2024-04-13 11:54:58
Máximo Thomsen, one of the young people sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Fernando Báez Sosa, requested through an appeal for annulment that Justice revoke the sentence and allow him to face a new trial.
Although it is unlikely that this will happen, his lawyer, Francisco Oneto, presented a brief in which he also requested that the incident be classified as “homicide in assault”, which provides for a maximum penalty of six years in prison.
Read also: What were the penalties for the rugby players who killed Fernando Báez Sosa
Among the arguments presented before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires, the lawyer highlighted: “We are facing a sentence that far exceeds 10 years in prison, literally being a prison for life, due to the operation of arts. 14 and 80 inc. 6 of the Penal Code, the first expressly establishing that those convicted of aggravated homicides do not have the right to conditional release.”
Then, Oneto issued a harsh warning to the judges: “Translated into simpler terms, it means that Máximo Pablo Thomsen, now 24 years old, will not set foot outside of prison once more for the rest of his life. and he will only leave the penitentiary institution in a coffin when his life on this material plane ends.”
After the Cassation ruling, Máximo Thomsen will ask to testify to tell his truth (Photo: TN).
“We express an erroneous dismissal of the figure of homicide in assault and, eventually, that the fraud of the sentence be removed,” Oneto told TN following presenting the appeal on Friday morning.
“The judges say that article 95 of the Penal Code, which regulates the figure of homicide in aggression, does not apply, because that figure requires that it is not known who caused the death and here it is known that the death was caused by everyone. This part affirms that to maintain that everyone produced it is to not know who made the differentiated contribution to cause death to occur. So it is inapplicable,” added the lawyer.
Lawyer Francisco Oneto defends Máximo Thomsen (Photo: Instagram @fraoneto).
In the document, Thomsen’s defense indicated “that it is not clear who caused the death, but it is clear that a group of people exerted violence on the passive subject. Therefore, in that case, the result of death will always be the accumulation of the results of that violence exerted.”
Thomsen targeted one of his detained friends
“Máximo omitted to declare that the one who gives the first pineapple that knocks down Fernando Báez Sosa and puts him out of combat is Enzo Comelli. Pineapple that D’Alessandro (friend of Báez Sosa) says was treasonous,” Oneto wrote.
He then narrated that his client was prevented from stating that he was not involved in the fight inside the bowling alley and that the one who started the disturbance was Blas Cinalli. “The witnesses Muñoz, Gómez, Ávila, D’alessandro and García were omitted to be questioned in this regard. “Such omission placed the murderous motive on Máximo, when instead it should have been on Cinalli.”
He also said that he might not require an expert opinion to determine if any specific blow caused the death. There he pointed out a blow that caused a bruise on the victim’s chin: “Compatible with the blow that Enzo Comelli dealt at the beginning.”
“He was not in a position to exercise lethal violence because when Gómez (one of Le Brique’s security employees) took him out of the nightclub, he choked him until he passed out and no one questioned the guards in that regard, not even in the slightest. less so to the other defendants, who, although they might have also refused to testify, might have provided useful information corroborated by independent means of evidence,” said Oneto.
He later stated that Thomsen has no memories of that event and that what he knows is because Matías Benicelli told him regarding it. He also indicated that they did not question Lucas Pertossi, allegedly the only witness who saw Thomsen faint.
The 8 rugby players before the sentencing for the crime of Fernando Báez Sosa. Afterwards, they stood to hear the standing sentences. (Photo: Diego Izquierdo / Télam).
“The possibility of questioning Benicelli in that regard was taken away. “To ask for psychological expertise to determine what might have caused the temporary memory loss and, if applicable, the reasons why this was so,” he continued.
Regarding why his client did not relate everything mentioned during the trial, Oneto explained: “Máximo omitted to utter these statements because he had the same defender as his co-consorts in the case, who might be harmed by such statements.”
Máximo Thomsen filed an appeal for annulment through his lawyer (Photo: Facebook Máximo Thomsen).
Then he added: “Take for example Enzo Comelli, who, having been the one who delivered the first powerful blow to the jaw, and if it was determined that he was the cause of death, might have responded alone as the author of intentional homicide. Now, regarding these points, it is important to analyze them in their proper context.”
“These statements were not made as a joint strategy between the accused and the defender but as an imposition by the defense so as not to harm his other clients with these statements, and here we see a clear violation of the accused’s right to material defense,” Oneto completed.
1713013806
#leave #prison #coffin #shocking #warning #Máximo #Thomsens #lawyer
