Fabiola Yañez and Alberto Fernández They do not give a truce even during the holidays, that sacred time of reflection and balance. Shortly before Christmas, the one who opened fire was the former first lady from a Spanish TV program, in which, in addition to talking about the gender violence for which she accuses Fernández, she revealed an audio in which he he yells over the phone to their 2-year-old son. Shortly after New Year’s, the former president counterattacked with his own evidence, another telephone exchange in which she, apparently drunk, threatened to spread those conversations with the little boy. Francis and asks for confusing explanations for other episodes. And in the middle of it all, a video of Yañez celebrating the arrival of 2025 in an exclusive restaurant in Madrid led to the libertarian government asking that she be removed from custody, something to which she immediately agreed to stop the scandal.
The curious thing is that none of those exchanges between the former president and his former partner contribute anything substantial to the judicial investigation into the beatings that Alberto allegedly inflicted on her. But they do serve to discredit each other and to extend the incredible saga of revealed intimacies into which the case resulted. It’s the morbid show, and it’s just beginning.
Last round. The audio that Fabiola broadcast on Spanish TV It does not leave Fernández in a good position. There you can hear how the former president raises his voice in a bad way at little Francisco.
–Don’t you want to talk to dad? –he asks his son on the phone.
–Boo! –the boy responds, whimpering.
And Alberto explodes:
–Well, if you want to talk to grandma, then don’t call me!
The boy remains silent.
In the interview she gave, Fabiola said that Francisco often did not want to talk to the father because of his violent tone. And he explained that Alberto intended for the video calls to last an hour or more, something that is impossible for a child of that age. “Please, next time don’t give him food, toys, or anything to distract him,” Fernández demanded.
Furthermore, Yañez said that he never apologized for the alleged violence exercised against her and that he justified it by saying that it had been “unintentionally”, the same argument that Alberto repeats in private about the black eye episode. He talks about an accidental blow in bed, something like a reflex act in the middle of sleep, but with remarkable aim.
And to that explanation off the record he also adds two others. In the first he maintains that The bruise could be due to Fabiola falling due to her alcoholism problem.. In the second, in parallel, he talks about an alleged skin reaction to an aesthetic treatment, when even his lifelong doctor, Federico Saavedra, confirmed before the Court that there had been a blow, involuntary or not. Choose your own alibi.
In “El martirio”, the book dedicated to the case that the author of this note wrote, the strong calls between Alberto and his son were already mentioned.
–Why are you attending to me if you’re not going to talk! –the former president shouted at the child.
And when Fabiola intervened to ask him not to mistreat him, Fernández continued:
–I’m not shouting at him, you make me shout like that!
In his counterattack of recent days, Fernández now adds a new audio that, like Fabiola’s, does not help absolutely anything elucidate whether the physical violence investigated by Justice existed or not. The only purpose of these “evidence” is to dirty the other party, not very different from what happens in the gossip programs with the stupid chats that Wanda Nara and Mauro Icardi throw over their heads, to draw a parallel to match. .
In Alberto’s recording, Fabiola calls him in the wee hours of the morning.
–I’m going to remove all the audios in which you were aggressive with Francisco –she warns him.
–Come on, do it, do it. And he continued threatening me – he answers.
And since he was careful to record it, he puts context to the talk:
–What I know is that I don’t have to be talking to you. And what I don’t understand is that at half past four in the morning in Madrid you are calling me to tell me these things.
He sounds angry, but in control of the situation. Her voice faltersperhaps because of the alcohol. He reproaches him for alleged operations published on internet sites behind which he glimpses Fernández’s hand. And he promises retaliation.
–Do you seriously want your phone to appear? –he says to Alberto–. I’ll make it appear tomorrow, eh?
“Make it appear,” he redoubles the bet.
–They didn’t want to open your phone, and you deleted everything –she continues.
–I didn’t delete anything –he answers.
And so they continue for a while longer, between extortions and mutual chicanery.
Fernández presented the recording before the Court as evidence of Fabiola’s alleged harassment. And a judge, Christian Brandonidetermined that she could no longer call him for a period of three months. The prosecutor in that new case even asked to raid the Madrid apartment of the alleged victim of gender violence and conduct a psychiatric examination. But Brandoni did not dare to do so.
Before that, he was the judge Julian Ercolini who had prohibited Alberto from approaching Fabiola or calling her. But, apparently, both cannot give up continuing to talk, even if it means mistreating and threatening each other.
More folders
Just as in the last crossings it is evident how Yañez and Fernández keep records of everythingthey record each other and do not miss the opportunity to get angry, that modus operandi was the one they used from the beginning, even before the complaint of violence.
In the hours in which she incriminated him before the courts, in August, the former president privately said that he already had witnesses who would testify in his favor and that they had already done so before a notary public. Those witnesses, indeed, later appeared. How did he have so much time to prepare beforehand? It is evident that both parties knew that, sooner or later, the matter would end up in court.
It was seen coming in some of the chats between the two that Justice has in its hands. In one of them, Fabiola warned the former president that, if he did not help her financially, she could incriminate him. The exchange, which she herself unusually contributed to Justice, dates back to mid-2024 – after she gave up accusing him after Ercolini’s first contact – and is revealing.
Fabiola writes to you from Madrid: “You made me lie and you talked about extortion. When the only thing I have been asking, begging, is for you to help me work because the money is not enough for me.. Because you buried me alive. For 14 years you made me sick with your sick behavior of having twenty women at the same time.” He defends himself: “I have told you a thousand times that I try. I have told you a thousand times that they will lack nothing.”
Fabiola gives him an ultimatum: “Tell me today if you are going to help me or not, or starting tomorrow I will start making a living by accepting whatever they offer me. I can’t wait for you or put up with you anymore. So think and tell me how you are going to solve it.”
And he leaves this final warning: “You believe that those photos no longer exist. “You had it all and you ruined it.”
The photos, of course, are the ones that later made it to the cover of all the media, and the ones that at the time she had also sent to Fernández’s secretary, Maria Cantero.
In the case, two former friends of Yañez talked about how she collected evidence against her partner. One is the so-called “witness B” presented by Alberto, a social leader native of Misiones who stated that the then-first lady had also shown the images of the bruises to her.
When he asked her why she kept them, he says that Fabiola replied:
–I keep them because I’m not stupid and just in case.
Another former friend, the model and former civil servant Sofia Pacchialso provided similar information when he had to testify as a witness in October 2024. “He saved chats or recorded discussions to later view them,” he said about Yañez.
On Fernández’s side, the methods were no different. When he learned that Fabiola kept the images of the beatings, he also took defensive measures. At the trial, he not only presented the witnesses “in cat flaps” who had already testified before a notary, but also added other elements that did not prove his innocence, it is true, but did tarnish the image of the complainant. For example, the photos in which Fabiola was seen surrounded by bottles of champagne in the Quinta de Olivos, it was never known who took them or in what context. Illegal espionage?
There were also the audios of Fernández with Yañez’s mother, in which he asked her for help to control the first lady’s alcoholism. The woman had moved with her daughter to Olivos after she became pregnant.
“It leaves a deplorable image on the employees, who then talk,” he warned him.
“I know, Alberto,” admitted the mother. “It’s hard, but I control it.”
But the fourth or fifth time that Alberto wrote to her again about the same thing, the lady stopped answering. Why didn’t he talk to her in person? Obviously, Fernández wanted to record those dialogues in writing to use them in a future court fight. Mother’s intuition made her realize it. Crossed arguments, explicit threats and evidence that each other was collecting long before the complaint was made. Fernández and Yañez have no peace. Are there innocents in this story?
Image gallery
