DNA fingerprints are conclusive. The specimens collected in room 107 of the Atrio match those of two guests: Priscila Lara Guevara and Constantin Dumitru. On the first day of this Monday’s hearing, phone records and at least two witnesses determined that the defendants were at the crime scene, this Wednesday’s expert evidence revealed that the defendants certainly stayed at the hotel the night of the robbery.
The remains were found in the toilet, lid and cistern button of the room. They were compared to those already on the National Police register, and in both cases they matched those of the two defendants. The footprints of a third person, whose identity was not known, were also found because they were not in the police database. Comparisons with hotel employees were not made to rule out the possibility that they could be workers.
This was one of the main points of the most media lawsuit in Cáceres history. This Wednesday’s session was expected as the results of the reports prepared during the investigation were presented. after what The Provincial Court Division would listen to witnesses, and police, experts tasked with valuing the wines, lined up tasked with examining body samples and comparing the defendants’ facial features with security cameras.
The morning came in by a significant margin, with a lower media presence. The press could not enter the room again and had to follow the view from the next room. They shared accommodation with students from the Ágora institute and law students. The police van with the defendants arrived at the courthouse at 09:15.
On this occasion, her lawyer, Sylvia Córdoba, did not enter through the main gate and did not testify in advance. The session was held with harsh statements by both the Department Head, the prosecutor’s office and Priscila and Dumitru’s lawyer. From the very beginning, Córdoba continued his strategy of liquidating the work of experts, just as he had done with the police investigation, which he described as wrong at the previous session. He always doubted that Roberto Nebreda, the expert responsible for valuing stolen bottles, was a wine expert, and doubted the methodology he used in preparing the report. “What grapes are the wines made from? What was Romanée Conti’s best crop?” were questions.
Judge Joaquín González Casso called his intervention “unnecessary” several times, arguing that “you don’t need to be a wine expert to evaluate some bottles.” “You shouldn’t even like wine,” he added. “It’s not the lawyer who’s running this case, it’s the court, especially this president.” rotted it. It is a coincidence that this report was the subject of prior discussion, as the insurer submitted the report a month ago after two years of research. The evidence was accepted by the court, and this Wednesday the defense asked that it be challenged.
After this first encounter, the two agents tasked with analyzing the genetic samples showed up via video call, and finally the cops dealing with facial recognition did the same, a test in which no conclusions could be drawn from the quality of the images. insufficient to compare with the defendants.
After the interrogations, it was planned to show the security records upon the request of the prosecutor’s office, but this point was abandoned due to technical problems. The Chamber decided to adjourn and then the parties presented their final decisions after the hearing. The public service performed by Carmen Barquilla has begun, intervening for at least forty-five minutes.
In his full statement, he ensured that it was proved that the defendants were staying at the hotel and that the documents were distributed to carry out the robbery. Priscila and Dumitru have “sufficient evidence to undermine the presumption of innocence principle”, although she admits there is no “direct evidence”. He added that these symptoms are multiple and reinforce each other. To defend his hypothesis, he first referred to the security cameras, the recording of the keys, and the call traffic from the defendants at the time of the robbery.
According to Barquilla, there is ample evidence that the defendants occupied suite 107. Among other things, due to the record of the calls, the car they were traveling in, the testimonies of witnesses, the DNA of the room and fingerprints. On the prosecutor’s account, cameras recorded that at 19:43 on October 26, 2021, Priscila entered the Atrio without luggage. At 21:07 Dumitru does this in the company of Priscila, holding only a backpack. At 01:32 Dumitru enters the room again. Three minutes later, taking advantage of Priscila ordering a salad and managing to distract the receptionist, Dumitru goes to reception and retrieves the key to room 106 from a box to open the tasting room, but without success. he returns to the room and, under another supervision of the receptionist (he was asked for a plate of fruit), goes downstairs and takes the correct key, number 27, from the same box. key registration appears to be an error due to using room 106 key at 01:27 from Oct 27.
On these cameras, you can see how the author leaves the warehouse with a backpack and two heavy bags (even having to leave them on the ground). He walks into the room and looks for Priscila halfway through. The writers hurriedly leave the restaurant after 5 a.m. when they have to drop their bags on the floor to pick them up again. Later in the afternoon they leave the relais&chateaux with some bags they did not enter. The prosecutor is also surprised that the defendants paid for breakfast but did not receive it, stole four towels and left the bathroom window open.
As for the sentence, he remained in prison for four and a half years, but dropped his claim for damages, for two aggravating reasons, the high value of the bottles in excess of 500,000 euros and the historic value of the Chateau d’Yquem. 750,000,000,000,000 euros demanded at the beginning of the hearing, to the amount claimed by the insurer. Rafael Montes of Reale Seguros continued his request. A situation arises where the company is involved in the case as an intervening party, that is, it can apply legal liability –indemnity– but does not bear criminal liability. At the end of the trial, the lawyer assured him that they were seeking a five-year prison sentence, which he did not mention in his final intervention at the trial.
The defenses of the defendants also defended their acquittal and release. Sylvia Córdoba imitated the prosecution and continued her discussion for about an hour. The lawyer denounced the violation of his clients’ fundamental rights and described the trial as “disproportionate”. Córdoba estimates that this is not the first time legal evidence has been presented and he has not refused to go to the Supreme Court in the event of a conviction. She questioned all police reports as they did not provide evidence and therefore justified the invalidity of the procedure. The lawyer conscientiously prepared his defense and insisted each time that the fingerprint account was not given. On the other hand, she pointed out that the footage was not illuminating and looked blurry.
He closed a brief intervention by Dumitru, where he had the opportunity to defend his innocence. On Monday, he also wanted to answer his lawyer’s questions, although his lawyer refused to question him. Priscila didn’t want to talk. In the coming days, the court, which has already been held in pre-trial detention, must first decide on the lawyer’s client’s request for release and then the sentence to be determined for both of them.
Unfinished business: keys and bottles
Although questions in the Atrio case were shed during the trial, the trial ends without providing definitive data on two of the unknowns. First, if the card was either guarded by staff or camouflaged in a drawer, how did the thieves get the master key to open the cellar? In this connection, the witnesses confirmed before the judge that the location of the key was known only to a part of the staff and that the receptionist on the night of the robbery had assured him that the key was with him. Second, and generating more questions, where are the bottles? In this regard, one of the hotel owners, Jose Polo, gave a speech after his testimony at the trial, continuing the hypothesis that it was a hired robbery and reassuring that the person in possession of the bottles was “more dangerous than prison.”