest requires cold and reflective behavior. “The circumstances of the event prevent these reflections.”
Read also: The Court of Cassation confirmed the sentences for the rugby players convicted of the murder of Fernando Báez Sosa
The change in the ruling made by the Chamber of Cassation
The Court of Cassation reviewed the sentence of the Dolores Court No. 1 and confirmed each of the sentences, but made a modification. The eight rugby players were convicted of homicide aggravated by the premeditated participation of one or more treacherous persons, but the judges determined that the latter could not be determined.
Although in colloquial terms the description of the event seems to show that it was treacherous, in technical terms the Penal Code requires some circumstances that were not proven, so that aggravating circumstance was removed.
However, since premeditation was maintained, there could be no change in the sentence because in either of these two cases the only sentence provided for is life.