THE PROSECUTION RENAMES THE SOFTWARE

Two weeks after that appeal, in Bilbao, the public prosecution took the strangest step of the entire criminal case. In its brief of 17 October 2016, the Public Prosecutor's Office described the case's technology project as a "new technology under the name 'Mi Avatar' and the creation and maintenance of web pages for third parties" (A.24, A.11).

"Mi Avatar". The software audited by the SPRI, appraised at 1,778,000 euros and financed with European funds was called mildeseos.com — so it appears in the audits, in the administrative file and in the public internet archives. The name used in the indictment does not correspond to the project in the file.

The consequences of that name change are not cosmetic. Anyone wishing to cross-check the accusation against the official audits — to search for "Mi Avatar" in the GAUZATU file — would find nothing: the expert trail was disconnected from the criminal narrative. And on that disconnection the prosecution's thesis was sustained: that the project was, in essence, an invention of the accused. It is easier to declare a piece of software non-existent if you search for it under a name it never had.

The same brief, moreover, handled the case's corporate dates — 16-5-2012, 14-9-2012 — without drawing their consequence (DOC-0134). The prosecution did not ignore the file: it knew it, cited it and left it unconfronted.