Nicolás Pachelo pointed to García Belsunce’s family: “Carrascosa was the first to arrive and hypothesized the accident” | Exclusive interview with the defendant for the crime of María Marta

After 20 years of the crime of María Marta García Belsunce, in July of this year the third trial to clarify the murder that shocked the country. This process has as main defendants the neighbor of the country El Carmel, Nicholas Pacheloand two guards, Norbert Glennon Y Jose Ortiz. In dialogue with AM750the 46-year-old man – who was not released at trial, but has already spent four years in prison for eight robberies – He broke the silence beyond his judicial statement and left a series of definitions where he stressed his innocence, targeted the victim’s family and questioned the role of prosecutors.

1. The role of prosecutors

“It’s a tough trial. The prosecutors are trying to create a negative image of me. Not only with the central cause, but with other peripheral ones of mine. Proscribed causes”, Pachelo told Diego García Saez, at Central Station, in a telephone communication from the La Plata prison, where he remains detained.

“We are fighting day by day and countering the evidence of the prosecution. I saw myself obliged to respond each day of the hearing to what the prosecution spoke about, ”he added in this regard.

2. The cover-up

On the other hand, Pachelo referred to the role of María Marta’s family and questioned that the first of the causes, for covering up the crime scene, is not being taken into account.

Here the cover-up existed. There was a conviction and a confirmation. But the cause prescribed. The cause existed. The trial existed. The convictions existed. But not in this trial. I don’t say anything about Carrascosa because they acquitted him. But the cover-up is different,” he said.

3. His link with the García Belsunce

Denying some stories from people close to the García Belsunce family, Pachelo assured that “With María Marta I never had an exchange of words”. “We never argue,” she pointed out.

Instead, to her widower, Carlos Carrascosa, He met him “because he was treasurer of the club.” “I had meetings because I had a couple of fines that came along with the expenses, because nothing proved that these fines are real. We had talks in a very good way. They took the fines out of me and I paid the expenses, ”he commented.

“It is not true that María Marta was collecting signatures to kick me out of the club,” he added, shooting down another of the accusations against him.

4. About the kidnapping of María Marta’s dog

“I don’t know if the dog thing existed or not. It did not exist with me in the middle. So far in the trial, five different versions of what happened to the Labrador retriever have already been heard. For me, it is no longer sustainable. It is not believable”, he commented.

5. The suicide of his parents

On the other hand, Pachelo spoke about the suicide of his two parents, from which he disassociated himself and assured that it is a closed issue for justice: “The first person who entered my mother’s house that day was the judge. The same one that she filed the cause as suicide ”.

Everything the prosecutor brings is to create an image about the court. This was investigated. It is the same as with my father, ”she commented.

6. The background

I am 46 years old and I do not have a single cause of a robbery with the use of a firearm. Not even one. So, these peripheral facts have nothing to do with María Marta. They are crimes against property and not against the integrity of people,” said Pachelo.

7. Carrascosa at the crime scene

At another point in the interview, Pachelo charged against the ex-husband of Mary Marthaabsolute for justice after being imprisoned for several years for being the alleged perpetrator of the crime.

“Carrascosa’s statement seemed to me like that of an acquitted person. Whatever you say, it’s irrelevant. He was the first to arrive at the scene and put the hypothesis of the accident“, said.

And he added: “He is a person who has all the right in the world to say the things he says. He is part of his strategy. I think he is angry with the judges and justice more than with me. The anger is with (prosecutor Diego) Molina Pico.”

8. The accusation of the beachgoers

Pachelo also assured that it is a lie Testimony of the beachgoers at a service station who claimed that the morning after the crime they saw him in the store asking about the murder that occurred in El Carmelwhen it was not yet known what had happened.

“So far the trial is as we expected. There is absolutely nothing new. About the service station, we have three tests to show that I was not in that place, “she assured.

“There is the statement of the domestic worker. The second is the country exit, which is at noon. I entered on Sunday at 12 at night and did not leave until Monday at 1:40 p.m. ”, she added.

9. “The circus” of the family of María Marta

“I always felt that in the event that they accuse me, my defense would be judicial and not media. I wasn’t going to go to the family circus. Justice had to ask me for explanations, not the media. But I think that worked against me. Because he would not have forced me to go out in the media today, 20 years later”, Pachelo lamented, to finish.

Nicolás Pachelo pointed to García Belsunce’s family: “Carrascosa was the first to arrive and hypothesized the accident” | Exclusive interview with the defendant for the crime of María Marta