forty cuts in different directions, scattered across the back
En un tribunal de Salta, la muerte de Jimena Beatriz Salas —ocurrida en 2017 mientras sus hijas menores estaban en la casa— comienza a revelar su verdad forense: más de cuarenta heridas de arma blanca en distintas direcciones sugieren que no fue un solo hombre quien la mató, sino varios. El juicio, que avanza con tres hermanos como acusados, recuerda que la violencia colectiva deja huellas colectivas, y que la justicia, cuando llega, lo hace a través de la paciencia acumulada de los detalles.
- Al menos cuarenta cortes en distintos ángulos sobre la ropa de la víctima indican que múltiples atacantes actuaron en conjunto, transformando lo que pudo parecer un crimen individual en una acción coordinada.
- Un caniche gris usado como señuelo y un hombre que se presentó con nombre falso revelan la premeditación detrás del ataque: la violencia no fue espontánea, sino cuidadosamente montada.
- La comparación de fotografías del teléfono de Jimena con el calzado de uno de los acusados —mocasines marrones sin cordones, de puntera cuadrada— colocó a ese hombre en su vida antes del crimen.
- Los allanamientos en múltiples domicilios produjeron vehículos, dispositivos electrónicos y prendas de vestir incautadas, aunque el análisis de huellas dactilares de treinta y tres familiares no arrojó coincidencias con la escena del crimen.
- Uno de los tres hermanos Saavedra murió un día antes de que comenzara el juicio; los otros dos enfrentan ahora el peso acumulado de una investigación construida ladrillo a ladrillo.
Esta semana, un tribunal de Salta escuchó los testimonios forenses que rodean la muerte de Jimena Beatriz Salas, asesinada en 2017 mientras sus dos hijas menores se encontraban en la vivienda. Lo que los especialistas presentaron no fue una hipótesis, sino un registro físico: al menos cuarenta cortes de arma blanca sobre su ropa, distribuidos en distintos ángulos y concentrados mayormente en la espalda. La conclusión era difícil de eludir: más de una persona había empuñado un cuchillo aquella noche, y posiblemente más de un arma había sido usada.
Pero la investigación no se detuvo en las heridas. Los peritos rastrearon fotografías recuperadas del teléfono de la víctima y de redes sociales, comparándolas con el calzado de uno de los acusados: mocasines marrones, sin cordones, de puntera cuadrada y costados elásticos. Las imágenes lo situaban en el entorno de Jimena antes del crimen. Más revelador aún fue el rastro del perro: un caniche gris, pequeño, usado por un hombre que se identificó como Matías para acercarse a la víctima bajo el pretexto de que el animal estaba perdido. Esa maniobra —la inocencia de un animal convertida en herramienta de engaño— condujo a los investigadores hasta tres hermanos: Javier, Adrián Guillermo y Carlos Damián Saavedra. Javier murió un día antes de que comenzara el juicio.
Los allanamientos en los domicilios de los acusados y sus familiares produjeron una lista de elementos secuestrados: vehículos, dispositivos electrónicos, una camisa celeste, anteojos de marco negro, una mochila verde militar. Un especialista en huellas dactilares comparó las encontradas en la casa de la víctima con las de treinta y tres familiares de los imputados. Ninguna coincidió. La ausencia de huellas no absolvió a nadie, pero sí recordó que este caso se construye sobre la suma paciente de pequeños hechos verificables. El juicio continúa.
In a Salta courtroom this week, forensic specialists laid out the physical evidence of Jimena Beatriz Salas's death—a 2017 murder that left her body on the floor in a pool of blood, her clothing bearing the marks of a sustained and brutal attack. The trial, now in its testimony phase, is beginning to reveal a picture that prosecutors say points not to a single killer, but to multiple assailants working in concert.
A criminalist from the Fiscal Investigation Body presented seven detailed reports documenting the scene and the victim's remains. What emerged from the examination of her clothing was stark: at least forty separate cuts from a blade, scattered across different angles and directions. Most of the wounds clustered on the back of her garments—a pattern that suggested more than one person had wielded a knife, and possibly more than one weapon had been used. The specificity of this finding matters. It is not speculation. It is the physical record of what happened to her body.
Investigators also pursued a more mundane but revealing line of evidence: footwear. Forensic specialists compared photographs recovered from the victim's phone and from social media against the shoes worn by one of the accused. The images showed brown loafers—no laces, square-toed, with elastic sides. These shoes appeared repeatedly in photos from Jimena's digital life. One of the defendants, they concluded, had been in her presence before the killing.
Then there was the dog. A gray poodle, small enough to carry in someone's arms, had been the instrument of approach. According to witness testimony, a man claiming to be named Matías had appeared with the animal, saying it was lost and asking for help finding its family. The photographs recovered from Jimena's phone showed the dog in the arms of this man. This detail—the casual deception, the use of an innocent animal as cover—became the thread that led investigators to three brothers: Javier Saavedra, Adrián Guillermo Saavedra, and Carlos Damián Saavedra. Javier died one day before the trial began.
The forensic work extended into the homes of the accused and their relatives. Officers executed search warrants at multiple addresses in Salta, seizing vehicles, electronic devices, a light blue shirt, eyeglasses with black frames, a military-green backpack, and various documents and cards. A fingerprint specialist testified about comparing prints found throughout the victim's house against those of thirty-three family members of the accused. None matched. The fingerprints did not place them at the scene—but the other evidence, taken together, painted a different picture.
Three field investigators described the raids in detail: what was taken, where it was found, how it was documented. The testimony was methodical, granular, the kind of work that builds a case not through dramatic revelation but through the accumulation of small, verifiable facts. By midday, the court called a recess. The trial would resume the following morning. Outside the courtroom, the question remained open: what would the defense say about the shoes, the dog, the wounds, the pattern of violence that suggested more hands than one had brought Jimena Salas to her death?
Citações Notáveis
The shoes that appear in Jimena Salas's phone images and social media files show similarities to the regular footwear of one of the accused—brown loafers without laces, square-toed, with lateral elastic.— Forensic specialist, Fiscal Investigation Body
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter that there were multiple attackers, forensically speaking? Couldn't one person have made all those cuts?
The angle and distribution tell you something. Forty cuts in different directions, clustered on the back—that's not the work of one person standing in one position. It suggests movement, multiple bodies, coordinated violence. It changes the legal picture entirely.
And the dog—that seems almost cruel, using an animal that way.
It's calculated. The dog was the excuse, the reason to approach her, to be let inside. It's not cruelty for its own sake. It's method. Someone thought through how to get close to her.
The shoes in the photos—how certain are they that it's a match?
Certain enough to present it in court. Brown loafers, square-toed, elastic sides—those details are specific. They're not common. When you see them in her phone photos and then you see them on a suspect, that's a connection worth making.
What about the fingerprints? Thirty-three people tested, none matched. Doesn't that suggest they weren't there?
It means they didn't leave prints, or the prints degraded, or they wore gloves. It's absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. The other pieces—the shoes, the dog, the wounds—they're still there.
One of the accused died before trial even started. How does that affect what happens now?
He's still part of the narrative. His death doesn't erase what the evidence says about his involvement. The trial continues for the other two.