The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office reproaches the judge in the Dina case for having “falsely closed” the investigation “without practicing a single diligence in the direction” set by the Criminal Chamber when it forced him to return Pablo Iglesias the condition of injured party. The higher instance maintains, as the Public Ministry recalls, that “the main hypothesis in the investigation is that the source of Okdiario’s publications was the criminal organization of José Manuel Villarejo.”
Chronology of piece 10: this is how Iglesias ended up accused by the card of his collaborator seized from Villarejo
Anticorruption is pronounced like this in its recourse to the order to pass to abbreviated procedure – the equivalent of the prosecution for crimes punishable by less than nine years – that the judge issued on October 7 against Villarejo and two journalists from the disappeared Interviú and which he accompanied by a reasoned exposition to the Supreme Court to summon Iglesias and others as investigated.
In his “limited description of the punishable acts,” says Anticorrupción, the judge discards the indications that it was Villarejo or a member of his “criminal organization” who turned over to the media directed by Eduardo Inda, as well as to El Confidencial already The world, information contained in the card “allegedly stolen” from the former collaborator of Iglesias.
“One thing is that the source from which the screenshots came to said digital (Okdiario) could derive from Dina Bousselham, and quite another is that the Villarejo criminal organization can be discarded as a source of said digital or the others ( El Mundo and El Confidencial), an aspect on which the Chamber has a special influence, “the prosecutors say in their brief, to which they have had access elDiario.es.
The Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office refers to Bousselham acknowledging in May that she made screenshots of Podemos chats that were later published and that she was able to send those screenshots to third parties. The judge concludes from there that this is the means by which the information reached the media that published it, ignoring, for example, the contacts that appear in the summary between the director of Okdiario and Villarejo in the months prior to the digital will begin to publish information from chats, seven in approximately one week in July 2016, as detailed in the letter, the content of which was advanced by El Español.
In addition, Anti-Corruption highlights that Judge García-Castellón ignores other information contained in the mobile card, some of which was also published, and that they are not the screenshots made by Dina, such as bank details, other WhatsApp messages and Telegram or intimate photographs.
“The judge limits the scope of his decision and the reasoned exposition to the dissemination of the chat captures contained in that telephone, when the truth is that the folders intervened in Villarejo there is much more information on Dina Bouuselham and third parties, published and unpublished, and that it requires further investigation, “prosecutors write.
Petition for the head of the ‘political brigade’ to declare
Anticorruption considers that with this “false” closure of the investigation, the judge has “curtailed the rights of all parties,” both those investigated and the accusations. Of those investigated, because the two Interviú journalists declared that they had handed over the Bousselham card “at the police request” of Villarejo and that Villarejo assured that he sent it to the deputy operational director at the time, Eugenio Pino, due to the “police interest” that the information had it contained. Commissioner Pino is considered the architect of the political brigade and is accused in the piece of the Villarejo case that investigates the espionage of Luis Bárcenas.
However, Judge García-Castellón has avoided deepening this line of investigation, just as he refused to cite Dina Bousselham again, as Anticorruption requested, and clarify the “gaps” in the testimony of the one who was her husband, Ricardo Sa Ferreira, says the Prosecutor’s Office. De Pino, Bousselham and Sa Ferreria requests Anti-Corruption in its writing that they be called to testify. In addition, the Prosecutor’s Office considers that the investigating judge has ignored the legitimate aspiration of Iglesias and Bousselham to know “the alleged police purpose of the transfer of mobile phone information.”
Prosecutors say that the investigation was stopped in the second half of 2019 and the first quarter of 2020 because police reports requested by the judge were pending, but that once it was resumed, with Bousselham’s demise in May, the investigation has only been addressed by the judge to “the alleged damage to the telephone card and other details, all of which have been considered unrelated to the objection of this piece by the Third Section of the Criminal Chamber.”