Brothers, in a new installment of the Dissidents podcast, in conjunction with the legal community, today we're going to introduce you to attorneys Adis Abreo, Alfredo, and our dear Daniel. We'll be sharing with you today two aspects of relevance to society: the recent poisoning case, where we'll be addressing the criminal classifications and other legal issues related to this matter. We'll also be discussing a very interesting topic related to profiling in criminalistics: how to approach, from a legal perspective, the profiling of certain human attitudes or behaviors that fall within criminal and legal classifications for the prosecution of these types of behaviors. This will be addressed by our distinguished colleague and brother, Mr. Alfredo. Thank you, thank you. Um, I really feel pressured. I'm always pressured. But why do you feel that way? If I feel pressured, I think I'll check a pen on the chair. Why, yes, but thank you so much for inviting me. It's a pleasure for me to be able to talk about one of... The topics that most fascinate me, like, yes, I'm going to be moving around, it's in my nature, really moving a lot, but nevertheless, it's a very interesting topic about which there is a lot of ignorance. Everyone nowadays feels like a criminal profiler because, unfortunately, television series have done so much damage. Oh yes, so much damage. Everyone feels like they're a Mind Hunter. Let's talk about that series, real-life cases. It's so terrible, and that's just the visual material. Don't even get me started on Miriam in Ciudad Nueva, because now you see someone who knows about profiling. She can buy me a fried chicken. Wow, what damage that series has done! These series, because countless series made for television, made to entertain, but they're not reality. We, those of us who have worked and are working and are knowledgeable about the subject, aren't fortune tellers. We can't... So, to get into this topic, how can we conceptualize what a criminal profile is, or well, a criminal profile and also a profiler, for example, but especially what a profile is and also how it helps, what it's useful for. For criminal investigations, as well as for the judicial solution that can be given to a particular case, a criminal profiler is simply a person who has certain skills, let's say an expert in the area of ​​investigation, who identifies a series of elements found within a crime scene that lead us to what could be the person or the characteristics of the person who committed the crime. It's not the same as arriving at a crime scene where there is simply, let's see, a hanging. A person who hangs themselves is assumed to have certain characteristics. When a person hangs themselves, but you find that this person, besides having been hanged, has other elements in the house. That's what the criminal profiler does: identify, gather all the elements to know what happened at the crime scene, try to construct a scene, identify, create a story, and above all, that this story has coherence, and be able to identify if there really was a death or if the person there was simply the product of an action by another person—a murder, a homicide, whatever. What are the conditions that a profiler must have? Coherence, really, no. There are definitely specific conditions; however, it has to be a person who has knowledge of criminalistics, who has in- depth investigation skills, and who has empathy for their environment. Not necessarily empathy, because more than anything, they have to have a disconnection from reality. Because when you feel empathy, you automatically identify with the facts, and when you identify with the facts, you lose objectivity and neutrality. I think, for example, a profiler—although you referred to television series in a negative way—I also take some positive things from them, right? We watch series. Look, I understand that a profiler has to have a certain amount of general knowledge, that is, they have to have a lot of general knowledge, popular culture. They have to be immersed in current events. Why do I say this? Because there are elements that can also lead you to generate a profile of the person who may have committed the act, right? That's what I understand. Look, for example, using television series as an example, there are two series that come to mind now where, based on that knowledge I'm telling you about, it was possible to reduce... The number of suspects, let's say, is like that of a bomber, I don't know if you saw it, and Dexter, but not Dexter, not Dexter, when he guessed, it was the blood, it all happened like that, no, no, because we know that's fiction, but Bomber was a real story, it exists, I haven't seen the series but I do know the story because it's part of the history of criminal profiling, one of the first profiles that was done, it was done by a psychiatrist, not a criminal profiler, because of personality or criminal profiles, nothing, because at that time they didn't exist. Yes, because it's a psychiatrist who forms the investigation department, the International Bureau of Investigation known as the FBI, which creates and so on. Hunter talks about Wrestler and the other one, who are the two main characters of that analysis department. The thing about Hunter is that it's very focused on serial killers, that is, it's very particularized, that department that was created started there, that's how it was. That was the origin from the FBI's point of view, that was the origin, for example, because look, in a bomber, according to What I remember from the series, at least what I saw, was the way they wrote. Some notes, I mean, they already gave you an idea. Well, where do they write this way? Who writes this way? I mean, what academic level do the people who write like that have, etc., etc. And that greatly narrowed down the search. You know, you keep narrowing it down. It was like, by a specific word that was very, very central to a specific community, which is very important, the language. Like, if we get a note, for example, with an accent, if there's a note about anything, that's what it was, that kind of knowledge. That's what I was referring to, partly with empathy. But the real story of a female firefighter, the psychiatrist made such an accurate profile that he even guessed the type of clothes that person would have when they were going to arrest him. It was going to be a double-breasted pinstriped suit, he was going to have a briefcase, and so on. And that's how they arrested him. Yes, but in this aspect we could then infer that it's not a kind of divination, but rather that These are sample quantities that we can use to compile statistics in order to interpret the psychological condition of the person being investigated at the time the investigation is carried out. The research itself, that is, we can identify a person being investigated; the profile goes beyond the psychological aspect. The question I want to ask at this moment is: the origin of profiling as such is determined by a scientific character, not a judicial one, in principle. So what interests the researcher at that moment is the psyche of these potential subjects in order to categorize them within the profile of behavior they might have, in relation to whether they are a person who has suffered depression, abandonment, or has a specific situation that gives them the preponderance to commit a certain type of act. Because throughout history, we have had people who have committed acts of a sexual nature, others simply out of concern for the suffering of others. So this type of behavior is what would allow us to place that person, who would be profiling, in a certain condition. The question is, I'm going to... you touched on two very interesting topics when talking about gratification. We've already entered a scenario... Much more complex. Let's delve into the very cream of the crop of criminality: psychopaths. They go far beyond a simple murderer. A psychopath is n't someone who comes along, kills, and makes a mess. No, a psychopath operates on a level that perhaps we here will never encounter, at least not a psychopath who commits crimes. Because there are psychopaths within society, people we live with, but who don't exhibit any aggressive characteristics. They aren't aggressive in their daily lives, and they don't usually commit crimes. Why? Because the psychopath exhibits certain psychological characteristics. They have a disconnection from their feelings. They are, more than anything, an imitator of what we are in reality. Because they are disconnected, they can't feel like we do. They tell you "I love you," but saying "I love you" for them is like drinking a cup of tea. They don't force it because they have a naturalness that is convincing. The psychopath has that facility to draw you into their world. They don't engage in introspection. When I say forced, it's because it isn't. Feeling how he already sees that Daniel tells me "I love you," exactly how he sees that's what's customary, I do that as a pattern of behavior, but it means that, for example, Vicente Garrido, one of the most important criminal profilers in Spain, said that the psychopath is a survivor. Why? Because we humans operate based on feelings; that's our nature, to live in society based on feelings. So you have a person who can't feel what another feels, who can't live that reality. So he has to adapt. How does he adapt? Based on what he sees. He sees that it's good that you, if you're sick, the right thing to do. I asked you how you feel in the present. He's going to do it even if he doesn't feel it, even if he doesn't care if you die or not. That's what happens with the psychopath; he has that characteristic, that disconnection from feelings, totally from the moral values ​​of the society we know. He's totally disconnected; he doesn't have that reality. That's why when he commits a crime, it doesn't cause him pain; he simply does it for pleasure, because for him The world revolves around him, it's not that the world revolves around him, no, no, no, the world revolves around him. The sun is for him and because of him, of course. What's good for me is good for everyone, no matter what it affects. For me, I'm first, second, and third. There's even talk of psychopaths who have been presidents, who have been, uh, big business owners. Well, I saw, I was watching a psychologist once, who was saying that there are professions that really have, everyone who pursues them has a psychopathic profile. Although it's functional psychopathy, not necessarily criminal, because, for example, the lust for power, like politicians, is very... I 'll give you an example, it's that megalomania that almost all politicians have. I'll give you a simpler example that's in one of the books that I use for reference: What is the difference between a surgeon and a psychopath? None, the goal. But beyond the goal, there is some difference because the surgeon has to have a total disconnection from their reality to be able to do their job. It doesn't matter to them if they open a person up to remove a kidney. And then, as Med said, the same could be said of a lawyer. Not necessarily, lawyers ultimately have a relationship; it even reaches the point where there's a connection when you're in court. You criminal lawyers, ask a public defender, you're even filled with impotence. That's why you get indignant when the trial is held. I get indignant because I know that in law, you apply that, but not because of the lawyer. But when you, as a lawyer— especially criminal lawyers, especially when they're on the defense side—why are criminal lawyers always mentioned? Because we're the bad guys. We can't take the criminal profile to civil law or labor law. It's especially, for example, the public defender who doesn't have that will, that self-determination to decide which case to take or not. You have cases that are horrendous from a citizen's or social point of view, whatever, and how do you defend it? How is that yours? So there's a disconnection between the case, between that reality that the lawyer has at that moment, and they focus exclusively on the law. That's what many people criticize, even the lawyers who have experience, who get stuck there. We're going to fight because, why? Because how are you defending a rapist? How are you defending a murderer? How are you defending that? You 're not thinking about that; you're thinking about the law. You're simply thinking about the evidence. And that's it. There's a kind of... I'm not saying it reaches psychopathy, obviously it doesn't, because it's a characteristic a little further beyond that, but this is the characteristic of being cold, calm, serene, unmoved by anything. That's one of the elements that perhaps not all lawyers have. Because that's why they get indignant, that's why when they go to court they get all worked up and turn red and fight in court because they can't maintain that reality, something that happens with a psychopath, even with a serial killer. We can see, I mean, we can talk, for example, about a serial killer. We're going to get into the topic, but I'm going to ask you three questions. Oh, and the last one will be about that, so we can get into that topic, right? It's a really interesting topic. The first thing is... Excuse me, audience, for the... I owe you. A profiler is presented to you. For example, in a scene, there are two bodies found in the area that is now the public cemetery because now they find bodies there. Unfortunately, they're going to have to put surveillance there. It's an issue because the people who live there don't just wake up and say, "It smells like coffee." Exactly, it's a problem. They found two bodies. The profiler: What are the elements? What are the variables that the tool wants to clarify? I mean, when you see a scene, what does the profiler have to clarify? For example, let's say what is the possible reason for these homicides. First, if it's a homicide, I mean, what is the reason, or what is it? What kind of economic or educational level could the person have? I mean, what are the factors that the profiler will clarify? That's a question. Wait, let's get right to it. Forget it. The second question is: What is the profile of, or is there only one profile, or can there be several? Of the man who commits a homicide against his partner or ex-partner, or assaults her, or, as they say, a femicide, right? What is the profile of that person that one could even identify? Before committing an act as a possible aggressor, and thirdly, uh, I'm forgetting the one about the murderer, the serial killer, but now I don't remember well. Ah, about serial killers, is it if in the Dominican Republic, according to your knowledge, there is or has been any person, or even if they haven't been identified, who is the person? Are there any facts that lead one to understand that there has been a serial killer? And who is your favorite serial killer? All the non-negative ones, favorite, you know, to study it, to study it. Let's go from the center to the sides. You were asking in relation to the profile of a person who generally deals with issues of violence, uh, gender, right? Yes, yes. Generally, there are many protocols that talk about issues of gender violence, but in itself, a person who commits this type of gender violence is an aggressive person, a person who, from the beginning of the relationship, has elements that raise red flags. What happens is that many times, within the normality, we overlook certain elements, say, romanticism. I was saying the other day that a person who tends, or could tend in the future, to a tendency that could escalate, could Escalation doesn't mean it happens in every case. It could escalate simply by controlling someone: "I don't like that dress," "I don't like that blouse," "You're not going there," "Don't talk to so-and-so," "Bad company," "No, no, no, you're not going to talk to anyone," "I'll control you," and that's it. It will evolve, then, into economic violence. But there we have a point: first, it's subtle control, and then it escalates until it reaches the point where it can become an obsession, and that person can't control their feelings, and their true self comes out, normalizing their behavior. Because that's the profile you were referring to when you stated that this type of person becomes the main figure in all aspects of life, in everything they relate to. Yes, but we can't say, for example, that everyone who commits gender violence or domestic violence is going to be a psychopath, because that's the extreme, and no. I mean, generally what we see when we see, for example, gender violence is a person who kills a woman and then commits suicide, which means there are Feelings behind an exo, even feelings of guilt, are so strong that you end up killing yourself. Unlike, for example, what I was saying the other day about the DEA prison case, the one from La Vega prison, which is a very clear example where we can see certain aspects of psychopathy. He kills her and then records himself saying, "Look, I 'm fine, they didn't do anything to me." How can you say that you just killed her and you 're saying that you didn't do anything to me either, that you didn't just kill her, that it doesn't bother you, it doesn't cause you anything? I mean, naturally, you bump into someone. It's your nature as a human being that you bump into someone on the street and you feel a shock, you say, "Wow, what happened?" And that keeps hammering in your head. But what about when it does n't hammer in your head and you live your normal life as if nothing happened? So we could say that in cases of people who have gender-based aggression behaviors, to avoid saying that the man has done something to the woman, it would be like the opposite of psychopathy. It's like an excess of feeling, an excess of... I would say, a psychologist, that they can't manage emotions correctly. Exactly, and they can't... " Managing correctly" is a phrase that strongly catches my attention. Could we then interpret that emotions play a leading role in these types of actions? That answer would have to be given to you by a psychologist. Of course, because then they say, "Oh, he's interfering," and what about me? And they put me on television for no reason. No, no, that's interfering. But from our point of view, when a person speaks out and can't control their emotions and feelings, they can't manage it correctly. I speak from the point of view of personal experience because, for example, when I see a low credit card bill, I say, "Wow, that's great," but when I see it like a friend we have in Argentina... I say, "Hey, what happened here?" So that led to the decision-making. The one that's most talked about on this program... let's go now with the first question. Exactly, what needs to be clarified first, and what all investigators see, not just the criminal profiler, is the body. Where is the body? How is the body found? What are the body's conditions? Lacerations, wounds? What are the wounds? Are the wounds consistent with a certain level of aggression? It's not the same, for example, as an attack with machetes. When you attack with machetes or bladed weapons, you demonstrate a certain level of aggression. And above all, it will depend on the number of blows you deliver with the bladed weapon. It will also demonstrate your level of cruelty, of sadism. And the location of the wounds also influences things. It will depend because many times, many serial killers hit women's breasts or intimate parts because they have some kind of hatred or... Resentment against women per se, other times, they cut the body in half, they cut off the head, they cut off the genitals, and so on. And in those violent acts within the same gender, can those wounds identify, for example, when it's from woman to woman, from man to man? If the wound is on the face or affects the person's appearance, it can give you some kind of clue. Not because the wounds don't have... no, in general, in cases of crimes, for example, it's known that women, in terms of crime, tend to be more calculating in the sense that they use longer-term methods, poisoning, what else? Poisoning by pill, the use of poison. We're going to use, for example, hot water, hot oil. These are methods that kill more slowly. However, men, who are more aggressive, more aggressive, more beastly, use faster methods, but not in all cases. For example, we have a very famous serial killer called BTK, who killed his victims. He started with a certain asphyxiation, with certain knots, and when The victim was about to die, he would let go, revive her, rape her, and then bring her back to the point of death. It happened, yes, in that way, but that doesn't mean a woman ca n't do it. We have what are called Angels of Death. Angels of Death are those people who work in healthcare, in hospitals and such, who see a person, inject them, and kill them. Just because, because it gives them pleasure. Which means there's no way, but an Angel of Death can be a woman. But it can also be a man, we do n't know. For example, Queen, the Zodiac Killer, to this day, whether it's a woman or a man, there's no characteristic that doesn't prove it. There are studies that say there are certain crimes that are more common in men than women, for example, the use of bladed weapons like machetes. Men are more prone to that use because women don't usually use those kinds of instruments. Because they represent greater strength, greater aggression, but that doesn't mean a woman won't grab a machete and attack you. So that's the point, and that... In that case, also, in a single event, it would be difficult to establish that the wound has a specific connotation because it's... those wound studies, in a certain way, correspond more, or I understand, that it would be easier to analyze it from the point of view of serial killers. Because you already have a pattern that tells you what the casual modus operandi is and how it can be casual. So you can't say, for example, well, if it happened to me because she scratched my face, or because she's a woman, or what, so it does n't always have that same connotation. And... Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm concerned about the third element to answer the questions, the battery of questions that I have knowledge of. I may have knowledge that the National Department of Investigations may have it. There isn't a record here regarding the crimes. To determine that someone is a serial killer, they have to have committed two or more crimes, and the crimes have to have a certain relationship, a certain sequence, similarity, and so on. But as you lawyers know, generally there isn't a record. We don't keep, for example, that this person had their... head but this one was also beheaded, that's not something we have in the Dominican Republic that has been made public, we only have one case of a trial that was known in San Cristóbal if I'm not mistaken where those people are currently serving a sentence known as the Dominican drug dealer, that's the only case I've seen that, to contradict the acts he committed, he even has a business, they say, something I know, I've heard from the victim herself, but what this man did was pick up students in the university areas, at that time he had victims at UTESA, at the OIM university as well as at WASA and what he did was he would present himself as a taxi driver, take them through some sugarcane fields and proceed with a knife or a firearm, he would sexually assault them, he would stab them while he was committing the act, he would pull out their intestines, pass them over their bodies and then leave, it turns out that two girls who lived with totally fatal consequences, I imagine for what the future of their lives has been like. There is one who has not been able to have The other woman survived because of the severity of her injuries, thanks to the grace of the Holy Spirit, as some Haitian nationals gave her assistance. She had been left for dead, and those two people were the ones who identified him, and their testimonies were used to convict him. And about a year ago, if I'm not mistaken, he tried to obtain what was called the additional mental law, and when they met him in San Cristóbal, I told him, "Hey, but our friend Ángel was the lawyer. What things! What things, son, he's not still complying with for a long time, a long time, because Ángel has been a lawyer for a long time, to conclude." But wait, let's get off this topic because this debate that's being generated is catching my attention. Look at the importance of a proper investigation. I can't wrap my head around the idea that in the Dominican Republic we only have that one event or that one serial killer, yet he's the only one we know about. But why? Because here we're very hasty, very hasty, when it comes to closing an investigation. I mean, here's a dead person today, and tomorrow we have the person who committed that act, and the records aren't kept, the investigations aren't done, and it's not treated with enough seriousness, perhaps. What is required to be able to determine, damn it, but wait, let's look at this, in 2015, as one sees in the movie, which is good, from the series, in 2015 this event happened, look, the cut is similar, and I don't know, there's an open case here, all the cases are closed in record time, and that's why. Maybe it can be that in that area of criminal profiling and that type of situation, there isn't much to the problem either, there's a lack of records, we need a record, especially like how a record is kept of weapons, to keep a record of the facts, of the facts in the way, because it's the only way to follow up and determine why a crime remains pending, which in the end happens again, but the sad thing about the case here is that it's not that it remains pending, it's that here they close the cases and, for example, the situation arises, which is very important, there is no link, and there is no link, I mean, I don't know if I'm making myself clear, let's say you are the serial killer, right, for example, he is the serial killer of the best, what better than to be Okay, the person, Juan, the killer, seriously, right? He grabbed Daniel and cut off one of his ears, for example. Wouldn't that be a murder? Well, I read that generally they take trophies from the crime scene. They take trophies from the crime scene. For example, we're going to talk about it, but it's very important. And culturally, before, I knew about it because of something that happened in my town. I didn't know that; I found out there. But whoever has the knowledge of what town you 're from, San José de Ocoa, you already know. Imagine, you can profile there, for example, the supposedly unfaithful woman, or the one who understood that she was unfaithful, her husband would cut off her ear. So if you find, for example, a body that has mutilated ears, you could say, well, let's put as suspects their partners, or their current partner, or their ex-partner, whatever it may be, or that the motive could have been infidelity. But going back to the topic, so the killer, yes, because they don't let me, the killer grabs Daniel, cuts off his head, and takes his ear, kills him. He kills and takes the ear, right? Tomorrow Cabral appears as if he was the one responsible for that. Cabral is put on trial, but Cabral is sentenced to 30 years, and the day after tomorrow, or two months, or three months, a year, or whatever, another body appears without another ear, and another, and another, and another. I don't know if you'll let me, and they condemn another, and they condemn. Several will appear, several will appear. There are two very important elements here that I want to clarify. The first is that the serial killer has a process, a passionate peak, a peak of euphoria in which he needs to act. He acts, and then comes a cooling-off period. That cooling-off period can last 9 or 10 years. We have serial killers who have taken many years to commit a crime again. Why? Because they no longer have the need. When they continue and keep committing, that crime may become more recurrent. Starting from there, second, we have the issue that many times they take trophies. Captain William used to break into women's houses in Canada and take their underwear. He took pictures of himself wearing them. But it evolved to the point where he went to a house, broke in, and made those women model those clothes, then raped them, and then killed them. It was something else entirely; it was progressive. But we also have copycat killers, who are cat killers. Yes, you 're into that. You've read about copycat killers, which is one of the phenomena currently being investigated. Why? Because the rise of mass media, the press, and social networks has created a copycat trend. I see that you killed, and because I want to be famous, because you inspire admiration in me, because you arouse that morbid curiosity, I do the same and imitate your crime, your modus operandi, and everything else. Yes, of course. However, it's not always the same; there are always particularities. So we have to see what happens in that scenario: is it a copycat, or is it the same criminal? Many times, in the present day, for example, those horrendous, bloody crimes, even suicides, it's recommended not to give them that kind of publicity because when you give them that kind of publicity... There will always be another person who will be very receptive and will want to do it against him or against others. So they always suggest that this is a phenomenon; it even has a name. So it always suggests reducing that part. So we must determine if it is a killer, right? If it is a copycat? Who was it that committed the crime? Yes, certainly. And for that investigation, for those of us who are unfamiliar with this type of subject, what do you think is the material closest to us, to have knowledge that can bring us some kind of useful information to deal with this type of subject? Material? What kind of study? Ah, a lot of books and a lot of literature. Vicente Garrido is, but, Dad, mention the most digestible? Ah, no. This is not digestible. There is a very famous book of his called *Behind a Monster*. I mean, it has a Jeffrey Dammer on the cover. It's a fantastic book. But there is a lot of criminal literature by Paz Velasco, like *Criminalis*, also by Bas Velasco, * Transfer Monster*, by Vicente Garrido, * Criminal Profiles*, by Vicente Garrido. There is a lot of literature. I'm going to watch the video to get the titles, but I would like you to tell me right now if any of us can... Borrowing that book? I have a problem. Alfredo does n't lend books. In short, I don't lend books. I, Alfredo, don't lend books. He scans them for you and sends them if you want. But why don't I lend books? And I always say this at work: because I steal them. So, since I steal them, can they be stolen from me? A thief who steals is forgiven. Look, gentlemen, with this intervention, it's important to talk a little about this in our country because, well, what would be the importance of starting to correctly apply these criminal profiling techniques? What could they be used for? And what positive and negative legal consequences do you think we have, for better or for worse, regarding their implementation? You remember when you criticized Daniel? It's that he does n't get it right. It was a broad... Aha, but very broad. In general, the penal code doesn't contemplate, or rather, doesn't prohibit the use of criminal profiles for hearings. I understand that the Public Prosecutor's Office could access them; however, this is a science that is evolving. Many countries resist because they understand that the criminal profiler is usually a fortune teller, and perhaps that's not the case. Exact science and all that, however, we must say that when you do criminal profiling, what you do is reduce the possible suspect scenarios and the possible scenarios in which the crime was committed, and that allows the investigation to be faster and more effective. Why? Because we don't have to start searching the entire universe, looking everywhere and throwing caution to the wind. For example, my master's thesis was on indirect personality profiling. And when you do indirect personality profiling, it's that you don't go directly to the killer, you don't go to their family members, you go to their house, you go to their workplace, and you observe, look, this is very orderly, this is very... and you observe certain scenes, not of the killer, but of the deceased, that can give you ideas of who might have been around them and could have committed the crime. That is, was this person very structured? Who did this person associate with? What was this person's route? Who might they have met on that route? Did they have friends? Did they go out at night? That's what an indirect personality profiler does. That is, it could be... A tool that would allow for the closure of many of the cases we currently have, a more coherent, specific, direct, and reasonable closure from the point of view of criminal investigation. It's worth highlighting that this will be discussed in other scenarios, but there is a lot of resistance because they see us or believe we are fortune tellers. We are not mind readers. He was a criminal profiler; they talk about him, but he is a star in fiction. He tells you that, well, the Ripper was the first killer. Remember I mentioned him? And so, in fiction, we have a lot because, naturally, human beings, if we talk about evolutionary theory, when humans became sedentary, their nature always led them to defend their territory from wild animals or other tribes that wanted to steal their children and so on. So, that aggressive nature, that nature of protection and survival, is... uh-huh, that frontal cut that goes down and that thing that goes up. That always gives us that morbid curiosity to want to know, to want to investigate why the Dominican killed and so on. Why do people kill? Why do people kill? Out of passion, people kill. Out of hate, people kill for pleasure, just because, because they like it, because it gives them satisfaction. And that is the most dangerous criminal, the one who kills for satisfaction because they have something that makes them happy. That's where we enter the dark realm, and that's where the pyramid begins to reach its peak: the psychopath, the serial killer, who kills for that pleasure, for that satisfaction. It allows them to carry out what's inside, to bring out their true self, their personal culmination. That is the elite of the elite of killers. Doctor, we understand that to continue listening to you, one hour is not enough because of the amount of knowledge you have accumulated. And because we need to reproduce that academic material in our project so that we can continue to share with our listeners some of that knowledge that has cost you so many hours of study. Now, isn't the topic of profiling, which you have spoken about in relation to the investigation of crime scenes, and how we lawyers who practice criminal law adjust possible classifications based on the knowledge of those processes, so diametrically opposed? Facts that strongly attract his attention, an example of which is what recently occurred in relation to a process where, unfortunately, two people died, including a minor child. When I say minor child, I'm making the difference between an adolescent over 13 and the child in the mine. The minority, below 13, is the legal term because here we are talking about a legal aspect. My colleagues who are with me, who have seen the process, how do you understand that, in relation to a dogmatic classification, this fact fits what we have in our penal regulations? Well, let's see, let's talk about it. Exactly, from the point of view of the law, now going a little off-topic, right? This is because there has been much talk about the intellectual condition of the commission of L. To give context to what we are going to talk about, it is the case of poisoning that occurred in the minutes that we have left, which happened in the tower as a result of an alleged fumigation where a poison with a high density was used, which is prohibited by the Dominican state. It is not prohibited, it says that its use has It needs to be moderate and conscious, and it's more suitable for outdoor spaces, but it 's odorless, it's colorless. What's also important in this case is that in 2015 there was a similar situation in a tower, also due to the same type of chemicals used. Here too, a married couple died from this process. So, to summarize the facts, we're talking about what happened in this Piantini tower where a woman had her apartment fumigated, and from there, due to the toxicity of the plastid or the substance they used, a neighbor and her two-month-old daughter were affected and died. Even now, as we're recording, I think the child and the husband are still hospitalized. The housekeeper also died; the child was taken to the United States. So, from the point of view of the law, well, we have already arrested the man who carried out the fumigation. So, here we could talk about... We're going to approach this from a criminal law perspective. What would be most appropriate in this case—I'm not saying that's the case, because several elements would have to be analyzed—but in principle, what I believe the prosecution will surely classify in this case against the man is involuntary manslaughter because there was clearly no intention to commit the act that resulted in people being affected. Now, what is manslaughter? It's when, according to Article 319, negligence causes the exact result. You need, in this case, for this to happen, we 're not talking about you having the intention. However, you had the possibility of foreseeing it, or at least you had the obligation to exercise due diligence. It's like if I were to fire a shot into the air, for example. You have to... In this aspect, we would be talking about the subjectivity of the type in relation to the objective element, because the objective element would be that you know the result it produces, plus the subjectivity would be determined by the intention that the result is focused on where it was going, which in this case is what the process... Yes, because he wanted to apply the product, but for an insect, not for it to have an effect on a person. So, if we analyze it from the point of view of the theory of crime, it would certainly fulfill two of the conditions required at the levels of the theory, which would be the typicality and the antiquity given by 319. There is a reproach of the result obtained, but we are going to have a typical conflict in terms of culpability and the fact that if we want to create some kind of legal link between the owner of the apartment who facilitates the results of the criminal type, then we have a disconnection in that factual account in relation to that imputation, but first, for example, starting from the first fact of the man, to then get to the point of view, if you will, of the doctrine of control of the act, but in principle one will say, that's why I say in principle one could say, well, let's talk about involuntary manslaughter, but if we go to the topic, other elements that are important to analyze here is the issue of the, that is, it is a product whose sale is not limited even to professionals that Its sale is for everyday use, or its use is for everyday use. It would also be a little difficult to retain even the subjective element of recklessness, you know? I mean, it's something that you use every day, that you've used, or that many people use, that's sold normally, that the state hasn't regulated. So, from there, you tell a person, "Look, despite all that, that I, as the state, am telling you, 'Look, you can buy it and you can use it,' but you should have known much more about that product since you were going to use it." It's going to generate a good discussion about that, about the subjective element. The discussion there would be in relation to the knowledge of the average person. We would have to see there because, supposedly, we, who don't dedicate ourselves to that type of activity, don't have the obligation to have knowledge of the result that the use of that poison could cause. In short, but a person who dedicates themselves to that type of activity as a commercial activity or as a way of life should have knowledge of it. The knowledge of what was going to happen, because, as I said, especially considering that a similar situation occurred in this country nine years ago, I understand that with this case, although it might be a bit unfair from your perspective, the aim is to set an example and try to ensure that, since this is the second time it has happened, there is some kind of system of consequences. Now, the state is regulating this in a timely and precise manner. For example, that French gentleman who is currently detained, and is the only one detained, I knew these people. I could have known the scope of the result that this poison would have. I could have determined that it had some kind of ulterior motive. So, a very interesting debate would be generated. But, as always, and due to the penal populism that characterizes us, what I understand is being done with this measure is to seek an example to try to prevent this type of behavior from happening again. I would interpret it not so much from the point of view of populism, but rather in the following sense: Because the questions that the The Public Prosecutor's Office, during that investigation regarding the accused, knew that the product kills, and how were they going to determine that? Did they know who the product could affect? ​​But how to determine that? It's very likely that the product itself doesn't have a label. The label, or rather, they usually have one inside the product that tells you exactly what that product is. Well, I know it. It has two applications. Why do you know it? I know it because I had a process, not specifically legal, but because I have clients in companies that are dedicated to agricultural investment and they need to eliminate rats and other pests. So there's a product with a green cap that has a less severe effect, which is even for applying outdoors. Now, that product specifically, the one with the red cap, has the little skull and crossbones figure that tells you, " This is toxic, this kills whoever applies it." But what I'm saying is, you know it in one way or another because it's commercially available. So those questions you're asking are of a very subjective nature that only the people being charged at this moment could answer. Did you know that the product kills? The only one What can determine if someone will be punished is why that's not the right question: if the product kills. Because any product kills, even water, they say, but in the end it's not whether I know if it kills. Because I can tell you, well, if you drink it, it will kill you. The most used product for fumigating agricultural fields is lannate. And why was lannate banned? Because those who applied it, who used the sprayer here, applied it and within 3 seconds they would fall. It kills just by breathing it. I thought it was Baon, but it's the same thing. Look, what you're suggesting is what I was saying at the beginning. You're suggesting situations of a product that is toxic but was sold and that people even died or got sick from consuming it, and nobody ... Because if you're telling me how I've been, if you're telling me how I've been, that you can use that product, the consequences that that product generates from the use that you allow me to make, well then it would be a bit of an uphill battle. To demand more from you, no, no, no, we're not going to give a personal opinion because, playing the game of "the devil," I'd say he ended up applying it and didn't stay in the apartment. Good luck, that's what happened in the apartment. He didn't think that... The point is, look, I'm going further because the point isn't even about the one who applied it, the owner of the apartment who was around there, Juan and I don't know where. Why wasn't the owner there? Because if she was fumigating, what's being said is that she has a tenant. It's even said that when she told the tenant she was going to fumigate, she said, "I'm leaving because I have a little girl," not thinking she was going to die, but that it could harm her. And that's without even looking at the regulations, whether the condominium was notified. If it was said that it was going to be done, even now, inevitably, to conclude with the process, I understand that she, of course, I think she will have civil responsibility at least regarding those events. She was the one who gave the order for the fumigation; she's the owner, she's the owner of the apartment. She left The use of the product is in charge of that person, who is understood to be an expert. Whether or not we would have to see how that process unfolds from a criminal point of view. Now, I believe, procedurally speaking, that preventive detention should not be imposed. That's my understanding because there was negligence, and it would be evident that the measure of preventive detention, as a method of sanction, is a criminal matter. Now, what you can be sure of today is that when we have the decision here, we will let you know. Bye bye.