Regarding the 11th Detainee

Over the past week, practically all media outlets (television, radio, and web) have been covering the criminal case where a vicious and cowardly gang of thugs killed a young tourist in the seaside resort city of Villa Gesell.

Why is there so much repercussion around this topic? Is it being pushed by the media themselves? Some outlets cover it more than others; some cover it all day long across every program for quite a while, while others do not. Conspiratorially, it makes me think there might be underlying reasons. Could it be the political affiliation of the local mayor, and an attempt to attack him for all the bad things the city offers? It could be, or it could not be.

Villa Gesell is a city that concentrates a lot of youth—this has been happening since the 1980s and 1990s. Just as Bariloche and Villa Carlos Paz concentrate student tourism with graduating seniors, or Gualeguaychú concentrates young people's tourism during carnival dates, Villa Gesell—already established since the 1960s and 1970s as a center that brought together hippies—now concentrates young people's tourism on the Atlantic Coast. As such, it brings together everything that attracts young people, which we can sum up in one word: lack of control.

This does not mean that all young people are out of control, but due to biological factors of the plastic and developing adolescent brain that drive them toward adventure and rebellion, and within a favorable environment where a certain degree of lawlessness is fostered, excesses naturally appear. Not all excesses end badly, but they do in those cases where young people arrive with pre-existing personal issues built up over time—whether due to being violent, having abandoning parents, addictions, etc.—a combination that in some cases can prove explosive, and in a few other cases, the individual explodes.

And in that summation of factors, mass action appears—what they now call a "pack" (manada), something typical of cowards (think of soccer hooligans, heavy-handed bouncers, violent demonstrations, terrorist groups, etc.) who, when gathering in a group, feel more important and immune than if they walked through life alone, and they do things they wouldn't do alone because their brain’s impulse brake works (having "common sense"), except for psychopaths and other antisocial disturbed individuals.

Mass action was also studied sociologically more than a hundred years ago. Le Bon called his book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, where in describing collective action, the "I" becomes the "We," speaking of the feeling of invincible power, imitation, and even tracing its origins back as a survival mechanism of primitive man. This is complemented by Ortega y Gasset's book introducing the concept of "mass man," which has more political content. So much has been written and studied up to the present day that it is unfathomable, exceeds the scope of this blog post, and is beyond my knowledge to discuss further.

The lack of controls to "keep in check" an out-of-control youth while simultaneously allowing them to have a good time and enjoy leisure shows the inefficiency of local politics and a total lack of concern for offering anything better (the continuous policy of the last twenty or thirty years). It highlights the absence of efficient administration—given that they have bouncers in clubs instead of personnel trained in prevention, an absence of police officers, untrained police, and police mistreated by politicians, the judiciary, and the hierarchy itself—along with the almost total discredit of the judiciary in a broad sense.

There is also a lack of control on the beaches regarding music, garbage, and overcrowding that to a certain extent becomes unhealthy, as well as the low cultural quality of the people (young and old) who gather for these few days of rest and can think of nothing better to do than have fun with 4-on-1 gang attacks, "bottle wars" on the sand, a flurry of punches for anyone who dares to ask them to "turn down the music, please," illegal driving of quad bikes through the dunes by minors, alcoholism, and recreational drugs. All of this is amplified by social media, since these basic individuals find it fun and even meritorious to film and upload each of these barbaric acts to the web for 2020.

Not to mention a topic that could prove interesting: the greatest attraction of these coastal places is the beach, which at the same time is one of the most polluted areas by plastics and other waste—polluted beaches reliably certified by studies from prestigious national universities, studies released no more than five years ago. And one could go on listing the shortcomings of these towns, some of which concentrate the highest level of local tourist overcrowding. While tourism is a very important source of income that generates jobs, this well-being brings other issues with it. The main one is demographic growth: in 25 years, the municipality doubled the population settled there, and when there is no effective management, a larger population means a greater number of problems and greater difficulty in resolving them.

Now, if we see that the media is looking for blood to broadcast on their shows, there is nothing better than finding it in this soup where all the ingredients are present so that nothing is missing. And this never fails: today we have a murder by a savage gang of cowards, but the day before we had a stabbing. Of course, the accessories to the crime can add or subtract in terms of packaging the crime for television; the more condiments there are, the more food for journalists, reporters, and tricksters.

And the murder of the young tourist was the one that offered the greatest amount of elements: a fight, violence, a nightclub, bouncers, gang thuggery, a vile and cowardly attack, well-off "nice kids," humble victims' relatives asking for justice, the world of rugby—rugby as a violent contact sport that fails to transmit values when the players (not all of them) leave the playing field (some players, less equipped as human persons, carry along their "kicking techniques" and "group bully" behavior combined with their ego and steroid-fueled complexes)—the violent background of some of those involved, private footage from passersby, private footage from merchants, municipal footage (conspicuously absent but which should exist, at least some), eyewitnesses, casual commentators, shameless relatives of perpetrators speaking on television, a supposedly fugitive suspect, prosecutors who don't talk to the press, judges who don't talk to the press, politicians who don't talk to the press.

In the absence of "official" voices, there is the very narrative crafted by the press, the absence of concrete results in solving the crime due to lack of communication (perhaps it is being solved well, but the lack of communication stands out in the face of a socially relevant event), screenshots of social media messages, "nice kids" involved in the crime, "nice kids" who after perpetrating the crime went to sleep as if it were just another day, "nice kids" who come from a historically violent city, "nice kids" who come from a city of the same political affiliation as the seaside resort where the crime took place, "nice kids" some of whom are locally known vox populi for previously perpetrating violent actions in the city they come from, and who knows how much more padding material for the press.

But if anything was missing, it was the accusation of an innocent person—and no, it wasn't missing; that was present too. And this is the point I want to dwell on, because it reflects the kind of country we are, the mediocre level we are part of as a society and, consequently, of the institutions we have, always from my personal perspective.

Journalistic news reports spoke of the immediate arrest, in a chalet, of ten individuals involved in the criminal act. Perfect! Wonderful! They were caught quickly; the suspects were sleeping peacefully, the police arrived, and took them into custody. If only it had been just that...

But.... no, something was missing. The next day, the very same media outlets alerted the public with the following news: "They are looking for number 11." Hours later, the media announced: "Number 11 arrested in Zárate," and added: "he is being transferred to Villa Gesell."

With just that alone, there is a lot to analyze:

• These are news reports about events that actually happened (one detainee in Zárate transferred to Villa Gesell), but communicated solely by the media.
• There was no official communication—neither from the police, nor the prosecutor's office, nor the court.
• Are the media reliable? Like everything, some are and some aren't. Let's think positively and give credibility to the media (for the moment), serious journalists who work with off-the-record information from checked sources.
• The only thing ordinary citizens have is the information that arrives through the media.

Based on what the media says, the following doubts arise:

• How was the information obtained that there is a fugitive in Zárate?
• Is it proven that he is a fugitive from the group?
• Did the police act under orders from the prosecutor's office and/or court, or did they act on their own initiative?
• Did the prosecutor's office and/or court issue an arrest warrant and/or transfer order for the alleged fugitive to Villa Gesell?

Unfortunately, faced with the total silence of the intervening institutions, only what the media says remains.

• Clarification: When I refer to the "media," it is in general, but the reality is that one outlet/journalist provides a piece of data and all the others take it and distribute it; another outlet/journalist provides another piece of data and all the others take it and distribute it. To this, we must add the opinions and concerns generated by each journalist when giving the news, plus comments, plus all the embellishments with which they craft the news, plus everything journalists use to dress up the news to present it, without leaving aside the whole string of stupidities that some journalists also add. And to all that, we must add all the information external to journalists that is also generated from guests, professionals, interviewees, etc. So, out of that whole salad, one has to delimit, trim, and see what to keep and what to discard.

The media provide the answer to the question, and it is the only answer that remains established, since we have no official information.

One of the detained scoundrels (scoundrel: a person of low morals), when asked "Whose sneakers are these?" replied, "They belong to so-and-so," and when asked again, "Where is so-and-so?" the subject replied, "He left by car for Zárate."

• Is this truthful? Did it really happen like that? We don't know; we only have information from the media.
• Initially, one would believe everything was done as the law commands, with respect for due process and so that a future flaw does not render what was done null and void. But of course, we are in Argentina; it is permissible to doubt.
• But let's suppose for a moment that the silence of the institutions is hiding something; is that something to worry about? The normal thing is to trust institutions and think of their silence as meaning they are concentrated on doing their job well, with which, as citizens, we should be satisfied and confident that everything was done according to the law. But of course, once again we are in Argentina... it is permissible to doubt.

Once the arrest of so-and-so took place, at first glance, one would believe things were done right. The suspect, supposedly a fugitive, was arrested in a flash. Perfect.

The question is: was he arrested solely on the mention of one of the detainees and nothing more? Is what the implied person said reliable? Or are there more clues and some type of evidence accompanying the arrest request? I think this is fundamental; there should be more evidence to detain a person, and not just the accusing finger of a detainee, given that the presumption of innocence prevails, and even more strongly for those against whom there are clear indications that they were involved (videos, witnesses, clothing, blood, etc.).

What other indications (I am speaking solely of indications and nothing else) were there to arrest number 11? Once again, according to the media, the only thing that existed was the accusation of one of the ten detainees. If this was the case, it seems unserious, and even dangerous in a Rule of Law, since anyone could be arrested for anything upon the mere mention of any detainee.

Here, I think I see a second stage.

Immediately after number 11 is arrested—the alleged fugitive, who offered no resistance at the time of his arrest—the guy's father begins an arduous defense of his son on two tracks: the judicial and the media tracks. The official silence of the participating institutions continues. Number 11 remains detained while his father shouts his son's innocence. On one hand, the father's lawyer makes the relevant filings for his client, and on the other hand, the father defends his son in the media.

The father and the lawyer state the following:

• "My son (detainee number 11) was not and has not been in Villa Gesell."
• On the day the cowardly gang attacked the victim, they (father, mother, son) were having dinner at a restaurant.
• They offer a video.
• After dinner, detainee number 11 was with his friends in Zárate and returned home.
• They offer a witness.
• They offer the cell phone to prove his location (in addition to other data, communications for example).
• He indicates that the seized sneakers are of one size, while number 11's footwear is of a different size. They speak of two different types of footwear.
• They clarify that in the videos circulating in the media, detainee number 11 is nowhere to be seen, and it is easy to spot him because he is almost 2 meters tall. If he were there, he would stand out among the crowd. He would be easily seen and he is nowhere to be found.
• The father asks for him to be released, stating that they are at the disposal of justice and can stay in Villa Gesell to answer all requirements.
• The father points out the difference between clubs: the ten detainees (or some of them) play rugby at the Club Náutico Arsenal Zárate, and detainee number 11 practices rowing at the Club Náutico Zárate. They are two different clubs, two different sports, and only to some inept people is there a certain tension and prejudice between one and the other. Both clubs are right across from each other, and the media lends itself to confusion; in their eagerness to have the scoop or show a better or more complete story, some (like La Nación) speak of one club while featuring a photograph of the other club.

To this, we must add that while detainee number 11's father shouts his son's innocence as loudly as possible, the parents of the other detainees are nowhere to be found.

The idea is floated (always based on the media) that detainee number 11 is and was a victim of bullying by the rugby-playing gangsters, and that the whole thing was just another "prank." A "prank" (or infamy) paid for by all well-meaning Argentinians who don't act like cowardly thugs (transfers, security, food, fuel, etc.).

Detainee number 11 spends a day under arrest. The next day, the investigative hearing takes place.

The first ten refuse to testify. Detainee number 11 presents himself, testifies, answers questions, and ratifies what his father and lawyer are saying elsewhere.

It seems that for those responsible for number 11's detention, nothing is ever enough: he was pointed out and period, a car left Gesell for Zárate and period. They wield their arguments to justify the detention—always according to the media, and that's even though there are channels to communicate; if they don't like talking to the media, they have the prosecutors' website available. But no, we only rely on the information that arrives through the media, and according to them, we have:

• The witness was offered by the detainee. (It is insinuated that she may have been manipulated.)
• Cell tower studies and cell phone analysis take time.
• The footage is a recording of a screen and not the original hard drive; the original must be obtained. (It is insinuated that it could have been modified.)
• And regarding everything else, no one says a thing—neither the institutions nor the media.

Thus, detainee number 11 stays locked up for one more day.

At this point, doesn't it seem to anyone that there is something strange? Something that doesn't add up? Why does one person offer "proof" and shout their innocence everywhere, helping with the inquiries, while the rest do not? The rest take the easy path: if they accuse me of something, let them prove it... we deny everything.

Not only that, doesn't it behoove the involved institutions to give a minimal comment on their proceedings? At least for social ethics. But nothing, we get nothing coming from any official channel.

Fortunately, journalists—some of them—begin inquiries and start poking their noses in, perhaps advised by lawyers, and this is when journalists are actually useful: they make visible a situation that starts to make noise, to become uncomfortable. The question starting to fly through the air is: Is there an innocent person detained? (detained as a synonym for apprehended, jailed, deprived of his liberty, caged, prisoner, captured, however you want to put it). A person who quietly should be living his life however he pleases is deprived of it because they are investigating him.

More questions arise: If there was a belief that someone fled Villa Gesell:

• Shouldn't they check the Municipality's security cameras?
• Shouldn't they check private security cameras?
• Shouldn't they check the exits of Villa Gesell and the entrances of Zárate?
• Shouldn't they check the car and its license plate?
• Shouldn't they investigate the informant further? Ask the informant for precise data? Try to consider, based on professional experience (police/prosecutors), whether the informant is a joker, or if they are mentally sound according to certain parameters and falsely accusing, or if they are implicating a third party unrelated to everything just to "muddy the waters"?
• Shouldn't they consider the possibility of a namesake?

And even having detained number 11, shouldn't his alibi be confirmed or ruled out immediately?

• If he says he was with friends, shouldn't they look for cameras in places close to where he was with friends?
• If he says he returned home, shouldn't they look for cameras in places close to the house?

I suppose, in my naivety, that a single camera was enough to place him more than 500 km away from the scene out of all the cameras in the city of Zárate.

And a thousand more questions occur to me; it seems like I watch too much fiction, but... common sense prevails for the citizen without a suit.

If he pointed out that a certain car was used, was it a new car with a GPS tracker/meter? Was the car subjected to a timely inspection where the mileage was recorded and could be contrasted with a round trip to Gesell? Did he pay tolls? Toll cameras? If he claims to have been with friends, were photographs taken where EXIF data could be viewed? Were messages uploaded to social media at that time? Did they buy anything at a kiosk or store, etc.?

In other words, what is missing is speed, promptness, due diligence, and swiftness in carrying out activities by investigators to make a determination regarding a person's freedom.

And finally, shouldn't they have considered the situation of good will, of cooperating with justice, of submitting without resistance to the authority requiring him? Weren't there alternatives to detention? Couldn't he have been left in a hotel with a police guard?

Wasn't this reasoning considered? The alleged fugitive escaped from Villa Gesell and did not escape from Zárate—meaning he was cunning enough to escape from Villa Gesell, but not cunning enough to escape from his own home, the very first place they were going to look for him.

Apparently, none of that was necessary for those responsible: keep him locked up!

And unfortunately, official silence, with only the voice of the media. And the father who kept pleading for his son's freedom.

And on top of all this, supposing that a car actually left with a fugitive from the crime scene, and given all the indications mentioned by detainee number 11's defense that he was not detainee number 11:

• Is anyone looking for that other person?
• He has been on the run for two or more days.
• Was there really a fugitive, or is it believed there was a fugitive? Or is it an alibi for poor performance in detaining someone unrelated to the event?

The media talk about 4 days detained. I don't know to what extent the media's influence weighed in, or if some high-ranking official (one or more than one) with common sense and the weight of professional responsibility, along with a bit of common sense and high morals, dropped the order to release detainee number 11. It was already unsustainable, and as always, only the voice of the media was heard.

Until the dismissal of charges for this nightmare arrives, he will not be completely at peace. Beyond the personal strength, professional, family, friendly, or athletic help that someone who was unjustly detained might have, or the clearing of his good name and honor after being soiled by a gang of thugs and the ineptitude of a State and some of its organs: who gives him back the 4 days detained? Who gives him back the bitter pill? Have the institutions involved in his detention even offered him a bare minimum apology? Have they explained and detailed the reasons why he was detained? All Argentinian citizens should know this last part very clearly, leaving no room for doubt that the actions of the institutions were correct, but of course, we are in Argentina.

And hopefully, everything that happened to unjustly detained number 11, after being released following 4 days, will not somehow favor the procedural situation of the other accused individuals against whom solid indications (and even more so, evidence) weigh. I would like to think of it that way: two unrelated facts that do not interfere with each other, coincidentally related—but of course, we are in Argentina, and that is terrifying.

That is my opinion as just another citizen; in my view, worrying.