The number two of the Ministry of the Interior during the Kitchen operation, Francisco Martínez, considers that the judge of the case has evidenced a double standard when resorting to the newspaper of Commissioner Villarejo to dictate his prosecution while he has despised the content of the same when it was to exonerate María Dolores de Cospedal, former secretary general of the PP, among others.
Fernández Díaz points to the PP leadership in the espionage of Bárcenas and asks that the investigation not be closed
In his appeal against the indictment, Martínez’s defense reproaches Judge Manuel García Castellón for referring to the commissioner’s diary as “mere annotations made by an under investigation”, and consequently ignoring “most of the content of such conversations by lack credibility ”, and then“ only the part of the ‘Mr. Villarejo’s agendas’ that harm ”the number two of the Interior in the first term of Mariano Rajoy is considered relevant. Martínez’s defense believes that García Castellón has acted according to “a preconceived idea and not the result of the tests carried out, as can be concluded from the existence of absolutely erroneous statements.”
In Villarejo’s agendas, between the multiple meetings with Cospedal, a materialized payment was specified through his chief of staff, José Luis Ortiz, also exonerated by the judge along with the businessman and husband of the former secretary general of the PP, Ignacio López del Iron. García Castellón alludes in his order to the “right of assembly” and adds that Cospedal in his statement denied payments to the commissioner “forcefully”.
Martínez’s defense adds that, in any case, he “completely agrees” with the decision to lift the accusation against Cospedal and his entourage. It contrasts with the appeal presented by Jorge Fernández Díaz in which Martínez’s immediate superior argues, through his defense: “It is clear that the origin of the Kitchen operation was neither related to nor affected the Ministry of the Interior. And it is obvious that the Mr. Bárcenas was the Treasurer of the Popular Party, not of the Ministry of the Interior “.
In his defense brief, Martínez criticizes that with the agendas in hand, the judge dismisses the requests for some proceedings that the parties have formulated or that the dismissal of the “political branch” of the Kitchen operation is agreed and its content is used to accuse him, despite the fact that they include statements that have been proven false, such as the allusion to a trip to Argentina that he never made or that was related to the then Citizens deputy José Manuel Girauta, the lawyer alleges. Martínez denounces defenselessness, among other reasons, because his defense has only been able to study Villarejo’s agendas for a month and a half compared to the year in which they were in the hands of Internal Affairs and the eight months that they have spent in court.
Martínez believes that another reasoning that is used to exonerate Cospedal should be applied to him: lack of interest in recovering documents that, or in the case of the general secretary of the PP, had already had access to them, or in the case of the number two of Interior, aspiring at the time to succeed Fernández Díaz, they did not affect him. “It is overwhelmingly logical that Mrs. Cospedal could have no interest in devising an operation to get hold of what she had at her disposal for months at the headquarters of the PP, but it is even more overwhelming is the logic that allows to affirm the absolute lack of any motivation, interest or concern, or remote, of my client in obtaining documents that could not affect him in any way and those who were directly affected could have accessed by being in an existing room at the headquarters of his party ”.
The complaint of the defense of Francisco Martínez regarding Cospedal and Villarejo’s agendas extends to the case of Ignacio Cosidó, who has not even been called to testify as a witness despite being the head of the Police at the time of the espionage of Bárcenas . Regarding Cosidó, Martínez’s lawyer fails to explain how his client can be attributed a “maneuver” for Bárcenas’ driver to join the Police as part of the payment for his services as an informant and it is ignored that the summons of the the opposition and access of those approved are signed by the then general director of the Corps.
The brief reiterates the need to question the members of the Police court who examined Sergio Ríos Esgueva and the agents who scored the physical evidence, included in the list of 198 people that Martínez’s defense includes in his brief and who they would have participated in one way or another in the aforementioned selection process.
The use of the agendas by the judge is reproduced, according to Martínez, in the case of Villarejo’s recordings, which his lawyer calls “desktop boastfulness.” However, the instructor uses them against the former number two of the Interior for alleged orders that he would have made to the commissioner and, nevertheless, ignores messages exchanged with the deputy director of operations Eugenio Pino in which, “spontaneously”, they expose the impossibility that actions that they have not committed are attributed to them. That conversation with Pino takes place when Martínez’s accusation is already suspected and they are on the mobile phone that Internal Affairs intervened.
Likewise, Martínez denounces, the magistrate has ignored statements of witnesses that favored him, such as that of the former head of the Coordination Cabinet of the Secretary of State, Diego Pérez de los Cobos, who stated that the reserved funds had his signature and Martinez’s and that only he verified that those documents justified the items delivered in advance the previous month. Martínez asks that the accounting of the reserved funds corresponding to the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 be incorporated into the cause, preserving at all times the identity of the confidants or any other sensitive data.
The defense of the alleged “coordinator” of the Kitchen operation affects the judge’s refusal to the multiple requests of the parties to continue investigating, arguing, among others, that all the agreed steps had already been carried out. “It is not true and the order must be revoked and the same practiced, which would motivate the need to agree on the extension of the maximum periods of instruction”, corrects Martínez’s defense to the judge. And it explains that, for example, a collaborator in the ministry of the Secretary of State could not testify as a witness the day she was summoned and the case has been closed without citing her again.
Martínez’s lawyer regrets that the judge rejected the request from Internal Affairs to ask Sitel to prove whether Fernnández Díaz had made a “mass deletion” of WhatsApp messages or that the same unit checked if his client used two orenadores and a pendrive that they remain sealed at the headquarters of the General Information Commissary. He also wants several testimonies from the Congressional commission of inquiry to be incorporated.