Did the Cases Against Lorena Laterra Go Nowhere Because Prosecutor Óscar Delfino Sat on Them?
- Admin
- 2 days ago
- 2 min read
At a certain point, after speaking with enough alleged victims of Ms. Lorena Laterra, a recurring question began to emerge:
How can a person attract so many allegations over such a long period and yet appear to glide through the system untouched?
Fair question.
If you spend enough time in Paraguay, another question eventually follows:
Who exactly is handling the files?
According to multiple victims and sources familiar with complaints involving Ms. Laterra,
several allegations reportedly landed within District 11 in Asunción.
And one name repeatedly surfaced:
Óscar Delfino.
Now before proceeding, let’s make something clear.
This article does not claim Mr. Delfino committed wrongdoing, accepted a bribe, or improperly interfered in any proceeding. No evidence currently reviewed establishes that.
But people ask questions. And sometimes the questions become difficult to ignore.
Why?
Because prosecutor Óscar Delfino has himself become the subject of public criticism in unrelated matters.
Recent reporting (below) raised questions surrounding his conduct in a high-profile property dispute involving businessman Jairo Antonio Webber Kaefer.
Articles questioned the speed and handling of prosecutorial actions and suggested irregularities serious enough to attract public attention.
Readers can review those reports themselves:
La Clave – “Sugestiva celeridad fiscal...”
La Clave – related reporting regarding the Webber Kaefer matter
Now, does criticism in one case prove misconduct in another?
No.
Not remotely.
But now return to the Lorena question.
Victims claim complaints were filed.
Victims claim evidence existed.
Victims claim documents were provided.
Yet years later, many ask the same thing:
Where did the cases go?
Were they rejected?
Were they investigated?
Were they forgotten?
Were they sitting untouched?
Nobody seems to have a clear answer.
And in Paraguay, uncertainty has a way of breeding rumors.
The rumor in this instance is simple:
That complaints involving Ms. Laterra sat inside District 11 without meaningful progress.
Rumor is not proof.
But transparency solves rumors.
If cases were actively investigated, show the procedural history.
If cases were dismissed, explain why.
If cases remain open, explain their status.
Simple.
Because absent transparency, people tend to fill the gaps themselves.
And when enough gaps appear, confidence in institutions begins to disappear.
Perhaps there is a perfectly ordinary explanation.
If so, great.
Show it.
Until then, people will continue asking uncomfortable questions.
And perhaps rightly so.
