Person whose identity and age are not specified Investigated by the Murcia Court of Inquiry to have child pornography In his objection to the judgeship, he claimed the following: Files containing pedophile content were downloaded on your computer “unintentionally”.
National Police Technological Crimes Brigade Records containing child pornography were found on the suspect’s devices. In particular, there were six videos The total seized material covers four terabytes. The investigator is counting on exactly this: He assures that what he has is mostly pornography and that videos featuring minors are downloaded spontaneously.
In particular, “downloads may vary depending on the program used” “automatic”. For this reason, the person’s defense lawyer insisted: your client “did not have the ability to check all downloaded material”so he “could not check its contents until it was finally downloaded.”
In the appeal document, the issue goes so far as to highlight that “accidental downloads of child pornography are entirely common.” Along the same lines, he argues that “search words can lead to misunderstandings.”
The man’s lawyer insists that the case should be archived, but this is not shared by the Prosecutor’s Office or the Court.
Thus, the suspect’s lawyer emphasizes that he is the one. He wasn’t aware of what was on his computer until he turned it onand in no case distributed the material.
On the other hand, during the teaching phase He requested the preparation of an expert report a report on evictions that was “not adjudicated by the court.” Therefore, the defender emphasizes that he requested this document and that the investigated person “will present it to justify the version he defends.”
The lawyer “insists that the case should be archived, something that is not shared by the Prosecutor’s Office, given the objective existence of the seizure of pornographic videos.” “There will be rational indications of guilt.” by the suspect.
Instruction Court No. 8 of Murcia I have already rejected the objection Later, this person went to the District Courthouse and his defense was presented. Third Division court where rapporteur is a magistrate Judge Juan del OlmoHe also rejected his request.
Will be heard at the oral hearing
In rejecting the appeal, the District Court stated that there were “reasonable indications of guilt” in the behavior of the person under investigation. “It is clear that the defense is trying to weaken the defense with its legitimate and proper stance. multiple incriminating evidence was collectedeven thanks to the expert evidence he will present (without his contribution being recorded before the Court of Inquiry), will strengthen the version supported by the client and shall exclude the provisional provision of impeachment formulated against him,” he says.
Source: Informacion
James Sean is a writer for “Social Bites”. He covers a wide range of topics, bringing the latest news and developments to his readers. With a keen sense of what’s important and a passion for writing, James delivers unique and insightful articles that keep his readers informed and engaged.