Identity and age are not disclosed for the individual under investigation. A Murcia Court inquiry examines allegations tied to child pornography found on the person’s devices. In the challenged section of the defense, the candidate for judgeship asserts that files containing pedophile content were downloaded on the computer by accident and without intention.
Records from the National Police Technological Crimes Brigade indicate that material depicting minors was located on the suspect’s equipment. In particular, six videos were identified, and the total seized data amounts to several terabytes. The investigator contends that the evidence is overwhelmingly pornographic in nature and that videos involving minors appear to have been downloaded spontaneously.
The defense argues that downloads may depend on the software used and can be automated. For this reason, the client’s attorney maintains that the individual could not verify all downloaded material and could not inspect the contents until the downloads completed.
In the appeal document, the issue is framed as a common occurrence of accidental downloads of child pornography. The defense also notes that search terms can create misunderstandings and lead to false conclusions about intent.
The defense insists that the case should be archived, a position not shared by the Prosecutor’s Office or the Court.
Meanwhile, the defense emphasizes that the person did not knowingly possess or distribute the material and only turned on the computer at a later time.
During the proceedings, the defense requested the preparation of an expert report concerning eviction cases that had not been adjudicated by the court. The defender stresses that this document was requested to support the version he defends and to be presented when necessary.
The lawyer asserts that the case should be archived, a stance rejected by the Prosecutor’s Office given the objective evidence of seized pornographic videos. He argues that there are rational indicators of guilt that will emerge as the case progresses.
Instruction Court No. 8 of Murcia has already rejected the objection. Subsequently, the defense appeared before the District Court, and a decision was made by a Third Division magistrate, with Judge Juan del Olmo serving as the rapporteur. The court also rejected the defense’s request.
Will be heard at the oral hearing
In denying the appeal, the District Court found there were reasonable indications of guilt in the conduct of the person under investigation. The defense is portrayed as attempting to minimize the risk with a credible and legitimate stance, while multiple incriminating pieces of evidence were collected. Even with the expert testimony the defense plans to present, without prior recording before the Court of Inquiry, the court maintains that the prosecution’s account remains persuasive and supports the provisional imprint of impeachment against the suspect. The proceedings are set to continue with formal proceedings at the oral hearing, where the defense will have the opportunity to present its arguments in full.
Source attribution: Official records of the Murcia judicial process and statements from the District Court and Division magistrates involved in this case.