The Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office has appealed the end of the Kitchen case investigation with a harsh writing in which it charges Judge Manuel García Castellón and even insinuates that it is shielding the PP by agreeing a “surprise”, “extemporaneous” and “no adjusted to the law »that leaves María Dolores de Cospedal out of the case,« as if a cordon or an unacceptable red line had been established »
In the letter, to which ABC had full access, the prosecutors point out that “they want to artificially delimit the plot within the scope of the Ministry of the Interior”, when the fact that it was executed by police officers “with the knowledge and protection” of Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz and its number two, Francisco Martínez, «does not imply that the possible responsibilities outside this area, specifically, the President of the Government and the leaders of the PP are not the object of the procedure.
In this sense, remember that «in addition, It is not the first time in the course of the proceedings that elements appear that would converge in a possible responsibility of the Prime Minister“And recalls that from Villarejo’s audios, the Internal Affairs Unit preliminarily identified him with the nickname” El Asturiano, “whom he reportedly reported through an intermediary.
Precisely, the Prosecutor’s Office had asked the judge to investigate the telephone numbers with which, according to Villarejo, I directly informed Mariano Rajoy of the future of Kitchen. One of them was recognized as belonging to the Popular Party. They wanted a legal representative of the formation to come to identify which member it belonged to, but the request, for the purpose of the investigation, was rejected.
«It seems that this step is not wanted»
«What it seems is that this step does not want to be taken, there is a resounding refusal to continue investigating in that direction, as if a cordon had been established or unacceptable red line that could not be crossed in the investigation», Say prosecutors in relation to the supposed political leg of the Kitchen. And they focus on the exoneration of Cospedal.
They point out that when the judge questioned Martínez, who was called to the case before her, “Inexplicably” he did not ask him about the references he made to the knowledge of Cospedal in the WhatsApp conversations that were intervened, “and there are not a few.” For the same reason, she criticizes that in the order for which she was finally cited as a defendant, “highlights the clamorous preterition of those documentary sources that reflect their participation in a direct and material way in Kitchen ”.
Cospedal’s explanations “are not credible”
For Anti-Corruption, the dismissal in her case and that of her husband is not consistent with the situation of the investigation. To begin with, because he understands that none of the indications that led to Cospedal’s summons have been diluted and “less” after his statements in court, which “are not credible”,
«Are openly contradictory with those made by his own chief of staff “and” they do not sympathize either with the content of the annotations on Villarejo’s agenda. ”
“It cannot be ignored: the investigated Cospedal would have met with Villarejo at the initiative of the first and for the purpose of receive information on the risks that the statements and, above all, the documents could represent for the PB compromising for the party that Bárcenas could have, “says the letter.
But for prosecutors there are more grounds for appeal. As the former Director General of the Police Ignacio Cosidó or the one who was number two of the UCAO, Mariano Hervás, has not been cited as investigated, despite the fact that the first one was pointed out by another defendant and the second there are many annotations in the agendas.
The false priest and the other «K» of Kitchen
It also remains in his opinion to clarify whether the assault on the Bárcenas’ house at the hands of
a man armed and disguised as a priest in 2013 It had something to do with it, and for this you need a forensic report from the National Court that has not yet arrived and find out why he received visits from police officers and lawyers in prison and where the money that each month entered his jail account came from . “It cannot be ruled out,” they point out.
Finally, they point out that there is a lack of procedures to clarify whether other Kitchen collaborators collected reserved funds and it was necessary to officiate to the National Police. Likewise, they had asked for new statements from already accused to try to clarify what it was that Bárcenas stole and where it could end.
Without it, prosecutors say, «The illicit police operation or, if it is proven, political, known as Kitchen it would have fully achieved its objectives. ‘
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism