Fact

On 28 October the credibility of one testimony was challenged. There are two accounts of the cutoff

Permanent link https://ceutafacts.org/en/fichas/testigo-credibilidad-20261028/

On 29 October El Mundo wrote that the prosecuting parties asked one of the Moroccan witnesses of 28 October whether he had worked for Moroccan intelligence services, and that he answered that he never had. On 28 October laSexta wrote that the judge cut off a questioning because the credibility of a testimony was challenged. The two outlets do not agree on why it was cut off. Neither account is a judicial assessment. This archive does not identify the witness.

• El Mundo: “He has never worked for the Moroccan intelligence services, he said.” The outlet adds that the judge “did not allow that line to continue and indicated that there were no indications of what was being insinuated.”
• El Mundo, on another question: the judge cut off what “was not the object of the case”. That is the explanation that outlet gives. It is not merged with laSexta’s.
• laSexta: “the judge cut the questioning short because even the lawyer for the city of Ceuta questioned the credibility of his testimony.” That piece presents the cutoff as a consequence of the doubts. It does not say the same as El Mundo.
• laSexta attributes to two Moroccan witnesses the statement that the gendarmes “were not stopping any bus or truck heading for the border”, and to a third testimony that the Moroccan authorities “favoured and took part” and “organised the groups”. That is testimony according to the outlet, not a proven fact.
• El Mundo and laSexta do not describe in the same way the person whose testimony was challenged. This archive does not reconcile the two versions or draw a verdict from them.