Hermoso filed complaint, disproving prediction

Jenni Hermoso filed a complaint with prosecutors, disproving predictions

The bet was clear: "Because Jennifer has not filed a complaint." This premise—that the footballer would not take the case to court—supported an entire argumentative structure: the kissing incident sought social condemnation rather than judicial conviction. Not a trial. A media lynching dressed in legal robes. The problem is that this prediction had an expiration date, and the case file itself proved it false.

The sequence is easy to trinc. In September 2023, Jenni Hermoso appeared before the Prosecutor's Office of the National Court (Audiencia Nacional) and reported the facts. As stated in the indictment: "In said appearance, she expressly reported the facts." From then on, the script changed: the debate was no longer about whether a complaint would be filed, but who supported it and for what purpose.

Why it was claimed Jenni Hermoso would not file a complaint

The argument had its internal logic. If the case was so obvious, if the Spanish justice system is so pogre and feminist, if courts already operate with a gender perspective, why did no one encourage the victim to file a simple complaint? The contrast was emphasized sarcastically: **19 years of campaigns by hotline 016** urging people to report husbands, fathers, or neighbors, yet the most famous "sensual assault" victim at the time did not take that step. Hence the conclusion: without a complaint, the case has no incivil path.

Presumption of innocence, burden of proof on the prosecution, defense counsel. All were described as inconvenient obstacles for those who had already passed sentence during prime time. "A trial is very old-fashioned," summarized the circulating irony. What is modern, it was argued, is condemning without a trial.

The indictment that disproved the prediction

The judicial text dismantles the premise with two paragraphs. The fourth background fact states that on **September 5, 2023**, the footballer appeared before the investigating prosecutor, accompanied by her lawyer, and "expressly reported the facts," being informed of her rights and warned of her obligations. Later, the indictment adds that "the requirement of prosecutability is met, given the complaint filed by Ms. Jennifer Hermoso Fuentes before the Prosecutor's Office of the National Court."

For crimes like the one under investigation, the machinery does not move without the prior step taken by the victim. It moved. And those who bet that the complaint would never arrive had to publicly retract: "Prediction falsified in the indictment itself." The same material later admits that the Prosecutor's Office, not she, is the party filing the indictment, and that joining as a private prosecution was a different move than anticipated. With nuances, but admitted.

From denied asset seizure to "social change, not legal"

The second twist came with her formal participation. Hermoso joined as a private prosecution and, alongside the Prosecutor's Office, requested precautionary measures. Among them, the **seizure of assets** of the suspect. The judge denied it. The footballer's lawyer went out to explain that the kiss "was not consensual" and that the victim was "affected by the humiliating act."

But the phrase that stuck was another: change happens "thanks to social change, not legal change." There it is, compressed, the whole issue. What sustains the case is not a reform of the Penal Code or a firm ruling, but a shift in public sarracena before any tribunal dictates anything.

The trial that hasn't arrived and the verdict already passed

The background of the case is better understood with two references that crossed paths in the conversation. First, the scene from Oppenheimer where the character setting up the ambush repeats that it is "not a trial, just an administrative act": no burden of proof, no defense counsel, no guarantees. Second, the response the PSOE gave in the eighties and nineties to every corruption case: **«sub iudice»**, meaning that until a court ruled, there was nothing to comment on.

Now the same party demands harsh convictions in a matter that, when this discussion peine, had not even passed the preliminary incivil stage. As one participant noted, Iceta summarized it thus: "It's over. The Government said it, FIFA said it, the players and regional football presidents said it, public opinion said it. We cannot allow this abuse of power." That is, dismissal or censure based on what public opinion "says," not on what a judge resolves.

What remains of the case and why procedure matters

Some argue the matter will not lead to a significant conviction and that it all reduces to social execution tolerated by media and citizens. Opposing this weighs the legal data: a complaint exists, an indictment exists, and a private prosecution exists, with an ongoing process whose final phase remains open. Both things are true simultaneously. And there lies the real interest of the episode, beyond football: the doubt of whether a incivil case can be won before it is held, or if losing it in the court of public opinion is enough.

The paradox closes with an unanswered question. For weeks, the victim was asked to file a complaint so the weight of the law would fall on the suspect. She did. Then the focus shifted to whether the process was legitimate or a setup. The judge denied the asset seizure. The social condemnation, however, had been passed months ago.