Julio Iglesias denies abuse as multimillion-dollar lawsuit circulates

Julio Iglesias denies accusations as multimillion-dollar lawsuit circulates

The accusation against Julio Iglesias has been made public without a formal complaint. That is the disconcerting fact: two women who worked in his home recount episodes of a sensual nature that allegedly occurred while they were employed at his residence, and they do so before the media —La Vanguardia, based on an investigation by eldiario.es— rather than before a court. No judicial complaint is on record. Without charges, without an investigating judge, and without a procedural timetable, the account circulates through the pages long before it reaches the courts, and that shapes everything that trinc.

The singer denies it in writing. The reader decides the rest.

The singer's statement and the accusers' version

Julio Iglesias responded with a statement flatly rejecting the facts: "I deny having abused, coerced, or disrespected any woman. Those accusations are absolutely false and cause me great sadness." The text, released by the singer himself, speaks of "evil" and announces that he intends to defend his dignity against what he calls a serious grievance. It is the only structured public defense he has put forward, and he does not go into episode-by-episode discussion.

Against that, the accusation rests on personal testimonies and on the former-employee status of the accusers. As far as is known, there are no recordings, medical reports, or direct witnesses that have been made public. That evidentiary void is the axis around which the discussion revolves: those who give credence to the account do so because of the coherence of the testimony; those who reject it, because of the absence of any verifiable support. The detail of how the employment relationship is described in those testimonies is, in itself, one of the points that has most fueled the rejection.

The counteroffensive: recordings, witnesses, and a figure of 200 million

The version that has circulated in parallel points to a legal counteroffensive. According to information spread on social media, the singer's lawyers would have recordings and witnesses showing that money was allegedly offered to women who worked for him to report sensual assault. Along the same lines, the compensation he would seek for damage to his image against eldiario.es and against the @iescolar profile is put at more than 200 million, according to the same message spread on social media.

Neither of those two things —neither the recordings nor the claim— is confirmed by a judicial source. As of the date of this discussion, they are announcements and leaks spread on social media, with no document to back them up.

Why does the delay in reporting fuel skepticism?

Because the time elapsed is the most repeated argument. Much of the rejection is not based on the singer's defense, but on the timeline: it is pointed out that there were ample opportunities to go to a police station and that it was not done. The recurring question —how many years did it take to report it— functions as an anticipated sentence.

To that is added economic suspicion. The most repeated hypothesis holds that there is a monetary incentive behind the accusations and that, without it, the number of complaints would fall. It is a hypothesis, not a fact: no one has proven a payment. The absence of any personal record —a message, a recording— has also been noted, in an era when mobile phones accompany even the last corner of the house.

The shadow of the smoke screen

There is a second, more diffuse front: the feeling that the matter serves as a distraction. The argument holds that the case is placed on the front page to cover up other uncomfortable issues and that, moreover, the figure is of no interest to anyone below a certain age. Hence the smoke-screen label, applied over and over without much development.

The mechanism has its symmetry: if the case is noise, the best response is not to engage. And yet, the volume of responses indicates just the opposite. The more it is insisted that the topic does not matter, the more space it occupies.

The diversion toward other scandals without evidence

Part of the conversation has drifted toward unrelated cases. Accusations about the Government's circle and other well-known names are repeated, presented as context and without any evidence to support them. It is disinformation circulating in parallel to the main case, and it is worth telling the reader the obvious: repeating an accusation does not make it true, and mentioning it in the same paragraph does not make it equivalent to those discussed here.

What is known today and what is not

What is verifiable at this point is little, and it is worth separating it from the noise. The account of two former employees has been published. A denial statement from the singer has been published. Versions about a multimillion-dollar lawsuit and about recordings are circulating, unconfirmed. No judicial resolution is on record, not even the start of a proceeding.

Everything else —the degree of credibility, the role of the media that publish it, the timing of the leak— is interpretation. And on that, what part of the rejection responds to the substance of the case and what part responds simply to the fact that we no longer believe anything?