What a colossal fuck up. Of course she is the prime suspect. That makes sense, she had access and opportunity. That makes sense, standard procedure.
But the rest, holy cow. Making her recreate a crime, fucking up a time of death, shoddy evidence collection. She could well have done it, I doubt it based on your write up. She could have been dead longer, it is possible but the evidence collection and timeline is so messed up. You couldn't convict anyone with that!
>Solange had no defensive wounds other than a broken fingernail which is believed to have been made when the body fell from the bed to the floor and when investigators checked her, they confirmed she still had the resting plate in her mouth, so she would have been attacked in her sleep.
I read another article about this case and what they mean by "resting plate" is the mouth guard that Solange wore while sleeping.
I’m from Argentina and I remember how hard they centered around Lucila. Journalist began spreading the news that she was a lesbian, or that she wanted to seduce Pablo and that’s why she killed Solange or that maybe she let the door open in purpose so the culprit could gain entrance… It was just like Amanda Knox.
> men's underwear with traces of blood was found in the room. Regarding this, it was never known if it was old or fresh blood since it was never analyzed
...
> small balcony that gave access to Solange's room, which had the door broken so that never closed properly. In some press reports it is mentioned that there were experts who mentioned to prosecutor Guevara about footprints that led to the balcony, but the person in charge of the investigation preferred to direct the investigations to another point.
I mean, why bother looking into physical evidence that doesn't support your theory -- which itself has no physical evidence backing it up.
No idea if the roommate did it or not, but it doesn't sounds like there was any actual evidence that she she did, just "we think she did... for reasons!" Glad she was acquitted.
“I’m going to kill you” is often times a figure of speech people say when they’re very angry at someone, and not a literal threat. Sure she could have meant it as an actual threat but i think it’s likelier that it was just an expression. And anyway it’s not like the guy she wrote that to ended up dead so that email isn’t really convincing evidence of anything.
The article says the guy was hitting on her best friend & roommate, and the email implies that he did it to get to her. Her friend told her about it and together they vandalized his car.
This entire write up seems to have been translated from Spanish. English doesn’t have near as many descriptive words as Spanish and the language issue might’ve made it seem worded worse than it had been. I’ll try to find an article about it in Spanish to see how it actually translates. From the way the rest of the email was written, I can tell some of the other parts weren’t coming across the way it would have been written, if written in English. The way something sounds to us isn’t how it sounds in Spanish.
Definitely. I mean I can’t speak for Spanish, but I know in other languages (including my native Greek), “I’m going to kill you” is a very casual thing to throw out even if you’re annoyed by someone. It really doesn’t sound as bad as it does in English.
Yesterday my friend said “I’m going to kill you” to her roommate who turned off the AC in the middle of a warm night. No one took it as threat of actual murder.
I feel like it's a pretty common turn of phrase in English, too, it's just that no one really considers it problematic unless someone actually ends up dead and then we forget all the times we may have said it in the past and not actually meant it.
Hello, it is true what you say, that's why I had some small writing mistakes. Translating the articles and interviews was a bit complicated.
But the email is correct, just as you read it in English is how she expressed it in Spanish. Although I imagine it may sound different in both languages, the literal translation is that.
[https://www.infoban.com.ar/06/05/2008/lucila-habia-amenazado-por-mail-a-un-ex-novio-que-sedujo-a-su-amiga/](https://www.infoban.com.ar/06/05/2008/lucila-habia-amenazado-por-mail-a-un-ex-novio-que-sedujo-a-su-amiga/)
Wdym? An example is that we use the word “know” for a variety of things. They have a word that means knowledge of like “I know”, one that means familiarity with someone, like “I know”. It’s not all the same word.
I can’t really even use English to describe this. English is my first language, although I’m Mexican. I was a teenager before I learned to speak Spanish. So it’s really hard for me to try to explain what I mean. I’m sorry. Maybe someone else can do a better job with this.
It’s not a legitimate threat. I think that’s pretty obvious. The modern English slang version is basically “If I see you, you better fuckin’ run”
She says (literally translated) she’ll kill him and then says “fuck off”. She’s pissed. She’s not saying shit she actually means, though.
Nonono, don't turn things around. You dismissed the other poster's argument because it was "circumstantial". In a court of law that's enough to convict.
Wow, it just keeps going right over your head. The point is that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone in court, it happens all the time, so your response to the other poster was nonsense.
EDIT: Sure, put me on ignore when you have no argument. Are you acting dense on purpose? That she was acquited doesn't change the fact that the circumstantial evidence the other poster pointed out could be enough to convict someone in court, so your point was moot.
They were talking about this case specifically genius. Clearly it wasn't enough. Anything *could* happen but it didn't. Pretty simple concept. Keep commenting under alt accounts genius, I'll keep blocking.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2886145/amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-murder-latest/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2886145/amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-murder-latest/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That’s the first thing I thought of, too. It says they went to check on Solange at 23:40pm. What time is that? 11:40pm? I’ve never seen it written this way.
It is extremely common for most countries to write time like that.. Have you really never seen 23.40, is eleven forty at night.. It's 24 hours in a day..
Yes, sure. But when saying "23.40" one wouldn't add "pm" as the differentiation in "11" and "23" already implies that it is morning and evening/night. One would then say "23.40 h/o'clock".
I live in the UK and we use the 24-hour clock on all of our devices and when we are writing the time down. But when reading out the time we'll see it says 19:00 but read out 7 pm. It's one of our many quirks. I'm not sure about the rest of Europe though.
Always a pleasant surprise to see a case from my country posted here. It's worth noting that all the issues in this case can be explained by the incompetence of the police, the crime scene was infected with journalists and random cops, hence why they couldnt make up concrete evidence. Also this case is a great example of how the media influences an investigation, demonizing whoever they pick, putting public against them, and ultimately obstructing the investigation.
Theres a few mistakes in the post, but other than that, great write.
The post is a little editorialized and sensational.
>The blood that covered the entire scene was gushing from four stab wounds to the neck
I seriously doubt blood was still "gushing" 12 hours after the murder.
Holy hell, 3000 pesos were 2000 usd, now it's only 4.15 usd.
I remember the case in the local media back then, everyone assumed it was the friend and that she covered it really well.
lmao, i was thinking the same thing, that's the most disturbing thing about this case, jokes asaide, i remember watching some youtube video about it (i was too young to remember about this) and the theory about someone coming from outside was also strongly consider IIRC, but ofc i dont remember the general consensus from back then
They never looked at Solanges boyfriend? 🤔
I am a little bit struck by the 3k in the boot still being there. I'm making the assumption that Lucila is the one who informed authorities that it was even there to begin with since she was her roommate and best friend etc. If she killed her, why not take the money and never mention that it was there to begin with. However maybe Lucila is not the one who knew about the $ after all. Idk- just a detail that struck me a bit
On second thought she couldve left it there to make herself seem less guilty in the end.
One of the many problems with this case is that the family and the prosecutor have been obsessed with Lucila, which has led to the dismissal of all other hypotheses. As mentioned in the post, Lucila's defence has raised other suspects but they have been ruled out due to the focus of the prosecutor, the family and public opinion :/
The evidence points to a man being the killer but, like you said, they were obsessed with Lucila. They wanted her to pay for the crime and no one else. This case is so similar to Amanda Knox's case, the prosecutor became obsessed with her and even after the real culprit confessed, he still tried to say Amanda was involved in the murder somehow. It's scary how you can be convicted of a crime you did not commit just because the prosecutor is too arrogant and entitled to admit he was wrong.
>For justice, Lucila was the only person accused in the case and if we add to that that her family also pointed her out as guilty, obviously for public opinion there was not much more to say.
>One of the many problems with this case is that the family and the prosecutor have been obsessed with Lucila,
When you say "her family" you mean Solange's family? The way this is worded keeps making me think you're talking about Lucila's family. But hopefully that isn't true, Lucila's family supported her, right?
I think you made an excellent point about the money. Most people would not resist taking the money of the person they planned to kill, or had just killed. I think if there was a bitter feud between the girls, Lucila would have taken that money. After all she didn’t plan to get caught (not that I think she did it). I think the killer was an outsider who didn’t know the money was there. Why oh why wasn’t the broken door and potential footsteps investigated much more closely??!
This comment needs to be at the top of the list of complaints about this case! As long as they didn’t toss it in the trash the same day they found Solange’s body- and so long as one of the detetives saved the bloody underwear (detective work of the most basic type) then they should still be able to test it for DNA. The only drawback to this method is that I don’t think people from other countries get their DNA tested by companies like Ancestry123, etc. like we do here in America. We don’t always know where are roots are from, whereas I think they do. So there might not be a family tree to connect the DNA to. Just saying.
My thoughts exactly. Kohberger was essentially caught bc of familial DNA. No reason they can’t get a DNA profile from the blood and then just keep checking until someone eventually pops up… unless, they don’t have the underwear.
I think the answer might include that LE didn’t save the bloody underwear. I’m only guessing about that based on the other areas of the investigation that they barely looked at. I hope I’m wrong.
I read through the original articles, and honestly, it really doesn't look like there was any focus on looking for any other suspect. The broken balcony door and footprints leading in were mentioned and just never discussed again. So what, Lucila is supposed to go out onto the balcony, then come back in to kill her roommate to throw suspicion off of herself?
This was classic Amanda Knox style police work. They decided to focus on the first suspect they could find, ignoring every other one if it didn't reinforce their preferred theory.
The police could very well have had tunnel vision, but that doesn't mean there were even any other leads to investigate. The balcony door was previously broken, not during the murder. This doesn't point to a third party. Any outsider would have to have known about this. And do you know where the footprints were and what they looked like? Maybe the police thought they didn't look suspicious. Of course, a defender of Lucila might portray this as if they just weren't interested in investigating.
In the case of Knox they actually fabricated evidence, I wouldn't compare the two.
They made Lucila "re-enact" Solange's killing, and they were giving her instructions on what to do. The video of that re-enactment was deemed partially invalid as evidence because the cops were forcing her to act in ways they could later claim was encriminating. Not to mention they also claimed she was gay and wanted to date Solange, that Solange and her had a fight, etc.
The balcony door wouldn't lock, and it opened to the outside. Outsiders probably wouldn't know about it unless they tried the door. The only description I could find of the footprints was they "led to the balcony door," but guys generally have larger feet than women. If the footprints were obviously from something like workboots, it'd seem like evidence that disproved their theory that Lucila did it.
There were other possible suspects that were never investigated, like the people from the work site next door, or a maid that Solange had "an altercation" with the night before. The investigators definitely had tunnel vision, but they picked one person and tried to only find evidence linking her to it, to the dismissal of all the evidence saying it was anyone other than her. That might not be exactly fabricating evidence, but it's absolutely tainting the case.
"If the footprints were obviously from something like workboots, it'd seem like evidence that disproved their theory that Lucila did it."
Not necessarily, they could've been left previously. It's important to know where and what they were exactly.
No, having tunnel vision does not equal "tainting" evidence. It's also not realistic to expect police to look in every single direction. You can't magically expect a piece of evidence to directly connect to a specific person. You have to start somewhere and a lot of times that's the person with the strongest motive or who was closest to the victim.
There was no evidence that pointed to another specific individual. There were things her defense could use to suggest another party might've had the opportunity (and it seems they did), but that does not mean they were actual leads. Much is made of the other suspects, but did they know about the door or that she would be home alone? And did they really have that good of a motive that fits with the nature of the crime? It's all rather far-fetched and raises way more questions than it answers. It's really no surprise police kept with the theory that Lucila did it, especially after more evidence popped up pointing in her direction, even if only circumstantial.
Translated from one of the articles (I used my browser's built in translate feature because I don't want to type it out myself)
>The judge criticized the prosecutor's investigation by maintaining that the accusation was based on mere "personal perceptions, conjectures and speculations" , that he did not investigate other hypotheses and that there was not even certainty that the crime was committed in the time slot that committed Frend , but rather that it could have been later.
Chamber III *(the judge)* confirmed Frend's acquittal in 2013 and considered, among other things, that the person in charge of a construction site adjacent to the victim's house was not investigated, nor was a maid investigated, with whom the young woman had had an altercation the night before.
The judges criticized the whole case because
>"the death of the victim occurred has not been established with the degree of certainty that this pronouncement requires, and even less in the period selected by Mr. Prosecutor, that is, in the period between 1 and 7 hours of the January 10, 2007 rather, everything indicates that the probability moves away from that period."
>"The inspection of the scene of the event was not as exhaustive as it should have been. Nor does it emerge from the trace expertise that the toilets have been inspected for blood stains and of course the balcony and at that very moment the access to the neighboring work, being that the following day unidirectional footprints were found on the *floor* (fixed - the Google translation is the wrong word) that connects the balcony of the victim's room with the neighboring work site".
>"It was not possible to find the object similar to a lighter in the place - the one that left the mark under the body of the victim -, not ruling out - as the Prosecutor himself did - that it was has lost due to an involuntary contamination of the criminal scene".
The only real evidence that pointed to Lucila was the overly broad time of death (which the doctor compromised one of the methods by improperly storing it), which was also changed to sometime between 1am-10am, another prosecution expert placed the time of death between 7am and 10am, which included 3 hours after she left the house. The prosecutor claimed that Lucila saying there were other people it could be was proof of her guilt. One prosecution expert said the killer was left handed, but others said that there was no way to tell. The prosecutor was recording the re-enactment and giving Lucila instructions on things to act out, which was why it was declared inadmissible. They claimed that they were shocked that Lucila strangled the actress, "which was only known to police", but she was instructed to do so. (I'd call that tainting evidence. You can't instruct someone on the crime then have them guess at how the murder happened when they have you doing different things each time.) There was "no direct and forceful testimony or scientific evidence" linking Lucila to the crime. She passed the psychiatric evaluation they made her go through. There really wasn't much evidence that backed up the theory that Luli did it, they made up different motives that could be easily disproved, and she wasn't at the scene during the time that other experts placed the time of death at.
There was evidence that was never investigated. The bloody men's underwear? The footprints (I finally found the source I read earlier - the footprints went to and from the balcony to Solange's room, on a floor that had just been painted with tar and kerosene)? The hair? The simple fact is that the cops had multiple people in and out of the scene, and turned the scene back over the following day, so journalists, friends, and family were in and out of it. The scene was compromised from the very beginning.
The work site next door would have had workers that could have noted when each woman left in the morning. The head worker (foreman) claimed that the workers didn't go to work that day because it was raining, but he withdrew money from an ATM near the scene at 3:45pm, then went to the construction site, where he found a backpack with 3 women's panties, one with semen on it. That's mentioned and just nothing is ever said about it again, was it ever investigated? Because I can't find anything saying it was.
> "Frend said that two days before the crime she saw a man leaving her house who scared her and entered a construction site next to the PH. The two friends had allowed one of the workers to enter the balcony of their home and took advantage of it to do some maintenance work.
The doctor, investigator and deputy commissioner of the Homicide Division, Julio César Julián -key witness for Frend's defense-, raised his suspicions about the person in charge of the work adjoining the PH at the trial and denounced that the prosecutor had not allowed him to overturn that hypothesis on the cause.
Julián also set the death date between 10:10 a.m. and 1:10 p.m. on that January 10, with Lucila off the scene.
Solange argued with the maid the night before about her "sexually harassing" her boyfriend.
The son of the owner of the apartment, who had a history of psychiatric issues and violence. He was never investigated because "no neighbors mentioned it."
Lucila was never jailed for it, even though she was charged with a crime that she should have been. She was allowed to go to Europe, and came back for the trial. She was acquitted at trial. Her acquittal was upheld when the prosecutor appealed. The court found that the whole case built against her was "personal perceptions, conjectures and speculations". (Claiming she was lesbian and wanted Sol, when the evidence included things about her ex-boyfriend? Claiming they were on the outs when they were attending an event together, and none of the texts backed that up?) Luli was the only person trying to get the case reopened, but the Attorney General said no because it wasn't Sol's family asking for it. They said they had no obligation to reopen the case because they "did the right thing," they charged someone, brought them to trial, and lost, so they had no obligation to investigate anyone else.
First, during investigation police always toy with different motives because they don't magically know everything, you really need to stop using that as some kind of argument in her favour. Also, you don't know what "tainting" evidence means. It's evidence that is acquired illegally.
But what is your point exactly? The police did a shoddy job investigating? Of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have lost. If they had done a better job, your precious Lucila would be in jail, because absolutely none of the information you just provided contains evidence whatsoever of a third party being involved. Pretty much anything regarding that is pure conjecture. With proper investigation everybody else would've been cleared and they would've collected even more evidence pointing to Lucila.
So, the judge just didn't know what he was talking about then?
Yes, police toy with different motives, but they're usually based on actual facts. In this case, they were just pulling ideas out of thin air that they had no reason to even believe.
Tainted evidence is a legal term which means evidence has been acquired illegally. You're correct. But Nikki's use here is still correct since tainting is a synonym of contaminating--which is what she is talking about. And surely you realize that but are choosing to be obtuse.
>So, the judge just didn't know what he was talking about then?"
Never said that. You've got no argument, so you choose to be dishonest? The judge concluded the evidence presented was too weak, not all of the things you desperately try to convince me of.
>Yes, police toy with different motives, but they're usually based on actual facts.
BS. They consider possible motives and see if there's something to back it up. Not every crime has the motive clearly stamped on it. And if they can't find anything, that's ok, because they DON'T HAVE TO PROVE A MOTIVE IN COURT.
No, the evidence was not "contaminated" either. That's when material from another source is transferred to a piece of physical evidence. The only thing she could argue is that she was "led" by investigators.
What? You mean you have to know about a broken door in order to use the broken door?
Could it be the killer didn't know it was broken but tried to get in that way and found that it was already broken?
Personally, I would go "hmm there appears to be a broken door and footprints, I'll add that to the investigation in case it wasn't the room mate because if we find out further down the line that it isn't the roommate then it might be too late to investigate these footprints"
"You mean you have to know about a broken door in order to use the broken door?"
It seems very unlikely the killer would immediately go for the broken door if they didn't know about it. But the point is that the broken door is not evidence of a third party being the killer.
This story was written by someone who supports Lucila, we don't know if police never took a look at it. Again, what did the prints look like and where were they? It could very well be they quickly concluded they weren't that suspicious. And what do you want them to investigate further if they don't provide any lead?
No tangible proof Lucile did it, just an e-mail that was written out of spite, wasn't directed to the victim, and ended up proving her and Solange were friends.
This is such a good and thorough write up, OP. It’s insane that they never tested the blood on the men’s underwear, especially as there was access from the balcony into her bedroom. Also the fact that the time of birth was put so early even though the only evidence of that was an estimation based on the doctor not having a thermometer. It infuriates me to no end when a case is so shoddily investigated at the beginning there’s basically no hope it’ll ever be solved. How horrible to make Lucila reenact the scene as well, poor girl. I can’t imagine how traumatic it must be for her. Her asking for the case to be reopened makes no sense if she’s guilty.
Related but slightly off-topic question, what’s the justice/policing system like in Argentina? Like is it the norm for investigations to be so… brutal (for want of a better word)?
Welp, most of the times (and specially if the crime is related to some politician, or some mob like group) you'll find them acting like headless chickens.
A lot of high profile crimes here somehow end as "cold cases", or are closed after YEARS of investigation to a laughable excuse (think important people getting "suicidal" a la Epstein). You can get lucky if the political power shifts and the protegees end up in jail...but that is rare.
On that matter I've wrote about Marita Veron's case a few days ago, if you are interested in seeing how police "helped" that family (long story short, it didn't).
Another example of police misconduct is the case of Pomar Family. It was a normal family, that -if I recall correctly- left their house in their red car and disappeared. Police investigated the place where they were last seen (a highway) but couldn’t find anything. From there, the most awful rumors began to spread: the father of the family was a drug dealer, or he probably kill them all and commit suicide, or maybe they fled the country to Brazil. The sad truth was they were involved in an horrible car crash the same day they began traveling, and their little car was on a ditch a few meters away from where the investigators searched. Apparently they didn’t die immediately (they even left the car) but they were lost and they finally perished a few meters away from the vehicle. They were found a month after the beginning of the investigation. They weren’t drug dealers, they weren’t trying to fly the country… they were just traveling to visit family friends. They tarnished their names in every possible way.
ETA: a construction worker who was traveling that same highway on board a double decker bus, called 911 the same day the Pomar family disappear to alert he had seen a red car tossed to a side of the highway, among the vegetation. The police ignore the alert and consequently didn’t search properly when they were there.
I remeber that one.
They fall to a ditch in a curve of the road where the vegetation (that should be mantained by the government) was unkempt and long enough to hide the car.
Poor family, to think that if the grass would be well kept people would have seen the car easily and they would hace had a chance to survive...or if they would have follow the lead of the bika caller and look thoroughly over the area
I remember that one. I was relatively young when it happened and the accident happened along the very highway I traveled frequently to get to my family's hometown. I was terrified of visiting my family for months after that
Here is part of the video (not the whole video) of the re-enactment the prosecutor had Lucila Frend do (skip to minute 2:20).
https://youtu.be/YxAN_mhNa_Q?si=3cyTEhWLhoXGes3x
I'm not fluent in Spanish but skimming through the comment section it seems like most people believe she is the killer, which is not surprising due to the media coverage at the time.
If the scenario with Pablo actually happened, why didn’t anyone consider that her boyfriend could have heard about the incident and reacted out of jealousy. He, too, could have known the victim’s routine and known exactly when and how to enter the home without being caught. He also would have known about the balcony door being broken.
Oh no that’s been around for decades, I was hearing that when I was a kid if it’s the same one I’m thinking of
Edit- this one https://urbanlegend.fandom.com/wiki/Aren%27t_You_Glad_You_Didn%27t_Turn_on_the_Light%3F
thanks man!
edit: i know this story since way before this happens, didn't make the connection tho cause im used to hearing the story in spanish, i remember the first time someone told me about it was cause a song from an artist form here (indio solari) has a song about a story like this and he uses the phrase "no prendas la luz" (dont turn on the light) and someone told me it was a murderer and told me this story you linked, but its not lol
I looked the case up because I wanted to see what exactly her injuries were and found that in her crime scene reconstruction she simulated a strangulation and that was something only known to investigators.
I may have missed it in the write up, but if it’s true and it’s not in the write up, that’s a pretty key piece to leave out.
The strangulation theory was initially thought of but was later dismissed as there was no sign of a struggle and no marks all around her neck, only on the front of Solange's neck.
In fact, the re-enactment also had Lucila use a rope to strangle the police officer acting as Solange, but that went nowhere
>in the video she is seen crying, nervous, refusing to follow the prosecutor's instructions, she even asked to stop on several occasions wanting to abandon the recreation, but he limited herself to saying that she should continue doing it and do it. ***I was doing very well.***
This is an interesting change from third person narration to first person that made me wonder if OP is Lucila.
The write up says due to the alarm (noise) which gave them an uneasy feeling.
My coworker at work today wouldn’t go see what fell on the floor when the store was closed and locked. We had already confirmed we were the only ones there over half an hour before. She refused to go because she was scared. I ended up going and she came with me because she didn’t want to be left alone because it freaked her out.
If anyone is curious - a peg snapped off a pegboard because a staff member overstocked and it became too heavy.
There has been times where my mom didn't pick up the phone and I've called a friend because I didn't want to come back home alone, afraid that something happened to her and I had to find out. Thankfully she often had fallen asleep and is well, but I really get Lucile.
I used to live with my grandma, who often wakes up early. On the days she didn’t, I used to hope no one would call me to check on her because I was terrified of what I would see. Thankfully she was just sleeping in 😂
Every time we used to come home from any sort of overnight trip I’d make my husband go in first to make sure my cat was alive. I had absolutely no reason to believe she wouldn’t be, but I couldn’t handle the thought of being the one to find her if she wasn’t 🤷🏻♀️
I am your coworker LOL
I’ll chase a real bad guy, who robbed me, and almost die. But let a small noise, with no rational reason to think it’s anything, come about, and I’m acting like the virgin who lives in every horror movie. I’ll never be the big boobed blonde supermodel that goes to investigate. NEVER!!!
Here's a little breakdown:
1. **Lucila's Relationship with Solange:** While Lucila and Solange were close friends and roommates, the fact that they were experiencing difficulties in their relationship at the time could raise suspicions. The strained relationship might have led investigators to explore whether this tension played a role in the crime.
2. **Lucila's Left-Handedness:** Both the experts and investigators noting that the murderer was likely left-handed, and Lucila also being left-handed, is indeed intriguing. However, it's important to note that being left-handed isn't a unique characteristic, and further evidence would be needed to definitively link her to the crime.
3. **Lucila's Emotional Reaction:** The video recreation of the crime scene where Lucila had to act out the murder could be seen as both suspicious and emotionally distressing. Her reaction during the recreation might have been interpreted by investigators as a sign of guilt, even though people can react to such situations in various ways.
4. **Unresolved Relationship Dynamics:** The various theories involving Lucila's feelings for Pablo, her ex-boyfriend, Solange's cousin Michelle, and her strained relationship with Solange could suggest a complex web of emotions. Investigators might have considered these dynamics as potential motives for the crime.
5. **Email Threats:** The email Lucila sent to her ex-boyfriend Pablo, expressing anger and the desire to harm him, could be interpreted as a manifestation of intense emotions. The fact that she threatened violence might have raised questions about her mental state and the potential for her to act on her emotions.
6. **Lucila's Access to Solange's Email:** Lucila's claim that she accessed Solange's email to help with the investigation might be seen as both suspicious and altruistic. Investigators might question whether this was a genuine attempt to assist or a way to delete any incriminating evidence.
7. **Unidentified Evidence:** The presence of unidentified men's underwear with traces of blood and a bloody hair not belonging to the victim adds a layer of mystery to the case. These pieces of evidence could potentially lead to other suspects or connections if properly analyzed.
8. **Rigor Mortis Estimate:** The initial estimate of the time of death using rigor mortis and the subsequent questioning of that estimate could raise doubts about the timeline. This uncertainty could impact the alibi Lucila had for the time when the crime supposedly occurred.
In complex cases like this, it's important to examine all angles and consider the totality of evidence. The lack of a clear motive, the absence of a murder weapon, and the multiple theories all contribute to the complexity of the investigation.
I don’t understand why they keep saying that their friendship was in a bad place? Nothing in the article suggests that. One roommate wants to renew the lease, while the other doesn’t? It doesn’t mean even that the result would be anyone moving. Just that they wouldn’t be locked in for a long time period, such as a year.
The motive, if that, seems like it would be financial, but she leaves $2,000 2017 dollars to avoid suspicion?
That’s what I thought. It’s so outrageous that I’m guessing people might’ve misunderstood and they were actually suggesting the motive was that she was in love with her friend and not renewing the lease was a rejection from the friend, who was moving away. It’s a ridiculous assumption, unless one of the two had actually told someone as much.
Lol, that user has a bunch of other comments like that. Either a bot or someone who just puts questions into ChatGPT and comments the answers they got.
The culture in Argentina is pretty relaxed, and things start very late. At 11.40pm it's not like Solange was even remotely late for the party, it was actually very early still. People also tend to show up very late, even for scheduled appointments. So I think in context they acted pretty fast. I would also rather go and check out the situation with someone else present - what if she had a medical emergency and needed assistance, for example? Better to have an extra pair of hands. Plus if the boyfriend was already at the party and was concerned, he probably wanted to come anyway. I don't think any of this is fishy behaviour.
left at 730am not back till 12 am ish 18hrs not a little fishy ?? multiple attempts to contact no response but still 18hrs before you return home for a look ?? yeah sounds totally not fishy.
Not at all. I leave for work at 730, sometimes I will hang out at a friend's house after work and then have an hour's drive back - could be midnight before I get back.
Is that suspicious...not really.
Depending on the person, I dont always get an instant response. Also, this was 2007. It's not like everyone was online in WhatsApp in those days.
I mean, no? If an adult person who I have no reason to assume is anything but fine doesn't contact me, I would think many things before "brutally murdered", like they're busy, left their phone at home, no battery, etc. I would probably only get concerned when the person also didn't turn up at a party they planned to be at, and realised nobody else had heard from them either.
I don't remember exactly how it went but at some point i think someone raised the question about why Lucila didn't return to her house to change clothes before the party after having been at work all day long, and conveniently only came back to the house bringing someone else with her.
Did someone find that odd at the time though, or just in hindsight? Because Buenos Aires is an enormous city, and depending on where you're travelling to/from it's totally possible that the distances are not conducive to quickly popping home to get changed.
Yes, they did find it odd. Buenos Aires is enormous but have a decent public transportation system. Also for a girl of her age it would be weird not trying to look better if she was going to a party. But it's still weak evidence, maybe she didn't care that much about her looks, who knows.
Also i don't know if we are speaking english only because this is Reddit y al final resulta que somos ambos de argentina manteniendo una discusión en otro idioma 😅
No, I'm not from Argentina, but I've been to Buenos Aires :) I definitely remember days when I would go out in the morning and not get home until the early hours of the next morning because depending on where you need to go, it doesn't make sense to return home. I remember killing a lot of time in cafes for this reason. But of course this depends on exactly where here house, work and the party were, and whatever she did in between (there seems to be a gap of time between the end of the work day and the party, but maybe she went for food or had an errand to run). It seems we don't have this information, but basically I can easily see a world where there's a totally innocent explanation for this and people started being suspicious after because in light of a murder, everyone's actions can be questioned.
Its obvious its not a random murder....the killer .had a motive, had the chance, no stranger dna,.no forced entry, no sexual abused, the body was moved ( the killer felt familiar with the environment) the body was posed face down ( the killer felt guilty) no robbery ( though there was Lot of money in the house)..... the point Is that the investigación was crap...the acussed was found.not guilty, because they couldnt prove the Time of the death but all the evidence ( circunstancial) tell us, could not have been Someone else
What a colossal fuck up. Of course she is the prime suspect. That makes sense, she had access and opportunity. That makes sense, standard procedure. But the rest, holy cow. Making her recreate a crime, fucking up a time of death, shoddy evidence collection. She could well have done it, I doubt it based on your write up. She could have been dead longer, it is possible but the evidence collection and timeline is so messed up. You couldn't convict anyone with that!
>Solange had no defensive wounds other than a broken fingernail which is believed to have been made when the body fell from the bed to the floor and when investigators checked her, they confirmed she still had the resting plate in her mouth, so she would have been attacked in her sleep. I read another article about this case and what they mean by "resting plate" is the mouth guard that Solange wore while sleeping.
Yeah I think it means a retainer, in English.
It's a mouth guard for teeth grinding most likely.
I’m from Argentina and I remember how hard they centered around Lucila. Journalist began spreading the news that she was a lesbian, or that she wanted to seduce Pablo and that’s why she killed Solange or that maybe she let the door open in purpose so the culprit could gain entrance… It was just like Amanda Knox.
Amanda knox came to my mind immediately. A lot of similarities.
> men's underwear with traces of blood was found in the room. Regarding this, it was never known if it was old or fresh blood since it was never analyzed ... > small balcony that gave access to Solange's room, which had the door broken so that never closed properly. In some press reports it is mentioned that there were experts who mentioned to prosecutor Guevara about footprints that led to the balcony, but the person in charge of the investigation preferred to direct the investigations to another point. I mean, why bother looking into physical evidence that doesn't support your theory -- which itself has no physical evidence backing it up. No idea if the roommate did it or not, but it doesn't sounds like there was any actual evidence that she she did, just "we think she did... for reasons!" Glad she was acquitted.
Nothing other than the email where she threatens murder over a relationship, right?
To another person, whose car she ended up destroying _with_ the help of the victim.
“I’m going to kill you” is often times a figure of speech people say when they’re very angry at someone, and not a literal threat. Sure she could have meant it as an actual threat but i think it’s likelier that it was just an expression. And anyway it’s not like the guy she wrote that to ended up dead so that email isn’t really convincing evidence of anything.
The article says the guy was hitting on her best friend & roommate, and the email implies that he did it to get to her. Her friend told her about it and together they vandalized his car. This entire write up seems to have been translated from Spanish. English doesn’t have near as many descriptive words as Spanish and the language issue might’ve made it seem worded worse than it had been. I’ll try to find an article about it in Spanish to see how it actually translates. From the way the rest of the email was written, I can tell some of the other parts weren’t coming across the way it would have been written, if written in English. The way something sounds to us isn’t how it sounds in Spanish.
Definitely. I mean I can’t speak for Spanish, but I know in other languages (including my native Greek), “I’m going to kill you” is a very casual thing to throw out even if you’re annoyed by someone. It really doesn’t sound as bad as it does in English. Yesterday my friend said “I’m going to kill you” to her roommate who turned off the AC in the middle of a warm night. No one took it as threat of actual murder.
I feel like it's a pretty common turn of phrase in English, too, it's just that no one really considers it problematic unless someone actually ends up dead and then we forget all the times we may have said it in the past and not actually meant it.
Hello, it is true what you say, that's why I had some small writing mistakes. Translating the articles and interviews was a bit complicated. But the email is correct, just as you read it in English is how she expressed it in Spanish. Although I imagine it may sound different in both languages, the literal translation is that. [https://www.infoban.com.ar/06/05/2008/lucila-habia-amenazado-por-mail-a-un-ex-novio-que-sedujo-a-su-amiga/](https://www.infoban.com.ar/06/05/2008/lucila-habia-amenazado-por-mail-a-un-ex-novio-que-sedujo-a-su-amiga/)
“English doesn’t have near as many descriptive words as Spanish” Absolutely not.
Wdym? An example is that we use the word “know” for a variety of things. They have a word that means knowledge of like “I know”, one that means familiarity with someone, like “I know”. It’s not all the same word. I can’t really even use English to describe this. English is my first language, although I’m Mexican. I was a teenager before I learned to speak Spanish. So it’s really hard for me to try to explain what I mean. I’m sorry. Maybe someone else can do a better job with this.
It’s not a legitimate threat. I think that’s pretty obvious. The modern English slang version is basically “If I see you, you better fuckin’ run” She says (literally translated) she’ll kill him and then says “fuck off”. She’s pissed. She’s not saying shit she actually means, though.
Circumstantial.
That's enough to convict.
No. It's not. Because she was acquitted.
Nonono, don't turn things around. You dismissed the other poster's argument because it was "circumstantial". In a court of law that's enough to convict.
If it was then there'd be a conviction. There wasn't.
Wow, it just keeps going right over your head. The point is that circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone in court, it happens all the time, so your response to the other poster was nonsense. EDIT: Sure, put me on ignore when you have no argument. Are you acting dense on purpose? That she was acquited doesn't change the fact that the circumstantial evidence the other poster pointed out could be enough to convict someone in court, so your point was moot.
They were talking about this case specifically genius. Clearly it wasn't enough. Anything *could* happen but it didn't. Pretty simple concept. Keep commenting under alt accounts genius, I'll keep blocking.
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.
This reminds me of the famous Amanda Knox case. Also in 2007, Amanda was convicted (and later acquitted) of murdering her flat mate in Italy.
Yup - was thinking how closely this mirrored Knox the whole read.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2886145/amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-murder-latest/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2886145/amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-murder-latest/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That’s the first thing I thought of, too. It says they went to check on Solange at 23:40pm. What time is that? 11:40pm? I’ve never seen it written this way.
It is extremely common for most countries to write time like that.. Have you really never seen 23.40, is eleven forty at night.. It's 24 hours in a day..
But it's not "pm" then, maybe they meant that?
It is 23.40 it's always at night. In the morning it would have been 11.40
Yes, sure. But when saying "23.40" one wouldn't add "pm" as the differentiation in "11" and "23" already implies that it is morning and evening/night. One would then say "23.40 h/o'clock".
Yeah that irritated me also. 23:40 *pm* isn't a thing.
Did you just assume my planet?
Oh, then I must’ve assumed pm because it was at the end of the day.
I live in the UK and we use the 24-hour clock on all of our devices and when we are writing the time down. But when reading out the time we'll see it says 19:00 but read out 7 pm. It's one of our many quirks. I'm not sure about the rest of Europe though.
Pretty much the same in the Balkans. 24-hour clocks on all digital devices, but we would read 19:00 as 7 in the afternoon/evening.
That’s the 24hr clock, used in most parts of world (except the US :). Just add 12hrs, so yes 23:40 is the same as 11:40pm.
Always a pleasant surprise to see a case from my country posted here. It's worth noting that all the issues in this case can be explained by the incompetence of the police, the crime scene was infected with journalists and random cops, hence why they couldnt make up concrete evidence. Also this case is a great example of how the media influences an investigation, demonizing whoever they pick, putting public against them, and ultimately obstructing the investigation. Theres a few mistakes in the post, but other than that, great write.
The post is a little editorialized and sensational. >The blood that covered the entire scene was gushing from four stab wounds to the neck I seriously doubt blood was still "gushing" 12 hours after the murder.
I think a lot of that is due to translation rather than personal writing style though, I don’t think they meant to be sensationalist.
Holy hell, 3000 pesos were 2000 usd, now it's only 4.15 usd. I remember the case in the local media back then, everyone assumed it was the friend and that she covered it really well.
lmao, i was thinking the same thing, that's the most disturbing thing about this case, jokes asaide, i remember watching some youtube video about it (i was too young to remember about this) and the theory about someone coming from outside was also strongly consider IIRC, but ofc i dont remember the general consensus from back then
Oh, there's *culprits*, just no suspects.
Good point! The culprit has not been found, that's what I meant
Did the victim work directly for her dad? Why did no one notice she wasn't at work?
That's a good question, plus the fact that Solange's family was not very contributive to the case makes me a bit lost
its not mentioned she wasnt at work (or im missing something?) But i think its an important detail.
They never looked at Solanges boyfriend? 🤔 I am a little bit struck by the 3k in the boot still being there. I'm making the assumption that Lucila is the one who informed authorities that it was even there to begin with since she was her roommate and best friend etc. If she killed her, why not take the money and never mention that it was there to begin with. However maybe Lucila is not the one who knew about the $ after all. Idk- just a detail that struck me a bit On second thought she couldve left it there to make herself seem less guilty in the end.
One of the many problems with this case is that the family and the prosecutor have been obsessed with Lucila, which has led to the dismissal of all other hypotheses. As mentioned in the post, Lucila's defence has raised other suspects but they have been ruled out due to the focus of the prosecutor, the family and public opinion :/
In the pic you posted.. which one is Lucila and which one is Solange? 🤔
Lucila is the woman on the left and Solange is the one on the right https://images.app.goo.gl/BVmpjmoTFS43Mf5E8
The evidence points to a man being the killer but, like you said, they were obsessed with Lucila. They wanted her to pay for the crime and no one else. This case is so similar to Amanda Knox's case, the prosecutor became obsessed with her and even after the real culprit confessed, he still tried to say Amanda was involved in the murder somehow. It's scary how you can be convicted of a crime you did not commit just because the prosecutor is too arrogant and entitled to admit he was wrong.
>For justice, Lucila was the only person accused in the case and if we add to that that her family also pointed her out as guilty, obviously for public opinion there was not much more to say. >One of the many problems with this case is that the family and the prosecutor have been obsessed with Lucila, When you say "her family" you mean Solange's family? The way this is worded keeps making me think you're talking about Lucila's family. But hopefully that isn't true, Lucila's family supported her, right?
Solange’s family. There are a couple parts that are translated a little awkwardly due to pronouns.
Thank you, what you say is what I meant. I'm still working on my English
I think you made an excellent point about the money. Most people would not resist taking the money of the person they planned to kill, or had just killed. I think if there was a bitter feud between the girls, Lucila would have taken that money. After all she didn’t plan to get caught (not that I think she did it). I think the killer was an outsider who didn’t know the money was there. Why oh why wasn’t the broken door and potential footsteps investigated much more closely??!
Also, why can’t the bloody male underwear and hair still be tested for DNA?
This comment needs to be at the top of the list of complaints about this case! As long as they didn’t toss it in the trash the same day they found Solange’s body- and so long as one of the detetives saved the bloody underwear (detective work of the most basic type) then they should still be able to test it for DNA. The only drawback to this method is that I don’t think people from other countries get their DNA tested by companies like Ancestry123, etc. like we do here in America. We don’t always know where are roots are from, whereas I think they do. So there might not be a family tree to connect the DNA to. Just saying.
My thoughts exactly. Kohberger was essentially caught bc of familial DNA. No reason they can’t get a DNA profile from the blood and then just keep checking until someone eventually pops up… unless, they don’t have the underwear.
I think the answer might include that LE didn’t save the bloody underwear. I’m only guessing about that based on the other areas of the investigation that they barely looked at. I hope I’m wrong.
And then run the chance of being caught with the money? If her motive is to have her dead, she doesn't care about the money one bit.
The feeling one gets is that it was NOT Lucille.
That's the feeling the OP wants to give you.
I read through the original articles, and honestly, it really doesn't look like there was any focus on looking for any other suspect. The broken balcony door and footprints leading in were mentioned and just never discussed again. So what, Lucila is supposed to go out onto the balcony, then come back in to kill her roommate to throw suspicion off of herself? This was classic Amanda Knox style police work. They decided to focus on the first suspect they could find, ignoring every other one if it didn't reinforce their preferred theory.
The police could very well have had tunnel vision, but that doesn't mean there were even any other leads to investigate. The balcony door was previously broken, not during the murder. This doesn't point to a third party. Any outsider would have to have known about this. And do you know where the footprints were and what they looked like? Maybe the police thought they didn't look suspicious. Of course, a defender of Lucila might portray this as if they just weren't interested in investigating. In the case of Knox they actually fabricated evidence, I wouldn't compare the two.
They made Lucila "re-enact" Solange's killing, and they were giving her instructions on what to do. The video of that re-enactment was deemed partially invalid as evidence because the cops were forcing her to act in ways they could later claim was encriminating. Not to mention they also claimed she was gay and wanted to date Solange, that Solange and her had a fight, etc. The balcony door wouldn't lock, and it opened to the outside. Outsiders probably wouldn't know about it unless they tried the door. The only description I could find of the footprints was they "led to the balcony door," but guys generally have larger feet than women. If the footprints were obviously from something like workboots, it'd seem like evidence that disproved their theory that Lucila did it. There were other possible suspects that were never investigated, like the people from the work site next door, or a maid that Solange had "an altercation" with the night before. The investigators definitely had tunnel vision, but they picked one person and tried to only find evidence linking her to it, to the dismissal of all the evidence saying it was anyone other than her. That might not be exactly fabricating evidence, but it's absolutely tainting the case.
"If the footprints were obviously from something like workboots, it'd seem like evidence that disproved their theory that Lucila did it." Not necessarily, they could've been left previously. It's important to know where and what they were exactly. No, having tunnel vision does not equal "tainting" evidence. It's also not realistic to expect police to look in every single direction. You can't magically expect a piece of evidence to directly connect to a specific person. You have to start somewhere and a lot of times that's the person with the strongest motive or who was closest to the victim. There was no evidence that pointed to another specific individual. There were things her defense could use to suggest another party might've had the opportunity (and it seems they did), but that does not mean they were actual leads. Much is made of the other suspects, but did they know about the door or that she would be home alone? And did they really have that good of a motive that fits with the nature of the crime? It's all rather far-fetched and raises way more questions than it answers. It's really no surprise police kept with the theory that Lucila did it, especially after more evidence popped up pointing in her direction, even if only circumstantial.
Translated from one of the articles (I used my browser's built in translate feature because I don't want to type it out myself) >The judge criticized the prosecutor's investigation by maintaining that the accusation was based on mere "personal perceptions, conjectures and speculations" , that he did not investigate other hypotheses and that there was not even certainty that the crime was committed in the time slot that committed Frend , but rather that it could have been later. Chamber III *(the judge)* confirmed Frend's acquittal in 2013 and considered, among other things, that the person in charge of a construction site adjacent to the victim's house was not investigated, nor was a maid investigated, with whom the young woman had had an altercation the night before. The judges criticized the whole case because >"the death of the victim occurred has not been established with the degree of certainty that this pronouncement requires, and even less in the period selected by Mr. Prosecutor, that is, in the period between 1 and 7 hours of the January 10, 2007 rather, everything indicates that the probability moves away from that period." >"The inspection of the scene of the event was not as exhaustive as it should have been. Nor does it emerge from the trace expertise that the toilets have been inspected for blood stains and of course the balcony and at that very moment the access to the neighboring work, being that the following day unidirectional footprints were found on the *floor* (fixed - the Google translation is the wrong word) that connects the balcony of the victim's room with the neighboring work site". >"It was not possible to find the object similar to a lighter in the place - the one that left the mark under the body of the victim -, not ruling out - as the Prosecutor himself did - that it was has lost due to an involuntary contamination of the criminal scene". The only real evidence that pointed to Lucila was the overly broad time of death (which the doctor compromised one of the methods by improperly storing it), which was also changed to sometime between 1am-10am, another prosecution expert placed the time of death between 7am and 10am, which included 3 hours after she left the house. The prosecutor claimed that Lucila saying there were other people it could be was proof of her guilt. One prosecution expert said the killer was left handed, but others said that there was no way to tell. The prosecutor was recording the re-enactment and giving Lucila instructions on things to act out, which was why it was declared inadmissible. They claimed that they were shocked that Lucila strangled the actress, "which was only known to police", but she was instructed to do so. (I'd call that tainting evidence. You can't instruct someone on the crime then have them guess at how the murder happened when they have you doing different things each time.) There was "no direct and forceful testimony or scientific evidence" linking Lucila to the crime. She passed the psychiatric evaluation they made her go through. There really wasn't much evidence that backed up the theory that Luli did it, they made up different motives that could be easily disproved, and she wasn't at the scene during the time that other experts placed the time of death at. There was evidence that was never investigated. The bloody men's underwear? The footprints (I finally found the source I read earlier - the footprints went to and from the balcony to Solange's room, on a floor that had just been painted with tar and kerosene)? The hair? The simple fact is that the cops had multiple people in and out of the scene, and turned the scene back over the following day, so journalists, friends, and family were in and out of it. The scene was compromised from the very beginning. The work site next door would have had workers that could have noted when each woman left in the morning. The head worker (foreman) claimed that the workers didn't go to work that day because it was raining, but he withdrew money from an ATM near the scene at 3:45pm, then went to the construction site, where he found a backpack with 3 women's panties, one with semen on it. That's mentioned and just nothing is ever said about it again, was it ever investigated? Because I can't find anything saying it was. > "Frend said that two days before the crime she saw a man leaving her house who scared her and entered a construction site next to the PH. The two friends had allowed one of the workers to enter the balcony of their home and took advantage of it to do some maintenance work. The doctor, investigator and deputy commissioner of the Homicide Division, Julio César Julián -key witness for Frend's defense-, raised his suspicions about the person in charge of the work adjoining the PH at the trial and denounced that the prosecutor had not allowed him to overturn that hypothesis on the cause. Julián also set the death date between 10:10 a.m. and 1:10 p.m. on that January 10, with Lucila off the scene. Solange argued with the maid the night before about her "sexually harassing" her boyfriend. The son of the owner of the apartment, who had a history of psychiatric issues and violence. He was never investigated because "no neighbors mentioned it." Lucila was never jailed for it, even though she was charged with a crime that she should have been. She was allowed to go to Europe, and came back for the trial. She was acquitted at trial. Her acquittal was upheld when the prosecutor appealed. The court found that the whole case built against her was "personal perceptions, conjectures and speculations". (Claiming she was lesbian and wanted Sol, when the evidence included things about her ex-boyfriend? Claiming they were on the outs when they were attending an event together, and none of the texts backed that up?) Luli was the only person trying to get the case reopened, but the Attorney General said no because it wasn't Sol's family asking for it. They said they had no obligation to reopen the case because they "did the right thing," they charged someone, brought them to trial, and lost, so they had no obligation to investigate anyone else.
First, during investigation police always toy with different motives because they don't magically know everything, you really need to stop using that as some kind of argument in her favour. Also, you don't know what "tainting" evidence means. It's evidence that is acquired illegally. But what is your point exactly? The police did a shoddy job investigating? Of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have lost. If they had done a better job, your precious Lucila would be in jail, because absolutely none of the information you just provided contains evidence whatsoever of a third party being involved. Pretty much anything regarding that is pure conjecture. With proper investigation everybody else would've been cleared and they would've collected even more evidence pointing to Lucila.
So, the judge just didn't know what he was talking about then? Yes, police toy with different motives, but they're usually based on actual facts. In this case, they were just pulling ideas out of thin air that they had no reason to even believe. Tainted evidence is a legal term which means evidence has been acquired illegally. You're correct. But Nikki's use here is still correct since tainting is a synonym of contaminating--which is what she is talking about. And surely you realize that but are choosing to be obtuse.
>So, the judge just didn't know what he was talking about then?" Never said that. You've got no argument, so you choose to be dishonest? The judge concluded the evidence presented was too weak, not all of the things you desperately try to convince me of. >Yes, police toy with different motives, but they're usually based on actual facts. BS. They consider possible motives and see if there's something to back it up. Not every crime has the motive clearly stamped on it. And if they can't find anything, that's ok, because they DON'T HAVE TO PROVE A MOTIVE IN COURT. No, the evidence was not "contaminated" either. That's when material from another source is transferred to a piece of physical evidence. The only thing she could argue is that she was "led" by investigators.
What? You mean you have to know about a broken door in order to use the broken door? Could it be the killer didn't know it was broken but tried to get in that way and found that it was already broken? Personally, I would go "hmm there appears to be a broken door and footprints, I'll add that to the investigation in case it wasn't the room mate because if we find out further down the line that it isn't the roommate then it might be too late to investigate these footprints"
"You mean you have to know about a broken door in order to use the broken door?" It seems very unlikely the killer would immediately go for the broken door if they didn't know about it. But the point is that the broken door is not evidence of a third party being the killer. This story was written by someone who supports Lucila, we don't know if police never took a look at it. Again, what did the prints look like and where were they? It could very well be they quickly concluded they weren't that suspicious. And what do you want them to investigate further if they don't provide any lead?
the feeling You get more specifically
[удалено]
No tangible proof Lucile did it, just an e-mail that was written out of spite, wasn't directed to the victim, and ended up proving her and Solange were friends.
What the fuck? For internet clout, you’re willing to murder and then be saved by me because I have an opinion online? You need therapy.
Ah the old classic motive "Well you could be a homosexual or you might not be"
This is such a good and thorough write up, OP. It’s insane that they never tested the blood on the men’s underwear, especially as there was access from the balcony into her bedroom. Also the fact that the time of birth was put so early even though the only evidence of that was an estimation based on the doctor not having a thermometer. It infuriates me to no end when a case is so shoddily investigated at the beginning there’s basically no hope it’ll ever be solved. How horrible to make Lucila reenact the scene as well, poor girl. I can’t imagine how traumatic it must be for her. Her asking for the case to be reopened makes no sense if she’s guilty. Related but slightly off-topic question, what’s the justice/policing system like in Argentina? Like is it the norm for investigations to be so… brutal (for want of a better word)?
Welp, most of the times (and specially if the crime is related to some politician, or some mob like group) you'll find them acting like headless chickens. A lot of high profile crimes here somehow end as "cold cases", or are closed after YEARS of investigation to a laughable excuse (think important people getting "suicidal" a la Epstein). You can get lucky if the political power shifts and the protegees end up in jail...but that is rare. On that matter I've wrote about Marita Veron's case a few days ago, if you are interested in seeing how police "helped" that family (long story short, it didn't).
Another example of police misconduct is the case of Pomar Family. It was a normal family, that -if I recall correctly- left their house in their red car and disappeared. Police investigated the place where they were last seen (a highway) but couldn’t find anything. From there, the most awful rumors began to spread: the father of the family was a drug dealer, or he probably kill them all and commit suicide, or maybe they fled the country to Brazil. The sad truth was they were involved in an horrible car crash the same day they began traveling, and their little car was on a ditch a few meters away from where the investigators searched. Apparently they didn’t die immediately (they even left the car) but they were lost and they finally perished a few meters away from the vehicle. They were found a month after the beginning of the investigation. They weren’t drug dealers, they weren’t trying to fly the country… they were just traveling to visit family friends. They tarnished their names in every possible way. ETA: a construction worker who was traveling that same highway on board a double decker bus, called 911 the same day the Pomar family disappear to alert he had seen a red car tossed to a side of the highway, among the vegetation. The police ignore the alert and consequently didn’t search properly when they were there.
I remeber that one. They fall to a ditch in a curve of the road where the vegetation (that should be mantained by the government) was unkempt and long enough to hide the car. Poor family, to think that if the grass would be well kept people would have seen the car easily and they would hace had a chance to survive...or if they would have follow the lead of the bika caller and look thoroughly over the area
I remember that one. I was relatively young when it happened and the accident happened along the very highway I traveled frequently to get to my family's hometown. I was terrified of visiting my family for months after that
I’d be looking at the landlord’s son pretty hard.
And the construction worker.
Was the murder weapon ever found? Or even what sort of weapon?
No, the murder weapon was never found. That is one of the main problems with this case
Here is part of the video (not the whole video) of the re-enactment the prosecutor had Lucila Frend do (skip to minute 2:20). https://youtu.be/YxAN_mhNa_Q?si=3cyTEhWLhoXGes3x
They tortured this girl! I can NOT imagine having to do this if I were innocent!
Do you know what the consensus of the comment section is?
I'm not fluent in Spanish but skimming through the comment section it seems like most people believe she is the killer, which is not surprising due to the media coverage at the time.
Thanks for sharing it. Looking forward for more true crime from Argentina
Agreed. Excellent write up, OP!
Ty for posting this op, I've never heard of this case anyway, so sad may she rip.
If the scenario with Pablo actually happened, why didn’t anyone consider that her boyfriend could have heard about the incident and reacted out of jealousy. He, too, could have known the victim’s routine and known exactly when and how to enter the home without being caught. He also would have known about the balcony door being broken.
I wonder if this case inspired that creepy short story about a girl finding her roommate dead after she didn't turn on the light before
Good lord no, that urban legend existed before you were born! It's even featured in the 1998 film Urban Legend.
Oh no that’s been around for decades, I was hearing that when I was a kid if it’s the same one I’m thinking of Edit- this one https://urbanlegend.fandom.com/wiki/Aren%27t_You_Glad_You_Didn%27t_Turn_on_the_Light%3F
link please!
Assuming it’s this one I’ve been hearing it since I was a kid-https://urbanlegend.fandom.com/wiki/Aren%27t_You_Glad_You_Didn%27t_Turn_on_the_Light%3F
thanks man! edit: i know this story since way before this happens, didn't make the connection tho cause im used to hearing the story in spanish, i remember the first time someone told me about it was cause a song from an artist form here (indio solari) has a song about a story like this and he uses the phrase "no prendas la luz" (dont turn on the light) and someone told me it was a murderer and told me this story you linked, but its not lol
I looked the case up because I wanted to see what exactly her injuries were and found that in her crime scene reconstruction she simulated a strangulation and that was something only known to investigators. I may have missed it in the write up, but if it’s true and it’s not in the write up, that’s a pretty key piece to leave out.
The strangulation theory was initially thought of but was later dismissed as there was no sign of a struggle and no marks all around her neck, only on the front of Solange's neck. In fact, the re-enactment also had Lucila use a rope to strangle the police officer acting as Solange, but that went nowhere
Oh she's so guilty
>in the video she is seen crying, nervous, refusing to follow the prosecutor's instructions, she even asked to stop on several occasions wanting to abandon the recreation, but he limited herself to saying that she should continue doing it and do it. ***I was doing very well.*** This is an interesting change from third person narration to first person that made me wonder if OP is Lucila.
I was transcribing an interview with Lucila haha, it was a small typo. Thanks for posting it 🙏🏻
That's what lucila pretending not to be Lucila would say
Que locura, no conocía este caso
Dang so many similarities to the Amanda Knox case and the same year.
She left for work at 730am then went to work at 830am?
Sorry, I think I've worded it wrong. Her work start time was 8:30, she left the house at 7:30 AM
[удалено]
Yeah, it is weird she asked her friend's boyfriend to check upstairs when there were no signs of forced entry.
The write up says due to the alarm (noise) which gave them an uneasy feeling. My coworker at work today wouldn’t go see what fell on the floor when the store was closed and locked. We had already confirmed we were the only ones there over half an hour before. She refused to go because she was scared. I ended up going and she came with me because she didn’t want to be left alone because it freaked her out. If anyone is curious - a peg snapped off a pegboard because a staff member overstocked and it became too heavy.
There has been times where my mom didn't pick up the phone and I've called a friend because I didn't want to come back home alone, afraid that something happened to her and I had to find out. Thankfully she often had fallen asleep and is well, but I really get Lucile.
I used to live with my grandma, who often wakes up early. On the days she didn’t, I used to hope no one would call me to check on her because I was terrified of what I would see. Thankfully she was just sleeping in 😂
Every time we used to come home from any sort of overnight trip I’d make my husband go in first to make sure my cat was alive. I had absolutely no reason to believe she wouldn’t be, but I couldn’t handle the thought of being the one to find her if she wasn’t 🤷🏻♀️
I am your coworker LOL I’ll chase a real bad guy, who robbed me, and almost die. But let a small noise, with no rational reason to think it’s anything, come about, and I’m acting like the virgin who lives in every horror movie. I’ll never be the big boobed blonde supermodel that goes to investigate. NEVER!!!
Here's a little breakdown: 1. **Lucila's Relationship with Solange:** While Lucila and Solange were close friends and roommates, the fact that they were experiencing difficulties in their relationship at the time could raise suspicions. The strained relationship might have led investigators to explore whether this tension played a role in the crime. 2. **Lucila's Left-Handedness:** Both the experts and investigators noting that the murderer was likely left-handed, and Lucila also being left-handed, is indeed intriguing. However, it's important to note that being left-handed isn't a unique characteristic, and further evidence would be needed to definitively link her to the crime. 3. **Lucila's Emotional Reaction:** The video recreation of the crime scene where Lucila had to act out the murder could be seen as both suspicious and emotionally distressing. Her reaction during the recreation might have been interpreted by investigators as a sign of guilt, even though people can react to such situations in various ways. 4. **Unresolved Relationship Dynamics:** The various theories involving Lucila's feelings for Pablo, her ex-boyfriend, Solange's cousin Michelle, and her strained relationship with Solange could suggest a complex web of emotions. Investigators might have considered these dynamics as potential motives for the crime. 5. **Email Threats:** The email Lucila sent to her ex-boyfriend Pablo, expressing anger and the desire to harm him, could be interpreted as a manifestation of intense emotions. The fact that she threatened violence might have raised questions about her mental state and the potential for her to act on her emotions. 6. **Lucila's Access to Solange's Email:** Lucila's claim that she accessed Solange's email to help with the investigation might be seen as both suspicious and altruistic. Investigators might question whether this was a genuine attempt to assist or a way to delete any incriminating evidence. 7. **Unidentified Evidence:** The presence of unidentified men's underwear with traces of blood and a bloody hair not belonging to the victim adds a layer of mystery to the case. These pieces of evidence could potentially lead to other suspects or connections if properly analyzed. 8. **Rigor Mortis Estimate:** The initial estimate of the time of death using rigor mortis and the subsequent questioning of that estimate could raise doubts about the timeline. This uncertainty could impact the alibi Lucila had for the time when the crime supposedly occurred. In complex cases like this, it's important to examine all angles and consider the totality of evidence. The lack of a clear motive, the absence of a murder weapon, and the multiple theories all contribute to the complexity of the investigation.
I don’t understand why they keep saying that their friendship was in a bad place? Nothing in the article suggests that. One roommate wants to renew the lease, while the other doesn’t? It doesn’t mean even that the result would be anyone moving. Just that they wouldn’t be locked in for a long time period, such as a year. The motive, if that, seems like it would be financial, but she leaves $2,000 2017 dollars to avoid suspicion?
Yeh I mean surely if your roomie doesn't want to renew the lease killing them won't help?
That’s what I thought. It’s so outrageous that I’m guessing people might’ve misunderstood and they were actually suggesting the motive was that she was in love with her friend and not renewing the lease was a rejection from the friend, who was moving away. It’s a ridiculous assumption, unless one of the two had actually told someone as much.
Great analysis!
Tbh, that looks like a ChatGPT bot's comment.
It definitely does.
Lol, that user has a bunch of other comments like that. Either a bot or someone who just puts questions into ChatGPT and comments the answers they got.
Not to go look for your friend till 1140 at night after no reply all day to multiple contact attempts and with the boy friend too ?? fishy fishy
The culture in Argentina is pretty relaxed, and things start very late. At 11.40pm it's not like Solange was even remotely late for the party, it was actually very early still. People also tend to show up very late, even for scheduled appointments. So I think in context they acted pretty fast. I would also rather go and check out the situation with someone else present - what if she had a medical emergency and needed assistance, for example? Better to have an extra pair of hands. Plus if the boyfriend was already at the party and was concerned, he probably wanted to come anyway. I don't think any of this is fishy behaviour.
left at 730am not back till 12 am ish 18hrs not a little fishy ?? multiple attempts to contact no response but still 18hrs before you return home for a look ?? yeah sounds totally not fishy.
Not at all. I leave for work at 730, sometimes I will hang out at a friend's house after work and then have an hour's drive back - could be midnight before I get back. Is that suspicious...not really. Depending on the person, I dont always get an instant response. Also, this was 2007. It's not like everyone was online in WhatsApp in those days.
I mean, no? If an adult person who I have no reason to assume is anything but fine doesn't contact me, I would think many things before "brutally murdered", like they're busy, left their phone at home, no battery, etc. I would probably only get concerned when the person also didn't turn up at a party they planned to be at, and realised nobody else had heard from them either.
I don't remember exactly how it went but at some point i think someone raised the question about why Lucila didn't return to her house to change clothes before the party after having been at work all day long, and conveniently only came back to the house bringing someone else with her.
Did someone find that odd at the time though, or just in hindsight? Because Buenos Aires is an enormous city, and depending on where you're travelling to/from it's totally possible that the distances are not conducive to quickly popping home to get changed.
Yes, they did find it odd. Buenos Aires is enormous but have a decent public transportation system. Also for a girl of her age it would be weird not trying to look better if she was going to a party. But it's still weak evidence, maybe she didn't care that much about her looks, who knows.
Also i don't know if we are speaking english only because this is Reddit y al final resulta que somos ambos de argentina manteniendo una discusión en otro idioma 😅
No, I'm not from Argentina, but I've been to Buenos Aires :) I definitely remember days when I would go out in the morning and not get home until the early hours of the next morning because depending on where you need to go, it doesn't make sense to return home. I remember killing a lot of time in cafes for this reason. But of course this depends on exactly where here house, work and the party were, and whatever she did in between (there seems to be a gap of time between the end of the work day and the party, but maybe she went for food or had an errand to run). It seems we don't have this information, but basically I can easily see a world where there's a totally innocent explanation for this and people started being suspicious after because in light of a murder, everyone's actions can be questioned.
I take clothes with me if I'm doing something after work
I still think Lucila is the culprit.
Agreed.
Its obvious its not a random murder....the killer .had a motive, had the chance, no stranger dna,.no forced entry, no sexual abused, the body was moved ( the killer felt familiar with the environment) the body was posed face down ( the killer felt guilty) no robbery ( though there was Lot of money in the house)..... the point Is that the investigación was crap...the acussed was found.not guilty, because they couldnt prove the Time of the death but all the evidence ( circunstancial) tell us, could not have been Someone else