It was only on August 11, 2022, that the existence of a judicial investigation into the suspicious deaths of newborns, led by Prosecutor Raúl Garzón, became public knowledge.
The investigation concerned alleged homicidal attacks on 13 babies at the Hospital Materno Neonatal Ministro Dr. Ramón Carrillo in Córdoba between March and June of that same year.
Two months had passed since the tragic night of June 6-7, when the last of four incidents that sparked the probe. On that night, two babies had died. Autopsies were performed on the bodies, but no connection was made between the deaths.
Almost a month later, on July 4 of the same year, an engineer named Francisco José Luperi filed a formal complaint, which led to the opening of the investigation involving 13 suspicious deaths – no explanation could be found for their problems post-birth.
Meanwhile, Córdoba’s provincial Health Ministry ordered an administrative investigation that led to the suspension of hospital staff. Prior to this, neonatal authorities had replaced the batch of Vitamin K they’d been using and even opened up the mattresses on which newborns were laid, suspecting that puncture marks found on the babies’ bodies might have been caused by insects.
While all this was happening, the mothers and families of the newborns who had died were completely unaware of the suspicions, hypotheses, and decisions being made.
No-one informed them that their children’s medical records were being studied. No-one invited them to the hospital to ask what had happened or how the babies who had survived alleged attacks were doing. Several families continued to have treatments at other public hospitals in the city. All had left thinking that what had happened to their children were isolated cases.
This is what has come to light from witness testimonies heard during the first few weeks of the trial that began in Córdoba earlier this month.
Yasmín B., mother of Baby G., who was born on May 1, 2022, explained that her child had two puncture marks on her right thigh. She says that the only explanation she initially received was that the baby had suffered bites from "some insect."
She recalled that they started opening up mattresses, and one of the staff members at the scene had said: “It can’t be happening again with another baby.”
Yasmín did not know, at the time, what they were referring to.
Nine days later, Baby G. was discharged. Yasmín said she left with the "guilt" that her child had suffered a bite at birth and not been protected.
Hindsight
A common factor in all the cases is that the parents found out through the press that the authorities believed their children had been killed or intentionally harmed.
Therefore, the identification of nurse Brenda Agüero – who is accused of carrying out the attacks – came about, as the saying goes, "with the benefit of hindsight." It was only when her photos were published, after she was charged by the courts and arrested, that the mothers recognised her.
Agüero’s defence lawyers, Gustavo Nievas and Juan Manuel Riveros, continue to ask detailed questions about this aspect of the case.
The mothers found out when the news was broadcast "on television", according to the accounts of most of them. They identified the nurse from the photos that were shared by the press, but not before.
Each one suffered the death or physical deterioration of their baby. Although the situations appeared to be inexplicable, none of them suspected a criminal or intentional act at the time.
They all thought they were isolated cases.
Recognition
During court proceedings on Tuesday, Justine B. – the mother of Baby F., who was born on April 24, 2022, and became unwell just hours after birth – looked Agüero in the eyes and said to her, “I recognise you perfectly.”
She continued: “The baby was ice cold, her little nails were purple. I asked you if it was normal for her to get cold. You came close, took her away, and didn’t give me any explanation.”
However, it wasn’t at that moment that Justine suspected Brenda. Asked when she realised that Agüero was the nurse who took her baby, she replied: “When the news came out that she was going to be arrested. That’s when I recognised her. I clearly remember the mole on her face. The day her photo was published, I said to my partner, 'She was the one who took Fran.'”
Other mothers also recall, in hindsight, the presence of the nurse. Several mentioned her gaze as a distinctive, recognisable feature that they could not erase from their mind.
The defence lawyers will likely use this as part of their strategy. The public shaming — what the accused herself referred to in her testimony to the court as a “premature conviction” — is seen by them as unfair.
Nevertheless, the mothers recognise her and speak directly to her — except for those who requested that she not be present in the courtroom during their testimony. They confirm that they remember her features, they do not hesitate in answering.
They do not doubt that it is her they recognise her from those traumatic moments in 2022. And they do not doubt that when they are asked by the jury if Agüero is the nurse who attacked their children.
by María Ester Romero, Perfil Córdoba
Comments