Barely 24 hours had passed since Samuel Luiz’s crime and the accused were already pointing fingers at each other on social media. During the investigation, some continued to betray those who had previously been their friends. At trial, this The “every man for himself” tactic was sophisticated with the help of his lawyers. But the tests carried out in plenary complicate this strategy: the autopsy and DNA analyzes paint the scenario of multiple lynching as the cause of Samuel’s death.
Although each person’s role in the attack was different, the charges allege the same crime, murder with cruelty and treacherya, to the five respondents. The sentences they face range from 22 to 27 years in prison, because to one of them is added the theft of the victim’s cell phone and to two others the aggravating circumstance of discrimination. In this context, each lawyer tries to free himself from responsibility for his client, which collaterally involves splattering his colleagues on the bench.
This was the case during the interrogations of the first two defendants who testified, Alejandro Míguez and Catherine Silva, both on provisional release. They identified Diego Montaña and Alejandro Freire, alias “Llumba”, as perpetrators of lynching. And everything indicates that this tone, emphasizing others, will also be the norm when Thursday comes the time to question the three other defendants, those who are in preventive detention: Diego, Llumba and also Kaio Amaral.
Five essays in one
The hearing, which is taking place these weeks at the Provincial Court of A Coruña, is actually taking place as if it were five trials in one, in which each lawyer focuses only on questioning witnesses, experts and police officers parading in the room on your customer’s involvement: In any image, can you see Alejandro Míguez hitting Samuel? Can we confirm that Kaio’s kicks hit the victim’s body? Isn’t it true that Catherine tried to stop her boyfriend? Can we exclude that Diego was completely drunk simply because he nimbly climbed the stairs of the promenade to attack Samuel?
But the evidence presented last week at the trial reinforces the prosecution’s thesis – which supports the popular and private accusations -, not only with regard to the collective nature of the attack, but also that it was essential to put an end to the young man’s affair. life. .
Especially the autopsy. During last Tuesday’s session, a forensic expert from the Institute of Forensic Medicine of Galicia (Imelga) clarified that Samuel died of “cumulative injuries” caused by “multiple blows”. That is to say that it was not a single blow which was the trigger for which we could be held responsible, in particular that of those who sat on the bench. Or one of the two young people who were minors at the time of the events and who were therefore tried and found guilty of murder in a separate criminal trial.
Of course, the fact that it was not a definitive and unequivocal blow that ended the life of the young 24-year-old nurse does not necessarily imply that the five are responsible for her death. This is where your defenses focus the battle: convince the jurors that their respective clients did not assault the victim although he is in tumult, or, in cases where it is impossible to support this thesis, as in Montaña, the story emerges that his blows were not fatal.
Two accused cornered
Montaña and, to a lesser extent, Llumba, are the two accused who were most cornered during the tests carried out during the last sessions. The Scientific Police have certified that remains of Mountain DNA on Samuel’s foreheadwhich supports the statements of several witnesses, some investigated, and the images from a road camera which certify that he hit the victim. In fact, it was he who launched the attack when, at the gates of the Andén pub, on the A Coruña seafront, he threw himself at Samuel when he mistakenly thought that the young man and a friend recorded it with their cell phone.
Llumba’s defense has also been compromised in recent sessions. On the one hand, forensic experts explained that the injuries that Samuel had on his neck are compatible, i.e. could have caused them, the ‘mataleón’ with which Llumba, according to several witnesses, knocked down the victim while Montaña hit her. Martial arts technique of grabbing the victim from behind and strangling them, widely used in violent street robberies. On the other hand, the Scientific Police found his DNA on the glass of a bottle at the place where the attack began. However, it could not be confirmed that this was the bottle that Llumba allegedly took hidden from the pub, nor that it was used to hit Samuel, although some witnesses said they heard the noise. breaking glass during lynching.
Montaña and Llumba, if the planned schedule is respected, will be questioned on Thursday, in what will be the penultimate session of the trial. Both have already been highlighted in plenary session by Míguez and Kathy Silva. The same day Kaio will also testify, who has already reported Diego and Llumba to the police, as well as one of the minors already convicted. Llumba, for his part, assured a friend after the crime, via Instagram, that Kaio had kicked the victim “very hard”.
The quintet of defendants in the dock of the Court of La Coruña is completed by Catherine Silva, then a friend of Montaña. No one accuses him of hitting Samuel, but of trying to prevent Lina, a friend of the victim, from helping her. Despite this, if no one remedies this by proposing an alternative qualification reducing the criminal offense and demanding a conviction, he will risk 25 years in prison, just like Montaña. Because, in addition to the murder, they attribute to her the same aggravating circumstance of sexual discrimination as to her ex-boyfriend.
