The Coalición Canaria councilor in the Cabildo and candidate for the Senate in this past 10N, Samuel Martín, has tried to get La Voz de Lanzarote to rectify the information published last Wednesday about his court summons, but everything he has sent since then only confirms what was published in that news.
First, Martín sent a letter from his lawyer in which he began by denying having been summoned, only to end up acknowledging that he had received the summons. The next day, in a telephone conversation with this media outlet, his lawyer even suggested that he had not been summoned as an investigated party but as a witness, and to prove this, he sent the summons, but covering up the key parts that confirm in what capacity he will testify. On the one hand, he omitted the heading, in which he appears as the accused, and on the other, he also hid the final part, in which he is told that "he must appear accompanied by a lawyer of his choice" and that "otherwise, one will be appointed for him ex officio." And this is precisely what confirms his status as an investigated party, since witnesses do not go to testify with a lawyer.
In the official letter they had previously sent to this media outlet, they had not even tried to deny that his summons was as an investigated party, even though that would be the most relevant thing. However, later by telephone - and without leaving any written record - they did try to get La Voz to rectify its information. And when this media outlet asked him to prove it, his lawyer sent that partial photo of the summons. Only after a new request from La Voz did he finally send the complete document, although even then Samuel Martín's name still appeared crossed out in the heading, next to the word accused.
"Totally untrue", according to Martín, "as of November 6"
Regarding the letter in which he threatened to take legal action, what he essentially disputed is that Samuel Martín had not received the summons when La Voz published this information, which according to him made it "totally untrue". "As of November 6, no type of summons had been served in the name of Mr. Martín Morera", his lawyer begins by stating in the document sent to La Voz de Lanzarote. However, on the following page he acknowledges that the delivery of that summons took place on the 7th, when Martín went to the Courts after reading the news. At that time, and although Samuel Martín points out that the "allegations" published against him were "unfounded", he was notified of that summons that had already been ordered by the judge, but which apparently had not yet been delivered to him.
Despite the fact that at that time he was able to verify the veracity of what was published by La Voz, in his letter he maintains that the news was "untrue", apparently because he was not aware of that summons when the article was published. Furthermore, he maintains that "at no time during the proceedings is Mr. Martín Morera identified as a possible perpetrator of the events", when he himself acknowledges that he has been summoned to testify and when the documents to which La Voz has had access confirm that he was the person accused and that he will now appear as an investigated party.
The timing of the events
In addition, Samuel Martín also refutes other points published by La Voz that, according to him, incur in alleged "insults and slander", but that in reality do not even contradict the information published. One of them is that the events "did not occur in the early morning of May 24 to May 25, but specifically relate to events that occurred at 10 p.m. on May 24, 2019". In this regard, it should be remembered that what La Voz published is that everything happened "on the night of the 24th to the 25th", which coincides with the time indicated by Martín himself.
On the other hand, he also maintains that "there are not two witnesses but three" in the case. That is, one more than what La Voz published, which in no case would make the information untrue. Furthermore, in this case he also admits that this alleged third witness has not been summoned to testify in court, so at least for now he would not be part of the criminal proceedings opened in the Court of Instruction Number 3 of Arrecife.
Regarding the two witnesses to whom La Voz referred, he states that they have not yet testified in court, although he acknowledges that they did so in the National Police, which is where the events were reported, and then forwarded to the Court after finding evidence of a crime. He even refers to the content of those statements, to which he could hardly have had access if he were not part as an investigated party in these criminal proceedings.
"It is not recorded that they were witnesses to the placement of the fences"
"According to the statement in police headquarters, it is not recorded that the witnesses were witnesses to the placement of electoral fences before 10 p.m.", Samuel Martín maintains. The councilor and candidate is referring to the fences that were reported by the Socialist Party and that included attacks on the party and "an improper and illegitimate use" of its symbols, which is prohibited by the Electoral Law.
In this regard, what La Voz published is that those two witnesses pointed to Martín as the alleged perpetrator of the events. Specifically, the complainants maintain that these two people were working for the party and after seeing the fences that attacked the PSOE and reporting it to the Police and the Electoral Board, they were tasked with removing them. Then, according to their version, they met Samuel Martín in the area, who they claim rebuked them for removing those fences. Furthermore, they also claim that other people who were in the place told them that the one who had placed them shortly before was Martín himself.
For his part, the CC councilor emphasizes that these witnesses stated that they are "collaborators and supporters of the PSOE", which is already implicit in the statement they made. Regarding the alleged third witness to whom Martín refers, he points out that "he stated in police headquarters that he had witnessed two individuals removing electoral posters, and therefore he reported it to the National Police, without having been summoned to testify in court". That is to say, that in the criminal case it is not even true that there are, at least for the moment, three witnesses.
