Pasé de víctima a sospechoso y mi hija sigue desaparecida | Bruno #Penitencia 174 #testimonio

Upon reporting their daughter Yamilet's disappearance, Bruno and Wendy were immediately treated as suspects and detained for five days without legal counsel. The authorities in Otumba, instead of initiating a search for the child, focused on accusing the parents, inventing charges to keep them isolated.

Bruno's account of being taken to Temascalape and interrogated as a suspect (27:40), and lawyer Manuel's statement that the fiscalía's first act was to detain them for five days without legal assistance (31:35).

The investigation allegedly involved fabricating evidence and manipulating facts. This included falsely claiming the family was found intoxicated in a car, misinterpreting a Santa Muerte altar as evidence of a 'satanic cult,' and later introducing 'evidence' like buried clothing and Luminol-tested blood four years after the fact, from a house that had been abandoned and vandalized.

Bruno's description of the initial false report (29:27), the Santa Muerte altar being used to imply a 'satanic cult' (28:33), and the discovery of buried clothing 4 years later (1:24:49). The lawyer notes the lack of scientific evidence from the initial inspection (1:29:22).

During their second arrest four years later, Bruno was subjected to physical torture, including beatings and 'submarino' (suffocation with plastic bags), to coerce a confession. This occurred while his wife was also detained, and his younger daughter was present during the arrest.

Bruno details being beaten, blindfolded, and suffocated with plastic bags during interrogation (1:14:16). He mentions his wife being present and hearing the abuse (1:16:15).

An activist initially helped the family navigate the legal system but later turned against them. After failing to elicit a confession or accusation against family members, the activist publicly stated on television that only the parents knew Yamilet's whereabouts, further demonizing them in public opinion.

Bruno describes the activist's shift from support to trying to 'divide and conquer' the family (58:37) and her subsequent TV report accusing the parents (1:08:18).

Both Bruno and his lawyer emphasize that the case against them lacks direct evidence. The accusations are based on circumstantial 'testimonies' from former friends who described Bruno as a 'bad person' and the legal argument that the parents 'didn't do enough' to prevent the disappearance, rather than any proof of their involvement.

Bruno states that 'friends' only said he drank and used drugs, not that he harmed his daughter (1:21:10). Lawyer Manuel explicitly states, 'No hay ninguna evidencia que demuestre que ellos hayan realizado alguna conducta tendiente a desaparecer a su nena' (1:26:04) and that the argument is 'no es creíble que hayan que haya desaparecido sin que ellos no se dieran cuenta' (1:30:18).