Alberto Domarco, the resident of Madrid who sat Íñigo Errejón on the bench accused of having kicked him, has appealed to the Provincial Court for the acquittal of the deputy from Más País because he considers that the judge did not correctly assess the evidence that was your disposition. He maintains that “attention to all reason to consider that someone can ‘invent’ that he has received a kick” while it is more plausible in his opinion, that the defendant denied it.
The appeal, to which ABC had access, reports the acquittal issued by the Investigating Court number 16 of Madrid, which concluded last month that the versions of Domarco and Errejón (and their respective witnesses) were so contradictory that the only thing that what could be considered proven is that on the night of May 2, 2021 they met in the Lavapiés neighborhood, the first asked the second for a selfie and the latter refused.
He acquitted the deputy when he did not see evidence that, as the complainant maintained, he kicked him in the scuffle for the photo that they did not take together. For the judge, it is “obvious” that one of the parties is lying, but there is not enough evidence to know what happened and thus discover which of the two is missing the truth.
For this reason, the resource emphasizes that the complainant’s story is plausible because “it is not that hours later and after reconsidering he decides to report the kick, inventing a version” but that “as soon as he receives the kick he contacts the Forces and State Security Corps, first by phone and then in person” by informing them.
“In this case, we find an indication of veracity, such as the fact that after receiving the kick from Mr. Errejón, Mr. Domarco informs the Police of the reality of it with practically no solution of continuity,” alleges the appeal, to maintain that this sequence of events was not taken into sufficient consideration when issuing an acquittal.
Along the same lines, he recalls that Domarco has always maintained a single version of the events and defended it at the trial in a “coherent” way with the one he had offered at the police headquarters first and later during the investigation. “He does not have and has not had any reason or cause for not telling the truth,” states the resource, to argue that “the credibility of the complainant’s testimony is absolute since in the first place, he has nothing to gain or lose and what denunciation is a crime of aggression”. Meanwhile, he adds, in front of him is Errejón, “who has no obligation to tell the truth and who has only stated once before the Judicial Authority how the events unfolded.”
Thus, he points out that “the denouncing Mr. Errejón was untrue in his statement at the trial, since the reality of the kick is not only proven by the three statements with legal warnings made by Mr. Domarco, but in another series of objective data”, among which the complainant’s witness stands out, who accompanied him that night and who, he says, has nothing to gain or lose either. In parallel, he questions the version of the deputy’s witnesses, who coincided “100%” with his account and who, according to him, would have an interest in lying during the trial.
“Attentive to logic and reason, to affirm that it is not credible, or at least not absolutely credible, the version of a complainant who, as soon as the events occur, calls the Police by phone, when the Police arrive, he tells them how they have been the facts, immediately afterwards he goes to the Commissioner to denounce the facts and subsequently twice ratifies before the Judicial authority and under the legal warnings how the facts happen, ”he adds.
2
