The double measuring stick made a reality.
On May 20, one of the accusations of the ‘kitchen case’ -piece number 10 of the Tándem-Villarejo case-, that of the PSOE, requested the judge Manuel Garcia Castellonin view of the leaking of audios of conversations between the former general secretary of the PP Maria Dolores de Cospedal and the commissioner Jose Manuel Villarejo -they arrive until 2017, months before the commissioner’s arrest- an investigation into that evidence to which the parties have not had access.
The letter pointed out the possibility of reopening the case -already closed- to clarify the situation of the new tests that the parties were unaware of.
And, if any, its incorporation.
Are these audios part of the performances? Is it audio that has not been decrypted yet? Is it appropriate to make a expert report about its content?
A few days later, Judge García-Castellón issued an order in which he asked the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office its position regarding the brief of the popular accusation.
In other words, are the prosecutors going to adhere to the request that the audios be incorporated, if they exist in the case, into the summary?
In mid-July, sources from the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office consulted by this newspaper indicated that the response was being studied. “It is necessary to establish the perimeter that the third section of the Criminal Court of the National Court traced when rejecting our appeal in which it was requested to impute again to Maria Dolores de Cospedal and continue to investigate the political branch of the ‘Operation Kitchen’. And decide accordingly & rdquor ;, explained the source.
three months no reply
More than three months have passed since the question asked by the judge and nobody seems to have moved. It has not been investigated whether the leaked audio is part of the material found in the summary or is pending decryption.
These audios respond, precisely, to one of the reasons alleged by the third section of the Criminal Law, to reject a new accusation of Cospedal, namely, that the evidence against her was not “unequivocal & rdquor; and that they constituted evidence remote from the time in which the extrajudicial police operation took place (2013-2016) -the ‘kitchen case’– to control and steal compromised materials for the then President of the Government, Mariano Rajoyand the PP held by the ex-treasurer of the PP Luis Barcenas.
The judge could, on his own, have ordered to investigate the location of those audios and their incorporation into the case.
But he did nothing.
Last April, the Prolege European Jurists Association, close to the PP, appeared in the Dina case – piece number 10 of the Tandem-Villarejo case– about the theft of a mobile phone from Dinah Bousselhamformer adviser to the former secretary general of Podemos paul churchesand the dissemination of its content in various media outlets – after two journalists delivered a flash drive to Commissioner Villarejo – asked Judge García Castellón to send the proceedings related to the former advisor and her husband, Ricardo Sa Ferreira, to the courts of Madrid for crimes of false testimony and false accusation. The statements of both would have, according to the aforementioned popular accusation, affected the image of one of the publications that disseminated information with the content of the victim’s mobile phone, including the digital OkDiario.
The judge transferred Prolege’s brief to the Public Prosecutor’s Office on April 26, 2022. According to García Castellón’s order dated last Thursday, September 1, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office sent its report on July 5, 2022 “by which the petitions are answered & rdquor; of Prolege.
The opinion of the prosecutors
What is stated in the prosecutors’ report?
Judge García Castellón simply does not say so. Are you in favor of new research What does the judge order after three years of investigations in the National High Court?
What the judge omits is that the Anticorruption Prosecutor opposes. According to his brief, Prolege’s two petitions were to be denied. A new piece was not to be opened within the ‘Dina case’ nor deduce testimony to send to two courts in Madrid for false testimony and false accusation.
According to prosecutors, there have been “vagueness and contradictions & rdquor; in the statements of Bousselham and her husband. But they emphasize: “It cannot be considered that this has altered the result in any way & rdquor; of the research that has been carried out for three years.
But, in addition, the prosecutors put their finger on the sore spot – they know which judge they are dealing with – by adding: “It is highly predictable & rdquor; that both Bousselham and Sa Ferreira will be called to testify at the oral trial -of the piece Dina- about the same “it is not considered appropriate [que] for a crime of false testimony & rdquor ;.
In October 2020, Judge García Castellón prosecuted three people investigated in this case: Villarejo and journalists Alberto Pozas and Luis Rendueles (who gave him the flash drive with the content of Villarejo’s phone). Dinah Bousselham). He did it by raising a reasoned statement to open a case against the then Vice President of the Government, paul churches. Last January, he refused to extend the investigation in the absence of calling Bousselham and Sa Ferreira to testify. Both the third section of the First Criminal and the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court gave her two blows and urged her to summon Bousselham to ask her, since she was harmed by the leaks, what her claims were.
But the judge took his time. And he summoned the couple to testify as witnesses last March.
And there is still no accusation presented, nor, therefore, an order to open the oral trial of the judge. But instead he has already decided to urge the persecution for false testimony Y false complaint to two courts in Madrid.
chases and leaks
False testimony, this is known to the judge, is not committed in investigation, but in oral proceedings. So, what is García Castellón looking for when he urges the Bousselham chase and Sa Ferreira before he has written an indictment and an order to open an oral trial against Villarejo and the two prosecuted journalists?
It is here, precisely, where the prosecutors uncover the problem: García Castellón tries with this operation to discredit Bousselham, a victim of the filtering of your mobile contentand present her as a liar in the oral trial, when it takes place, and thus open the way to the acquittal of the three defendants.
The operation has been relatively simple: an initiative of the popular accusation close to the PPa document that reproduces the extensive document by Judge García Castellón, dismissed by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, and once the proceedings have been dispatched to Plaza de Castilla (false testimony) and Alcorcón (false complaint after the theft of the mobile phone), it is now assumed that the judge, when the indictments are presented, will proceed to open an oral trial that he himself is helping to confuse and empty of content.
Related news
We already know that the judge does not need to wait for what the Prosecutor’s Office says to incorporate the audios of Cospedal and Villarejo into the Kitchen piece.
because in the ‘Dina case’, although the prosecutors have rejected the urge to investigate in Madrid and Alcorcón has done what the judge ordered. That is to say: maintain the endless cause against Podemos.