Ponce reject Mellet and compare their voices with the recording that gave rise to the case Mercasevilla.
The former directors of Mercasevilla Fernando Ponce Daniel Mellet and have embraced this Thursday, "his right not to testify" for refusing to submit to the Commander of the Civil Guard in Seville to a test of voices so undoubted and compare them with those recorded in the recording where Mellet and Ponce allegedly asked two businessmen from Grupo La Raza, Rope and Pedro Sanchez de Rojas, buy aion kinah, Jose Ignacio, a commission of 450,000 euros to develop a plan for a catering school.
The legal representative of Daniel Ponce, Simon Fernandez, explained to Europa Press that two former executives have participated in Mercasevilla headquarters, where they were quoted at 10.30 hours with the two entrepreneurs mentioned, but have taken this decision to say there was "previous, tibia gold, reports which showed lack of due process."
The judge investigating the case Mercasevilla, Mercedes Alaya, who had requested an expert report of matching voices to the Department of Forensic Acustica Civil Guard in Madrid, I quote these four people after the Army, in an office rrred to the Court early last June, make sure that, once analyzed the, aika gold, recording sent, it beats the technical instruction in this department on the quality of evidence for use in comparisons of voices. "
In the note rrred to the Court, which had access to Europa Press, the Civil Guard sought, first, "the manifestation of the person making the recording hesitant with the greatest possible detail," all "in order to authenticate the evidence sent legal, "whereas, secondly, he believed that" to proceed to the taking of undoubted voices of stakeholders in an acoustically controlled environment, "why we requested that was cited to them for taking that voices "Under the technical supervision" of staff of the Department of Forensic Acoustics.
After that, the Alaya Mercedes judge issued an order dated June 17, 2010, in which waged counsel to the Judicial Police "to receive statement to the person making the recording hesitant to specify details as recording took effect or the environment ", agreeing that, then this statement is rrred to the Army, for the preparation of expert reports.
It should be recalled that during the hearing scheduled by the Jury Court Act which was held last 10th of March, the judge accepted the request made by the legal representative of the CP to conduct a forensic voice analysis recording dated January 27, 2009, although forensic science concluded that the recording had a "poor" for the realization of an expert report.