Documentarily established
Repeated contacts
The judicial statement of the on-site caretaker/manager and JDAM's later statement agree that several calls and visits occurred before 7 June to obtain access to the complex.
SUN PARK · PRE-7 JUNE 2018 PREPARATION · ANONYMISED WITNESS
A person with keys and operational knowledge of the complex was approached repeatedly before the material takeover.
The record combines a contemporary report of 26 February, a documented visit, a certified 22 March call and later judicial statements. The call contains direct proposals for access, staged concealment and future work. The evidence located does not, however, prove that the on-site caretaker/manager carried out those proposals: his judicial statement records earlier refusals and his exclusion from the complex on 7 June.
Established by the call
Access and cover proposal
The speaker attributed to JDAM proposes being allowed in and then staging the appearance that he had slipped inside without the caretaker/manager's cooperation.
Mandatory counterevidence
Earlier refusals
The caretaker/manager stated under a duty to tell the truth that he refused entry without authority and that, on one occasion, the Guardia Civil did not permit access.
Not established
Implementation
No sufficient evidence has been located that he handed over keys, facilitated the proposed March entry, participated in the 7 June takeover or later received the offered work.
Controlled conclusion: the preparation and proposal are documented. Effective cooperation by the on-site caretaker/manager is not. Brief answers such as “yes” or “okay” must not be converted into proof of later conduct.
Why the role mattered
The 25 June 2018 statement describes the witness as the sole maintenance worker then present, with several years' knowledge of the hotel and keys to common areas and other parts of the complex. That position enabled him to observe movements, open or refuse access and witness security changes. This page uses the functional description “the Sun Park on-site caretaker/manager”; it is not presented as a formally certified job title.
His identity, telephone number, email, identification details and other personal data are excluded. Anonymisation protects a potentially material third-party witness and does not alter the preserved original records.
Verifiable chronology of contacts and counterevidence
Contemporary report
An email sent that day records that the caretaker/manager had reported a call attributed to JDAM requesting keys and cooperation to obtain access. It is contemporary notice evidence, but remains a report of what the caretaker/manager said—not a recording of that call.
Security request
A document from the insolvency administration to the Owners' Community presidency requested measures against unauthorised access. Its wording and relationship to later conduct require literal comparison; it was not by itself a possession order in CAM's favour.
Visit and refusal
The record describes a visit with accompanying persons, a request to enter and the caretaker/manager's refusal. His later judicial statement describes an ownership assertion, a threat to call the Guardia Civil and the officers' refusal to allow entry after reviewing competing documents.
Certified call
The Burovoz/Logalty certificate fixes a call lasting about 7 minutes and 31 seconds, from 14:39:22 to 14:46:57 CET. The certificate supports the technical call record; personal attribution of Speaker 1 comes from the wider filed evidence and a voice-authentication route must remain available if disputed.
Material access shift
The caretaker/manager stated that from that date a security guard prevented him from entering his workplace and that tools, machinery and a computer remained inside. His statement does not place JDAM physically present that day.
Caretaker/manager's judicial statement
It records the earlier contacts, his refusals, key control and later exclusion. It is the principal counterevidence against presenting him as a proven collaborator.
JDAM's judicial statement
JDAM admitted several calls and visits aimed at obtaining access, but denied asking the caretaker/manager to hide visits or contacts. That denial must be compared with the literal content of the certified 22 March call.
What the 22 March call proposes
The transcript identifies the participants only as Speaker 1 and Speaker 2. Surrounding records attribute Speaker 1 to JDAM; the technical certificate should not be described as independently identifying that person.
Discreet access
“you let me through and play dumb”
A proposal to permit entry while pretending not to know.
Staged cover
“We can put on an act”
A proposal to pretend that the caretaker/manager tried to remove the visitor.
Later account
“if they turn up, we'll say that I slipped in”
The agreed outward explanation would be that entry occurred without cooperation.
Title and possession separated
“I am already the owner” / “when we take possession of the complex”
The same discourse asserts present ownership and contemplates future possession. The call does not decide the legal validity of either position.
Community invoked
“we already have an agreement with the Community”
This proves that an agreement was invoked; it does not prove the body, date, vote, text, scope or validity.
Future exclusion
“there are going to be security guards at the door… nobody is going to get in”
This anticipates an access-control regime that must be compared with security records and the events of 7 June.
Economic offer and influence
The speaker discusses future maintenance and surveillance work and suggests that the “intelligent” position would be not to create difficulties if the caretaker/manager wished to obtain future projects. The call documents the proposal; it does not prove acceptance, contracting or payment.
The judicial contradiction that the primary record must resolve
JDAM's account
He admitted repeated calls and visits seeking access but denied asking the caretaker/manager to conceal visits or contacts.
Call content
The certified-call transcript contains express proposals to allow entry, “play dumb”, stage an attempted removal and later say the visitor had “slipped in”.
Correct reading: the contradiction bears on credibility and pre-event preparation. It does not automatically make every 7 June act criminal, identify every participant or prove a global criminal agreement.
What remains open
- Complete technical preservation and validation of the native audio, certificate, original email, headers and signatures.
- Expert voice authentication if Speaker 1's attribution is disputed.
- Documentary identification of “Cori” and any other intermediary mentioned.
- The text, body, attendees, votes and scope of the claimed “agreement with the Community”.
- Call, visit, CCTV, key, guard, locksmith and contractor records from February to June.
- Evidence whether the 22 March proposal led to an actual entry or remained unimplemented.
- Later contracts, invoices or payments capable of testing whether the maintenance or surveillance offer materialised.
- A property-by-property map of the authority invoked and material control exercised on 7 June.
Publication rule: proposal, conversational acknowledgement, corroborated conduct and legal conclusion remain separate categories.
Source families reviewed
- The contemporary 26 February 2018 email and later attachments preserving the report.
- The 27 February security request and 1 March visit documentation.
- The native 22 March “Certificado Burovoz” email, technical certificate, preserved audio and derivative transcripts.
- The on-site caretaker/manager's judicial statement of 25 June 2018.
- JDAM's judicial statement of 24 July 2018.
- Later communications, reports and indexes used only as corroboration or leads, not replacements for primary sources.
The native sources remain unaltered; this page is a redacted public layer. Documented corrections and additional primary evidence are invited through the project's contact channels.