Judge Adolfo Carretero agreed to prosecute former accused Iñigo Errejon on charges of sexual abuse against actress Elisa Muria. This is as stated in the document that has been directing us to do the same since the Secretary of Justice No. 47 in Madrid. After Hechos’ report, the judge said, “In the absence of Hechos’ direct testimony and relying on some testimony of reference tests and expert tests, the main evidentiary sign is a declaration of harm.” Errejon’s defense attorneys announced to this newspaper that they intend to appeal Carretero’s decision.
Mr. Carretero, whose sharp interrogation of Mr. Muria on the day of the declaration has attracted the attention of much of the feminist movement, decided to send Banquillo to Mr. Errejon this summer, arguing that “there is no need to carry out a complete examination, but the possibility of a conviction cannot be completely excluded, that is, a pardon is inevitable, and some minimal evidence is enough.” In this case, the judge has argued that it is not up to the judge, even in sentencing court, to decide whether the actress’ version or Erewhon’s version lends credibility. “Procedures cannot be archived in this case because the evidence exists and has not been completely distorted by versions of the investigation, experts and documentary examination. It is absolutely unfortunate that the judge’s instructor replaces the judge’s role in this case.”
Meanwhile, Mouria’s lawyer, Alfredo Arjén, declared to Barron’s immediately after reading the case: “We received this report with pleasure. Elisa believes more and more in justice, even though her path was long and tedious, and the worst thing is that most of the time she did not forget that Nadi believed in her.” He then emphasized that the instructor considered his statement to be a fundamental test. “His report succeeded in convincing the judge that he was not particularly an advocate of feminism. And he believed it because the tests showed that the statement was sufficient, even if he knew the profile of the type of judge and that profile was outdated.” “Now is the time to create a society, and that is what is right for society,” he added.
At a key moment, Mr. Arjen is referring to Judge Carretero’s harsh questioning of Mr. Mullier, the video of which was filtered so that half the country could see the instructor’s deferred questions and comments that infuriated large sections of society, especially the feminist movement, and forced the opening of an investigation into the instructor’s performance of his duties, which had been archived a month earlier. “I was very drunk, are you okay?”, “Did I say ‘déjamé en pass’?”, “I don’t understand that you didn’t make the gesture”, or “I was a woman who is used to dealing with the public, so why can’t you decide that these conditions are unacceptable?” were some of the questions and comments that faced the actress.
It all happened on a September night in 2021. The two attended a party together, and according to Mulia’s testimony, the 40-year-old politician sexually assaulted her without her consent when she got into an elevator, and then she ended up at his house, where he was raped at the door and repeatedly touched without her consent, leaving “his virile members” excluded. The two then drove to Mr. Erewhon’s house and began to have sexual relations, at which point she became angry at Mr. Erewhon’s behavior and accused him of making her uncomfortable and raping her.
As the judge noted in the case, the three possible crimes against sexual freedom of an ongoing sexual nature were created after she attended a book launch by Mr. Errejon (a politician who attended). Anyway. From a few years to the future (September 22 of the same year, at the National Academy of Arts in Madrid). The encounter where he is, suppresses the victim and says, “I will always maintain the right attitude.” Until then, the two did not know each other personally, although they had been exchanging messages for a year through the social network Instagram and the instant messaging app Telegram. After finishing her public performance, she was invited to go with her actress friends to a party celebrating on the floor in Madrid.
The lecturer recalled in the record that the primary evidentiary sign was the declaration of “harm,” resulting in three basic aspects supporting the reliability of his testimony. “His declarations are essentially consistent,” but although he recognizes some lagoons on the door to the residence as if there were no plagues, he considers them “secondary details.” “The delay in filing the complaint by the Supreme Court is a recorded date, but I don’t think it’s false,” he says, referring to the three years it took for the complaint to be filed. Additionally, Carretero said Mulia testified that she took the time to do so “out of fear of the defendant’s character and only after seeing other women commenting on similar stories.”
Furthermore, Carretero believes there is no credibility left in the fact that the actress reported these events in the media, “including changes in her compensation.” Pues, señala señala en el auto: “There is no deficien in the courtroom, no acts that threaten democracy.” The judge also considered the credibility of the testimony that she had continued some “private” conversations with Mr. Errejon after the denounced incident, explaining, “It is unfortunate that it is often the case that abused or battered women continue to have contact with their abusers, but this is due to psychological dependence or purpose.”
Meanwhile, Errejon’s defense lawyers have warned that Errejon will appeal, regretting that the judge “justifies in an incomprehensible way the inconsistency of Mrs. Mulia in the police and judicial headquarters, distorting the requirement that there be no incredible tenacity, tenacity and perseverance in the conviction.” They also add Errejon’s defense, which, according to them, “ignores what was declared at the guidance stage and by impartial witnesses who were present at the festa, and is only supported by the testimony of parties (Elisa Mulia’s family) who were not present at the same time, as proposed by the plaintiff.”
The former national government official and co-founder of Podemos abandoned politics in October 2024 after reports of inappropriate behavior towards multiple women came to light. In a statement, he said he was immersing himself in a “personal and psychological support process” and acknowledged that he was “on the brink of conflict with the person” and announced his departure from the case. “The rhythm and way of life of the first political line eroded my physical health, my mental health, and my emotional and emotional makeup over the course of a decade,” he added. A few days later, Mulia filed a complaint citing an episode of sexist violence she suffered at the hands of a politician three years ago.
About The Author
