The minors convicted of Samuel’s death protect the accused by claiming that they do not remember anything about the crime

The law is made up of norms that are expressed in words, so justicemany times, depends on the language and the terms that give it shape. No words describing in detail how and when a defendant may have committed a crimethere is no evidentiary tool that allows us to affirm that he did it without any doubt.

The two minors involved in the murder of Samuel Luiz who acknowledged their participation in the events two years ago, assure that they have already They remember practically nothing of the beating that ended his life. And they cannot describe in words, therefore, the role played by their other five friends, with whom they shared the nightly party —They drank Whiskey with Red Bullthey do remember that—in the early hours of July 3, 2021 at the Andén pub on Riazor beach, shortly before Samuel was beaten to death.

This was declared this Friday by videoconference in the Provincial Court of A Coruña, connected to the courtroom from the juvenile centers where they are held. In exchange for admitting their authorship, both had agreed with the Prosecutor’s Office of Minors in 2022 a confinement of three and a half years, of which they had already served several months in provisional confinement. The rest of his friends, who were adults when the events occurred, are exposed to prison sentences of between 22 and 27 years. They, however, will be released in January.

They answered evasive

The two boys They answered evasively.almost always quick and dry, to the prosecutor’s questions and popular and private accusations. Some are so accurate and exact that it is difficult to presume them to be spontaneous. Several of the defenses even gave up questioning them, including that of Diego Mountainthe main defendant, and who for the first time in so far obtained some relief in the silence of his friends, who on the day of the events were 16 and 17 years old. Diego benefited more than any response to a party question would have.

As a result, the jury was barely able to extract from their statements a minimally consistent narrative about the successive mass attacks that Samuel received, resulting in his death while homophobic insults were hurled at him. “I don’t know”, “I don’t remember”, “I didn’t see it”, “I didn’t hear it”, “I couldn’t tell you”…

The two young people can allow yourself to forget because, as the judge warned before their interrogation, although they appeared as witnesses they had already been judged by those facts, and could refuse to answer any question whose answer could incriminate them. He also warned the defense lawyers that he was not going to allow any question that referred to his own participation, and not that of his adult friends.

In fact, he had to stop the lawyer again. Alejandro Freire, Yumbawho tried to get one of them to admit that on the way out of the pub, and during the first beating of Samuela bottle fell to the ground, which other witnesses claim hit the victim wielded by one of his attackers.

Dialectical tricks

To defend their clients during the oral hearing testimonies, lawyers like Freire’s have nothing left but the word. The language, that is, that sometimes turns flexible rubber into dialectical tricks that the judge almost always detects and stops. “He says he doesn’t remember if he saw it, but if he had seen it, he would remember it, right?” asks the lawyer. Catherine Silva to one of the minors. “Lawyer, you know that you cannot condition your answer. Witness, do not answer,” the magistrate reprimands.

But the lawyer already did it. And it is difficult to gauge to what extent it is possible delete those inappropriate words from the minds of the jurors. The defenses know it. And it seems that many of their questions are not so much intended to question the witnesses as to slowly sow arguments in front of the court, even at the cost of the judge noticing them, hoping that it is their story that will later flourish in the verdict.

Accompanied by the silence of the two minors, this especially benefited Catherine and the defenses of Alejandro Míguez and Kaio Amaral Silva. The only times when those who They said they remember something It was to place them in actions and places that were convenient to their respective versions. Of course, if all of them were true, none of them would have to be on the stand, nor would their friends testifying by videoconference from a detention center. Because then Samuel would be alive.

Perhaps it was unconscious, but the two boys also twisted the language in their own way in that direction and described as “tumult”, “fight” and “noise” what in reality was a bloody lynchinga fierce, cowardly and heartless attack against an innocent helpless.

Three witnesses who crossed paths with the accused

The other three witnesses who appeared at Thursday’s hearing did not see these events nor were they able to identify each of their alleged perpetrators, but they were not called for that but because they crossed paths minutes later. with part of the gang while she was heading to a park about half an hour walk from where they had left Samuel dying.

First they saw Catherine and Diego arguing, both exalted and shouting. They decided to follow them because he was bloody and they thought he was attacking her. They even turned to her and asked if she needed help.

Then they followed them to the park, where they saw more people arriving. Catherine and Diego continued arguingand, according to what they said, they heard her say something like “But how have you left him!” or “But how have you left him!”, referring to Samuel’s condition.

The difference is relevant because if the word that defines the subject of that phrase is expressed in plural, that would mean that Catherine would not only be giving away Diego, but also the rest of the accused. The witnesses could not ascertain exactly what grammatical number he used. What two of them did hear were more homophobic insults: “He deserved it, he was a fucking fucking faggot!”, “Who ordered that shitty faggot to get involved?”

Once again, language as a tool of and for justice. Because if the jury considers it proven that the accused uttered those phrases and other similar ones, and there are already several witnesses who have affirmed it, it will be deduced that Samuel was killed due to sexual condition that they attributed to him. Without knowing him at all, without him provoking them, without mercy. Without saying a word.