this judge Valencia’s Penalty No. 18 acquitted five residents of Riola baptized as ‘cullera herd’ and accused of sexual abuse and another crime against moral integrity for allegedly harassing a woman leaving home Mareny de Sant Llorenç nudist beach in Cullerathey will do touched the hip and they would wait for him “Are you going yet? How beautiful you were naked on the beach… to fuck you!”as alleged by the prosecutor based on the complainant’s own statement.
The truths he asserted in his own time Upgrade-EMV, Media belonging to the same group as this newspaper, one15 June 2019 at 05:00when is the woman output Beach to the parking lotand now acquitted wooden walkway crossing the dunes between the beach and the parking lot. Prosecutor, who has already announced this will appeal against the acquittalhe stated in his petition, “taking advantage of the fact that when he reached the height of the accused, he was”. acting alone and together and with a sensual spiritthe aforementioned” and “Before making these statements, the woman, who had to pass between the defendants to enter the parking lot, accelerated her steps before one of the defendants could specify. who, touched her leg and hipso he got scared and quickly left another of the defendants lowered his pants and showed his masculine member And I’d say, ‘Look what’s in here for you. asked a couple for help.
The magistrate decided acquit five defendants because Doesn’t find the woman’s story believableduration yeah, she finds it okay with five guysdefended by lawyers Vicente Boluda Y Andres Zapataof the Zapata-Boluda office. In fact, the judge defends the credibility of the defendants on the basis of the fact that they deny the facts, which is certainly a very common thing among defendants in general.
Denying it makes them credible
So collect them all They denied that they directed the sentencess and the implied statements of the complainant, all acknowledging that it was true that D. had told him that he was better off in a swimsuit, dismissing other acts that violated the complainant’s sexual compensation, because when asked if someone had touched his ass or if someone persistently and persistently showed him his penis, this was not true. they said”.
On the contrary, when it comes to examining the woman’s story, he thinks there are contradictions that he deems necessary and that the Prosecutor’s Office deems irrelevant. Therefore, it is important for the judge to use different terms such as “donkey”, “gluteus” or “hip” when describing touching in the complaint in front of the couple in the polyclinic where the woman seeks help. After the events, she was treated in the complaint before the Civil Guard, during the forensic examination (which the judge did not take into account when assessing the evidence), before the Investigation Judge, and finally at the trial. Given the difference in terms, he concludes that the story is not fixed and permanent over time. He comes to the same conclusion because for the first time – the story in the police report – he said he didn’t know what they were touching him with, and later on, by hand. He also blames her for saying that, on one occasion, he saw “five men” and the other “he saw three and then two more” because of the different positions they occupied on the podium.
Same way he doesn’t think it’s appropriate for them to surround him on that wooden step, as the woman had been doing ever since she had asked the couple for help, because the judge guessed that the meter width of that architectural element made this impossible, and blamed her for not recognizing the accused who touched her hip, or saying that she had shown him. but it’s clear that he’s already personalizing these facts that describe the two men before the investigating judge.
Monolithic in denial
In addition, it silently recounts the story of the couple – especially the young woman – who the complainant asked for help and who witnessed the end of the incident. Both recalled that at the hearing, the woman came in “very scared and crying” and from the first moment she asked them for help, talked about being scolded, “touching or trying to touch her ass” and “we all thought thankfully”. We were in the parking lot.” The witness behind him at the hearing, “the group [de hombres] They laughed, joked, looked like they had been drinking, said disrespectful things to him”.
The five defendants, now acquitted, perpetuated a monolithic version from which they hardly deviated. They said they went to lunch “to celebrate the end of the campaign” and decided to go to the nudist beach after two p.m. to play a prank, one of them said when she reached her height. When she asked, “She was prettier in a bikini than in a dress,” that’s all if they didn’t have a TV instead of watching it on the floor.
Finally, the judge considers that their repeated statement “you were more beautiful than dressed in a bikini” is proven, but does not convict them of crimes against moral integrity, as in denying all other facts. The prosecutor added the final results.