The Marta Calvo case is once again in the spotlight as new procedural moves unfold. The participants recently filed two separate briefs with the High Court, delivering one after another, while also appealing against the counsel for Jorge Ignacio Palma Jacome, who has been alleged as a serial offender in these cases. The appeals sought relief for Palma Jacome, with the defendants arguing that their client should be acquitted. A core issue raised is the presumption of innocence and whether the evidence has been assessed adequately. The High Court must adhere to the law, recognizing that jurisdiction rests with the trial court, the people’s jury, and the presiding magistrate. These bodies determine the proper application of evidence and the appropriate verdict. The recent filings underscore a insistence that legal standards be strictly observed throughout the process, avoiding any steps that might undermine due process.
A notable point in the defense’s argument, presented by Juan Carlos Navarro on behalf of two of the deceased victims, Lady Marcela Vargas and Arliene Ramos, together with six of the eight survivors, centers on the absence of binding case law cited in the current proceedings. Navarro’s line of reasoning before the High Court emphasizes procedural and legal gaps that, in his view, bear on the legitimacy of the charge framing and the jury’s capacity to render a verdict consistent with established jurisprudence.
Both the defense and the statements from Marta Calvo’s mother, Pilar Jové, along with the arguments advanced by Baltasar Garzón’s former judicial circle through the Ilocad office, and the contributions from the other two survivors represented by lawyers Isabel Carricondo and Vicente Escribano, reiterate their stance. They maintain that the presumption of innocence remains intact and that the evidence presented at trial substantially supported the jury’s conclusions about Palma’s alleged involvement in all the alleged offenses. The defense contends that the evidence, properly weighed, pointed to Palma’s guilt as charged, forming the basis for the jury’s verdict, rather than depriving the defendants of due process.
Additionally, the survivor defended by Isabel Carricondo has underscored in correspondence with the court and through Ilocad’s advocacy that the appeals and related filings raised by Jové and Navarro have been part of a broader effort to scrutinize the evidentiary record. The intent of these communications, as described in the appeals, is to ensure that the legal standards governing protection of the accused were consistently applied and that the trial court’s determinations remained aligned with the evidence presented at trial, as well as with the applicable rules of procedure. This ongoing dialogue highlights a commitment to transparency in the judicial process and to upholding the rights of all parties involved.