It dismantled the catalog of suspicions, inferences and prejudices contrary to the presumption of innocence accumulated in the previous phase of the proceedings, that of the investigation of the controversial Ángel Hurtado. It was a mere “work of fiction,” as judge Andrés Palomo’s famous dissenting exculpatory opinion characterized in an appellate incident. This is why the Supreme Court now has a great opportunity to restore the truth of the facts and, therefore, the credibility of the judiciary.
The hearing was crucial because the accusations did not provide any evidence, neither dubious nor indubitable, that García Ortiz himself revealed any secret; nor did he give the order to his subordinates to do so; nor solicited, suggested or advised anyone to do so. A resolution without proof of accusation is less than a chicken without a head. Go little. Perhaps a few trembling steps poorly placed in a puzzle of curious clues only in detective novels.
Even more. The hearing was new because the discussed density of the accusations was diluted like sugar in water: they didn’t add anything new. The dean of Madrid’s lawyers had to withdraw from the initial invective that the information note from the Prosecutor’s Office on the tax infractions of Alberto González Amador era the revelation of the secret, when already in March the Chamber had established that it “did not constitute a crime”. And Amador’s squire, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, the man of his girlfriend, the president of Madrid, came to recognize that his word was worth zero, since it did not respond to reality: he was not a “notary”.
On the other hand, defense and independent witnesses provided new exculpatory data and professional assessments. They have eroded the fragile evidence into mere hypotheses.
It thus became clear that the Attorney General’s “frantic” search for elements to prepare the information note aimed at defending the rigor of the prosecutor, not at revealing secrets. Its seemingly cumbersome telephone and telematic deletion was expertly explained with increased needs for protecting data relevant to society on a regular and regular basis; so as not to “hide” the traces of his wickedness. And the journalists provided new physical evidence and details about it in discussions with the accusers: they showed that there was no revelation of secrets, because the essence of the Amador case was already known, by them and by many others, before it reached García Ortiz.
To pass your revalidation with distinction, it will suit the aura of the Supreme Court that its rectification of what has been done is forceful. Without loose ends that can obscure the clarity of what is clear.
