They request processing of doctor and nurse of Clínica Santa María by death of Pablo Neruda
Burial of Neruda 1973
Eduardo Contreras, Julia Urquieta and Marcelo Tapia, on behalf of the Communist Party of Chile, request regarding the death in 1973 of the poet Pablo Neruda the prosecution as authors of the crimes of illicit association and homicide by omission to the doctor of the Santa María Clinic , Sergio Draper and the nurse of the same establishment, María Elena Aguilera.
Eduardo Contreras, Julia Urquieta and Marcelo Tapia, all individualized in cars, on behalf of the Communist Party of Chile, in the role N ° 1038 - 2011 on the death of the Chilean Nobel Prize PABLO NERUDA, to SS. Itma Respectfully we say:
That, without prejudice to the probable modification with respect to the typicity of the crime that may arise as a result of future expertise to be carried out in the present case, by this act - and given the current and actual existence of legal grounds that support our claim - we come in requesting that, from now on, a writ of indictment has been decreed as the authors of the crimes of illicit association and homicide by omission with respect to the doctor of the Santa María Clinic, SERGIO DRAPER JULIET and the nurse of the same establishment, MARIA ELENA ARANEDA AGUILERA, both sufficiently in this process, both in exercise during the time of the facts matter of this trial
First: It consists of cars that on October 20 of this year 2017, the 15 members of the International Panel of Genomic Proteomic Experts, formed by prestigious professionals of vast and recognized world experience that are the doctors Cristian Orrego, Gloria Ramírez, Andrés Tchernitchin, Leonardo Gaete, Javier Domínguez and Cecilia Abdala, all of Chilean nationality, plus foreign experts Aurelio Luna, Francisco Etxeberria, Charles Brenner, George Sensabaugh, John Swartzberg, Niels Morling, Marie - Louise Kampmann, Debi Poinar, Hendrik Poinar and Xavier Cathelineau, and as I quote below textually, they unanimously and categorically concluded that:
"1.- From the analyzes performed we must exclude cachexia as a cause of death, which contradicts the medical certificate of death.
2.- At the time of the last hospital admission there is no evidence of imminent risk of death.
3.- There is no documentary evidence about the pharmacological treatment, including antibiotics, oxygen, during his stay at the Santa María Clinic, apart from the serum. Neither the patient was referred to the ICU.
4.- It is not possible to exclude as cause of death, related to medical care, an absence of negligent, imperious or intentional care.
5.- The presence of Clostridium botulinum DNA has been detected in the molar and in the bone remains. There is evidence to support that it is endogenous. In order to confirm the possible role of this finding in relation to the cause of death, it would be necessary to carry out complementary studies that are detailed and justified in the final recommendations. "
This is the textual, this is the tenor of the Report required by the Court of SSItma. A different thing is that later on it can also be established that, instead of serum or painkillers, what was injected was the golden staphylococcus or the botulinum clostridium. It would then change the type of the crime and it will be proven that it is indeed a homicide per action with all the aggravating circumstances of the case, which the complainants consider to be what really happened. But for today what is already scientifically demonstrated is what we just quote verbatim. This is what has been demonstrated up to now in the process, and is reaffirmed by various antecedents of the process. Then, we must act accordingly.
Santa Maria Clinic
Second: According to what has already been said, the report quoted verbatim gives clear and clear conclusions that allow us to distinguish between what has already been irrefutable and what remains to be ratified. So today the concrete, definitive and indisputable in this judicial process is that:
a) The death certificate of Neruda is false of absolute falsehood. It appears from the file that the professional who issued the document did not personally verify his death; it is more was not even in the clinic.
b) The victim never suffered from cachexia. There was no cachexia and consequently that was not the cause of his death. What reiterates that the death certificate is absolutely false.
c) Unanimously, the experts concluded that the victim was not in terminal condition, was not at imminent risk of death at the time of his admission to the Clinic.
d) The lack of care for a patient who, in fact, suffered from cancer even though he was not in a terminal state, is accredited.
e) That is to say that as long as there is no reclassification of the facts that leads to a new typification of the authors' behaviors, it must be taken into account that it has been definitively demonstrated that, at least, they let him die without lending necessary aids.n such a situation, which is the actual and concrete reality of the status of the process to date, all the legal requirements, form and substance for the origin of this application and its acceptance by the Court of SS.Itma are given.
But reiterate: All this is without prejudice to the fact that the possibility that Clostridium botulinum or another substance had been intentionally inoculated is still pending. This is not yet fully and irrefutably accredited, but it is undoubtedly highly probable in light of the background available today and, in particular, of forensic medical expertise and the latest Expert Panel Report.
In this regard, it is pertinent to underline that no one has the right to ignore that poisoning was an element used at the time of the dictatorship to assassinate opponents of the fascist regime.
Even more: in different processes already investigated, which are known by the Court and in which there are definitive final judgments, it has been absolutely proven that the Chilean Army maintained secret laboratories, for years, before the coup of 1973, in which It produced toxic substances or lethal weapons, both chemical and biological. Therefore it is not only the crimes perpetrated by characters such as the DINA chemist Eugenio Berríos or the CIA agent Michael Townley, but by the Army itself as we now all know well.
Third: It consists of cars that at the date of the death of Neruda and since good time before both professionals whose processing we request, this is Draper and Araneda. They worked in the Santa María clinic. On the days that the illustrious Chilean remained in that clinic, Draper was a doctor on duty and Araneda Chief of Nurses on the 4th floor. They had therefore the duty of care of the patient hospitalized on that floor
It also states that Pablo Neruda died on September 23, 1973, and also states that on that day, nurse María Araneda, on the instructions of Dr. Sergio Draper, according to him, gave the poet an injection. The nurse contradicts him, does not recognize his order, but only that he complied with the instructions of the treating doctor, Mr. Vargas (see fs.439 for example). But injection was and the responsibility is of both according to their own sayings.
Which, apparently being a sedative, produced the complications detailed in the case and which, finally, could be the necessary cause of his death.
Fourth: Nor can the fact be ignored that the Santa María Clinic, since September 11, 1973, was militarily intervened by the dictatorship. A clinic that also hid for years the documentation related to the treatment of Neruda. A clinic, in which, it consists verbatim to fs. 1039 of this process there is no information "of who were the natural or legal persons, owners or controllers for the month of September 1973" FRANKLY INCREDIBLE.
Our murdered Pablo Neruda
A clinic in which, years later, in the same 4th floor and with the participation of some of the same doctors and nurses who treated Neruda, among them Draper and Araneda, there was the murder of the former President of Chile, Eduardo Frei Montalva
As was confirmed in the Frei file, several of the same professionals involved in this crime were also among those acting in the Neruda case. See fs. 1063 and sgts, Draper's statements in cause roll N ° 7981 - B about his presence in Frei case
It is important in this direction to review, for example, Volume IV of this process, volume started on July 5, 2013. There, a fojas. 1239 y sgts, declares Elena Catrileo, nurse of the same Clinic, which recalls that doctors Sergio Draper, Pedro Valdivia, Eduardo Arriagada and Patricio Silva Garín and nurse María Elena Araneda Aguilera worked there, all of whom also attended Frei.
As is known, several of them are already tried and accused of this crime. One of them, Dr. Patricio Silva Garín, to fs. 1105 makes laudatory comments from Draper, who, he says, had links with the Military Hospital since the early 1960s. And he adds that those who worked in the Military Hospital, OJO! "... they were selected by the Military Intelligence Service"
Fifth: Add and follow. All the antecedents of this investigation are more than enough to demonstrate the responsibility of these defendants. It is also necessary to underline the very strange behavior of Dr. Sergio Hernán Draper Juliet throughout this procedure.
Indeed, in Volume 1, at fs. 326, dated November 11, 2011, Draper states that he entered the Santa María Clinic on September 20, 1973. Some time later in this same file and, in addition, in the process of the death of Frei Montalva, Draper changes his date of admission to the Clinic again.
Indeed, it is stated in the case roll 7,981 - B for the Homicide of President Frei that Draper declares on March 16, 2006 at fs 1064, annex 435 that: "At the Santa María Clinic I worked between 1976 and 1982 as a doctor resident surgeon "
To fs. 1270 and 1527 in volume IV of this judicial process, there is abundant and concrete information of the time in which Draper performed in different clinics, including the Santa Maria that contradict his sayings.
In addition, his close ties with the Army and Carabineros and his excellent qualifications in both institutions are explained there.
But there are more strange, confusing elements in the statements of Sergio Draper. Although he had declared years before to the press that had accompanied Neruda until his last hours, now, in the course of this trial he has declared different things. This is how on November 14, 2011 at fs 327 of Volume 1, Annex 04 states that: "I remember that on Sunday, September 23, 1973, I was on duty at the Santa María Clinic and being around At 3:00 pm the nurse on duty calls me, who apparently was Mrs. MARIA ARANEDA AGUILERA, who tells me that the patient Pablo Neruda was in pain, immediately I go to his room, which corresponded to a department and upon entering I greet his wife, Mrs. Matilde Urrutia and immediately I take the indications left by the doctor Roberto Vargas, where it is indicated that in case of pain intramuscular dipyrone should be administered, then I see Mr. Neruda, an agonizing patient, in anasarca, (swollen body) product of the edema) and with a probable pathological fracture of the femur, apparently the right one (product of a metastasis). I immediately contacted the aforementioned nurse, giving her the instructions to administer the medication intramuscularly. "
Recall that instead, in its version nurse Araneda never mentioned Draper giving the indication,
But the controversial doctor adds this fable: "I withdraw from the shift, being the only time I made contact with Neruda, delivering the service to the doctor that night, who apparently would be the doctor PRICE. At 19.45 I left the clinic, very close to the existing curfew "(!)
It is the moment in which Sergio Draper incorporates to his story the presumed existence of this phantasmagoric non-existent personage: Doctor Price, of whom to fs. 956, annex 1, describes its personal characteristics at length and in detail. Why was this invention necessary, if there is no such character?
It is exhaustively documented in the process, by the testimony of doctors like Alejandro Rodríguez, Sergio Vélez, Osvaldo Darrigrandi and several nurses of the Clinic, as well as expert reports, portraits and police investigations of fs 1247, 1304, 1455, 1495, among several other diligences, that the existence of a certain "Doctor Price" is an invention of the accused Draper.
Never before has there been someone like that. What does Draper intend? Who does he defend or self-defend?
But there is more:
Indeed, in subsequent statements and even in his own handwriting - as stated by fs. 329 - Draper drops an affirmation, evidently manipulated by advisors that constitutes a true anecdotal piece for law students, when he assures that:
"In my first statement I forgot to point out that after Neruda's death, Doctor Price told me that when he saw Neruda's death, in the presence of Matilde Urrutia, he took out the bedding that covered him, so that the lady witnessed that the body did not present any injury attributable to third parties, which the wife agreed "
Is this normal? If they had not killed him, by action or by omission, why does he introduce this kind of previous defense? What explains a statement that seems dictated by a professional of the laws if it is not to try to hide an action? Because this "attributable to third parties" corresponds to a very special language.
If an individual changes his versions, if he served for military institutions that were the authors of the coup d'état, in a clinic intervened by the army, and that even allows a person to invent a proven inexistent character, who is also attributed a fantastic scene like that final dialogue with the widow to whom he says in the background "do you see that we do not kill him?", it is because that individual has some kind of responsible participation in the death of our Nobel Prize, whether the despicable crime was committed by action or by omission.
Sixth: The proven falsehood of the cachexia or the supposed terminal state of Pablo Neruda are more than proven with documents, photographs, testimonial statements, including texts written by Neruda a few days before his death.
The unanimous Report of the International Panel of specialized scientists that founds this presentation can not be contradicted by the opinion of people of lower professional quality or who did not participate in the events.
About Dr. Draper it is not necessary to remember that it consists of records that attributed to the death of Neruda diverse causes, sometimes cachexia, other cancer, other urological infection and phlebitis, other infarction.
More constant has been El Mercurio, communicational organ of the dictatorship that always affirmed that the great compatriot died as a result of a cardiac arrest that provoked the injection that they gave him?
On the cause of Neruda's death, we also note that a fs. 122, annex 06 appears to voluntarily declare Dr. Carlos Fernando Vargas Delaunoy, son of the late Neruda doctor, Dr. Roberto Vargas Salazar. In the substantive of his statement Vargas Delaunoy states: "You did not have knowledge of the way in which Pablo Neruda died" and adds: "I do not have major antecedents that I can contribute to the present investigation.
Do not forget this voluntary appearance to know that, later, be accompanied by medical documentation regarding Pablo Neruda of this same person.
Instead, to fs. 267, Annex 17, declares who was the last Neruda treating physician. Is about. Dr. Guillermo Eduardo Merino Hinrichsen who examined him in his last months and who affirms in his judicial statement "no deterioration in the general state of the patient was observed" and adds that: "he had a bad prognosis, but nothing foreshadowed quick death"
To close those specific considerations regarding the final moments of the poet that add elements to the Panel's already categorical conclusion, let's say that the ideological falses that the death certificate contains precisely constitutes a central element for the qualification of illicit association of the conduct of who are involved in the death of Neruda.
Why did not the doctor sign the certificate? Why not Draper? Or will they say that the responsible doctor was "Dr. Price"?
Seventh: It is not a minor detail in this very special case that is also the investigation of a crime committed in the first days of the coup of 1973, hours and days marked by brutal terrorism, mass murders and unimaginable torture in the brain of normal people.
But also that this victim was a front line enemy of the dictator and everything that happened and could be seen coming. Neruda is undoubtedly the most outstanding Chilean and international prestige in all of Chile's history, but he was at the same time recognized as an anti-fascist, anti-imperialist revolutionary leader, who at that time was defenseless and also afflicted with a disease. As if that were not enough, in addition to leaving to a friendly country to play a leading political role against the regime led by Pinochet.
Pablo Neruda had it in his hands and with the cruelty and cowardice that the agents of the dictatorship showed for years nobody has the right to rule out the existence of a crime a priori.
Our murdered Pablo Neruda
First: The rule of Article One of the Chilean Penal Code defines the crime as "any action or voluntary omission punishable by law" and adds that "actions or omissions punishable by law are always considered voluntary, unless otherwise stated " It is the case of cars.
Second: Article 391 of the Criminal Code establishes the figure of Homicide: "He who kills another and is not included in the previous article, will be punished: With imprisonment greater in its medium degree to perpetual imprisonment, if executed the homicide with any of the following circumstances: First. With treachery. Second. For reward or remunerative promise. Third. By means of poison. Quarter. With cruelty, deliberately and inhumanly increasing the pain of the offended. Fifth With known premeditation. "
Undoubtedly, there is a legal norm applicable in the species.
Third: Art. 292 of the Penal Code provides that "Any association formed with the aim of attacking the social order, against good morals, against people or property, matters an offense that exists by the mere act of organizing"
It is the so-called "illicit association", a criminal figure clearly typified in the species. Paragraph 10 of Title VI of Book II of our Criminal Code abounds in descriptions of conduct that are exactly those performed by those whose processing we request.
Fourth: It also shows the merit of the process that, not being terminally ill or suffering from the alleged cachexia, but that he did suffer from cancer, he was not given proper medical attention, he was not provided with the appropriate medications, nor was he transferred to a specialized unit of the Clinic itself that would have allowed saving the life of Neruda, which clearly shows that this is so because voluntarily the professionals responsible for his life and health left the illustrious compatriot to die.
For what the budgets of art. 293 of the Penal Code. In addition, the aggravating circumstances indicated in the first, fourth and fifth numbers of the aforementioned Art. 391 of the Chilean Penal Code concur.
Of course, if later, the decreed skills established in addition
that the death of the illustrious intellectual was caused by having specifically introduced Clostridium botulinum in the injection of September 23, 73, the homicide would no longer be by omission but by action and should be considered applicable in such a case, in addition, the circumstance foreseen in the art. 391 already mentioned when in its third number it indicates "by means of poison".
In turn the art. 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable in the species, provides that it is appropriate to prosecute the person who, once interrogated by the court and accredited the existence of the crime, has had some degree of participation in said crime.
In as much the art. 15 of the Second Title of the Chilean Penal Code establishes that authors are considered: 1 ° Those who take part in the execution of the act are immediately and directly; either preventing or trying to prevent it from being avoided. 2 ° Those who force or directly induce another to execute it and 3 ° Those who, concerted for their execution, facilitate the means by which the event is carried out or witness it without taking an immediate part in it.
It is exactly the behavior of these defendants
THEREFORE SERVE SS. ITMA:
In accordance with the strict merit of the process, what is provided by the aforementioned legal norms and, especially, what is established in the expert opinions of the group of international experts, all of which consists of this process and is known to the Court, may be decreed that submits to trial for the crimes of Homicide by omission and Illicit Association to consummate it, respect of the death of Pablo Neruda, object of the present judicial process, to Dr. Sergio Draper Juliet and to the nurse Maria Araneda Aguilera, also arranging all the assurance measures that legally proceed.