Friday, September 13, marks three months since the disappearance of Loan Danilo Peña, the five-year-old boy last seen June 13, in the tiny town of 9 de Julio, Corrientes Province.
Different hypotheses have been suggested and investigated over these past months. Some suspects have changed their versions of events. Different family controversies have come to light. But the leads obtained have not yet given any certainty about the events that took place on June 13.
To date, there are seven detainees, including some former municipal officials and relatives of the missing child. A former policeman Francisco Méndez was among those arrested, but he was released due to a “lack of merit.” In his statement he proved what he did on the day of Loan’s disappearance and how he found the child’s shoe in a mire, near the “El Algarrobal” region, where the house of the child’s grandmother, Catalina Peña, is located.
A federal prosecutor from the Corrientes city of Goya, Mariano de Guzmán, together with his colleagues Marcelo Colombo y Alejandra Mángano, from the PROTEX People Trafficking and Exploitation Prosecution, are leading the investiation of the case, probing alleged “abduction and concealment of a minor” – a crime punishable by between five and 15 years’ imprisonment.
The case is being heard by Federal Judge Cristina Pozzer Penzo, who weeks ago illustrated the difficulty of the case with a crude sentence: “We cannot be sure we’ll find the boy. That’s a very heavy burden.”
Loan’s disappearance has produced hundreds of hours of media coverage. In addition to those involved and the conflicting statements suspects have made about the case, million-peso transfers received by the missing child’s brothers also made the headlines.
There was the scandalous exit of celebrity lawyer Fernando Burlando, who was representing the family, too and some new progress on the case most recently reported.
What we know happened
Last June 13, the day Loan was last seen, the child was with his father, José Peña. They visited the home of the child’s grandmother Catalina, 87, where they all had lunch with family. Many of the people who sat around the table on that day are now arrested and suspected of being involved in the disappearance.
After the meal, Loan and his cousins went out to collect oranges in the field, accompanied by three adults: Antonio Bernardino Benítez (Loan’s uncle by marriage) and a couple who went with the kids to the orange grove, Daniel ‘Fierrito’ Ramírez and Mónica del Carmen Millapi.
The boy, according to those present, went missing. A series of calls were later made when they discovered they had “lost sight” of the boy.
At that stage, it was believed that Loan had got lost. The following day, the first searches started and a national alert was triggered, as well as a “yellow alert” by Interpol. Several police officers and firefighters worked on the operation, drone searches were carried out and even dogs intervened. Argentina’s National Security Ministry offered a five-million-peso reward for any data.
Suspects
During the searches, authorities found traces of vomit, footprints, and Loan’s football shoes.
Shortly after, Prosecutor Juan Carlos Castillo asked for the arrests of Benítez, Ramírez and Millapi, whom he accused of the crime of abandonment.
After they testified before the court, the hypothesis that Loan might have been kidnapped by a trafficking network started gaining traction.
Three other arrests soon were made. The first was Walter Maciel, the now former local chief of police, who from the very first day had been in charge of the search for the little one. He was charged with being party of a cover-up.
Subsequently, married couple María Victoria Caillava and Carlos Pérez – who had been present at the family lunch at Grandma Catalina’s home – were both arrested.
Caillava, a former 9 de Julio municipal official, and her husband, a retired Navy captain, were arrested after inspection of their vehicles. Police dogs had identified Loan’s small in the vehicle.
Days later, the investigation took on a new stage, with all the detainees up until that point charged with “abduction for trafficking purposes,” with the exception of Maciel, who was still considered under the hypothesis of “cover up.”
Plot twist
The second twist in the case – one its one of the most impactful – took place on June 28.
Laudelina Peña, the missing five-year-old’s aunt and Benítez’s partner, testified before a Corrientes prosecutor that there had been an “accident,” in which Pérez and Caillava had allegedly run over her nephew.
According to her account, the former official “threatened her life to keep her from saying anything” and asked her to plant the minor’s boot in a location where it would be discovered.
Soon after security footage was revealed showing that Pérez and Caillava had travelled to the capital of Corrientes and then from their house to Chaco, with bags and rucksacks.
Additional CCTV footage later showed them visiting a clinic.
Their cars were subsequently expertly examined; one of them tested positive with luminol, showing blood stains on one of the seats, while the fender and mudguard were “dented,” also showing a red substance.
Regardless, Laudelina’s daughter, Macarena, and her niece, Camila, denied the version of events that was circulating: there was the accident. They claimed that lawyer José Codazzi had bribed her and pushed her into giving testimony.
Later, Loan’s aunt was arrested, accused of taking part in the “concealment and abduction of the minor” and of obstructing the investigation.
In addition to theories regarding a potential trafficking network and the car accident, courts are investigating a possible vendetta against the child’s parents, José Peña and María Noguera. This came about after Catalina’s testimony, who claimed that there was an internal family conflict over the possession of land that belonged to them but was in someone else’s name.
Another piece of information, besides the results of the Gessel Court of Appeals which found that four of the five children present at the lunch at gone into the orange with Loan, led to the hypothesis that Loan had died in a rifle accident when Ramírez and Benítez had gone capybara hunting.
There was also talk of a “man with a white hoodie” and a”tattoo” who might have taken the child – all leads that failed to develop.
Lawyer row and cash transfers
Celebrity lawyer Fernando Burlando joined Loan’s family’s legal counsel team on June 23 – 10 days after his disappearance.
On July 10, Burlando requested Codazzi’s arrest and five days later he offered a reward on his social networks to anyone with information as to Loan’s whereabouts.
Burlando, however, was left in the eye of the storm when he went on holiday to Miami with his wife and daughter while the search for the boy continued.
Tensions rose with José, Loan’s brother, who had criticised Burlando, due to the controversial million-peso transfers the child’s brothers had received.
The lawyer also took aim at the child’s parents and said that “hell awaits them” – he soon left the case (since late August, Peña’s representation has been in the hands of lawyer Roberto Méndez).
“I gave a key lead to José and María and they couldn’t care less, they asked no more questions. Far from showing concern, they were indifferent to the progress of the investigation,” he complained in an interview.
During an interview with a television channel, the boy’s parents defended themselves and spoke of their meeting with Corrientes Province Governor Gustavo Valdés, whose image has been battered by the case.
Valdés was even reported for cover-up and abuse of authority by a citizen.
In turn, Loan’s brothers took to the airwaves to speak about the tens of millions of pesos they had received (close to 170 million pesos in 14,000 transfers that were part of a charitable campaign).
They said that the money would be used to try to locate Loan and brushed off criticism of purchases, such as a motorcycle, which they said would be used in the search for the missing child.
Seven in custody
Antonio Bernardino Benítez – Loan’s uncle by marriage, the partner of Laudelina, his father’s sister, and the first detainee in the case. He was the one who decided to take Loan and other children to collect oranges 600 metres away from Catalina’s house. He is the only one who has had his genitals examined to check whether or not a crime of sexual abuse had been committed.
Mónica Millapi and Daniel "Fierrito" Ramírez – They went to pick oranges with Benítez, Loan and the other children. According to Benítez, a friend of theirs, they arrived when he was willing to return until he heard a girl say Loan was missing. The woman told the courts they got distracted when they got a call about the health condition of Ramírez’s brother.
Walter Maciel – Former chief of local police who headed the search for the minor at the beginning of the case. He is charged for cover-up, qualified by the gravity of the crime and for being a public official. He also let Caillava and Pérez travel to Chaco the day after the disappearance.
Victoria Caillava and Carlos Pérez – They were invited to lunch by Loan’s grandmother and aunt and they have land a few miles away. Prosecutors believe they are responsible for the child’s disappearance and were aided by the other accused. Grandma Catalina said that they left the site because Pérez “wanted to watch a football match” and a nurse said Caillava was admitted to hospital for “a nervous breakdown and vomiting.” They were in Resistencia the day after the child went missing.
Laudelina Peña – Loan’s aunt and Benítez’s partner, who was also at the lunch. She provided the theory on the alleged death of the minor in an accident, a hypothesis resisted by different sources. Her former lawyer, José Codazzi, denied threatening her or wanting to bribe her and said that the married couple could have disposed of the minor’s body on the way to Chaco.
New developments
As of the close of this article, judge Penzo ordered the arrest of a psychologist from the Fundación Lucio Dupuy (NGO dedicated to young children) for “bearing false witness.”
Loan’s parents have asked the judge overseeing the case to order the digging of a grave in a rural area of 9 de Julio. The request was because the couple learnt “of the existence of a kind of grave with loose soil on the edge of Ruta 12.”
They asked this alternative to be assessed, even if it is to rule out that their child is there.
Three months after the case began, there are still no solid clues as to what happened to Loan Danilo Peña, who remains missing.
Comments