Diana Quer’s killer ‘El Chicle’ sentenced to 14 years in prison for raping his sister-in-law.

Magistrates believe that the defendant proved that he had persuaded the victim to appear outside his house after calling the victim twice in the early morning of January 17, 2005, saying that he wanted to return some money to his father. “by utilizing ties of kinship”, For him to get into his car “claiming they’re going to go get that money”. After the boy got into the vehicle, the accused drove “at high speed” in a “jungle environment” to the San Mamede park in Lousame City Hall, where the San Lourenzo Chapel is located, according to the sentence. The judges stress that this place was “little visited back then, on a day like the day the truth happened.”

Once there, according to the verdict, after exchanging a few words and Take your aunt’s phone and save it, The convict took out a large knife and showed it to the victim., while giving it to him as a warning of its possible use near the body. The judges reported that while the knife was “always in his hand”, he told her to give him oral sex, and the minor refused. He then asked her to undress, gave her a nightgown to wear, positioned herself above him in the passenger seat, and “held the knife in her hand and near her. Later, he said that if he told anyone what had happened to him, “in addition to killing himself, he would also kill him, his sister, and his daughter, who is his sister’s daughter.”

As a result of these facts, the Court found that the complainant “experienced significant changes in his daily life and social, familial, sexual and emotional relationships”.

The Court explains that the essential elements of evidence are: victim statement, friend’s expression He made a visual examination of the place where the events took place, who he told about the events on the same day and who made the statements of the officers accompanied by the complainant and his mother in 2005.

The judges understand that the affected person “does not have a vengeful will” and ensures that his story is coherent, as “there are no logical bankruptcies or rules of experience that preclude his evaluation.” They further emphasize that the complainant is persistent because he “continually put forward the same version of the facts”.

The court further affirms that “all the important elements of his expression have never changed” and that the younger’s recounting of what happened to his friend and sister that day gave him “even greater support”. declaration. The judges also stress that “various elements in the complainant’s statement are not rebutted by any other evidence”.

In the ruling, the judges stress the evidentiary importance that the complainant first told a friend that she had been raped by her brother-in-law in high school. “The important thing is not to report an event that is claimed to have happened before, but rather that it is claimed to be new. “Such data reduce the chances of a fairy tale being produced, as it is difficult to claim that a child younger than 17 prepared the script,” he said. the defendant himself admits that he is not at work”. Therefore, the complainant could have expected his brother-in-law to be at work at that moment, “so that if what he wanted was to falsely attribute a meeting with him, he did so precisely during working hours”.

“All of his abrupt behavior that day is fully consistent with the fact that he had been exposed to an event similar to the one described, making it highly unlikely that he would have reacted to a simple simulation,” the court said. After a visual inspection of the place where the events took place that day, the junior said it was “very clear and shows exactly what happened”.

The judges assure that the conclusions of the 2018 Imelga report are “fully acceptable, both in terms of criticism of the 2005 report (the 2018 report mentions shortcomings and errors) and respect for the presence of a psychic trace in the victim.” consistent with the experience of cases such as those reported”.

The court explains that the 2018 report conducted by the Galician Institute of Forensic Medicine (Imelga) analyzed the previous two reports. “To delve into the critical review of the report, published by the Forensic Psychology Unit of the University of Santiago de Compostela, on which the defense wants to rely, it is necessary to reflect in this new report how impossible it was. Take the basic documents from the Unit, which was conducted in 2005,” said the judges, saying that the “prosecution version of the defense version of the accused” stresses that it does not have the capacity to raise reasonable doubts that would prevent it from being accredited”. The penalty is not final because it can be appealed against.