The offer was discarded once the experts recognized that they had no experience in electoral campaigns
MADRID, 18 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The judge of the so-called ‘Neurona case’ has rejected that the experts that Podemos linked to Vox make the report that he commissioned almost a year ago to determine if the 363,000 euros that the ‘purple’ training paid to the consultant correspond to the work carried out.
It should be remembered that on September 7, a company offered its services to carry out the expert opinion with which it is intended to determine how much the services that the workers hired by Neurona provided to Podemos during the campaign for the general elections of April 2019 cost.
Legal sources have confirmed to Europa Press that Judge Juan José Escalonilla has explained that he has ruled out the company’s offer once he acknowledged in court that he had no experience in electoral campaigns. Thus, the judge has stressed that by not having the necessary knowledge, it is not pertinent to take charge of the expert.
The decision of the head of the Court of Instruction Number 42 of Madrid takes place after Podemos requested that the offer be dismissed and that, in addition, it be investigated whether Vox – which exercises the popular accusation in the case – has tried to “influence ” in the procedure through the two experts.
Those of Ione Belarra told the judge that they had become aware of “relevant facts” that, in their opinion, “would explain the reason for the offer made by IP Experts Judicial SL.” As they defended, “far from being a spontaneous act”, it could “be orchestrated from the aforementioned popular accusation, given its links with the Vox political party.”
The situation takes place every time that Judge Escalonilla has spent months looking for a team of experts to take on the report he claimed. Last April, given the refusal of the previously appointed expert, the judge addressed a letter to the Interprofessional Union of the Community of Madrid and the Association of Professional Associations of the Community of Madrid to indicate to the Court an “expert trained to prepare the report”.
This report is the only diligence that remains pending in the investigation, aside from the report on which the Central Cybercrime Unit is already working on the emails of the co-founder of Podemos charged in this case, Juan Carlos Monedero.
Last July, the magistrate rejected a new extension of the term, considering that there were no more steps to take. This decision was appealed due to popular accusations and is pending a response from the Madrid Provincial Court.
If the judge’s decision not to extend the investigations is confirmed, it is expected that once both reports are submitted to the procedure, the head of the Court will decide whether to file or, in view of new evidence contained in said reports, resume the investigation.
The expert report in question must assess all the services provided by the workers hired by Neurona Consulting: the 48 videos made after strategic segmentation work, the 48 graphic designs made by Waldemar Aguado Butanda and the five images made by Vicente León Camú Astudillo , as well as the coverage of seven electoral events.
Already in January, the judge defended that the “existing discrepancies” between the contract, the invoices and the services provided by the Neurona consultancy to Podemos justified the expert report he commissioned.
According to the magistrate, the “inconsistencies” arise between the content of the contract dated February 27, 2019, the content of the invoices issued by the company Creative Advance Interactive Group SA, the invoice presented by the electoral coalition United We Can before the Court of Auditors and the work that is indiciarily recorded as actually carried out by the workers of Neurona Consulting.
In his opinion, these differences justify “the need to proceed to determine the price or cost of the services provided” by the Neurona workers to “determine whether they are compatible with the 363,000 euros plus VAT paid by the United We Can coalition based on said contract”.
