The young women arrested from Santa Maria recount what they lived: "Who paid for your career? Don't let it go to waste"

PalmaThe defense of the two young women arrested for the graffiti on five real estate agencies in Santa Maria has asked the court investigating the case to challenge several points of the report prepared by the Civil Guard and to discard them as evidence or indications. Lawyer Josep de Luis also requests that, before resolving this matter, the two investigated parties be judicially heard.

The request comes after the Civil Guard attributed three alleged crimes to the two young women: continuous damage, damage to historical heritage, and membership in a criminal group. The police report has more than 116 pages and dedicates a significant part of the investigation to trying to establish links between the two detainees and the movement against the touristification, especially Menys Turisme, Més Vida and Arran Mallorca.

According to the Civil Guard's account, the authors of the graffiti would have acted "in a coordinated and premeditated manner" and would have followed a pattern that would coincide with the direct action manual disseminated by Menys Turisme, Més Vida. The Civil Guard also includes surveillance, security camera images, social networks, and objects it considers related to the events. The accounts of Maria and Aina Maria, to which ARA Balears has had access, offer another perspective on the investigation and on how their arrests occurred.

The first episode of Ramis's arrest occurs on a Wednesday morning. According to her account, she left home to catch the train to Palma to go to class. When she had crossed the sidewalk, a man who had not identified himself asked her if she was Aina Maria. She answered yes and the man informed her that she was under arrest. Ramis explains that she initially thought it could be a joke or a scam. The man showed her a Civil Guard badge and three more people appeared, two plainclothes men and a woman with a Civil Guard vest. They spoke to her about some graffiti in a BIC zone.

When she assured them she didn't know what they were talking about, according to her account, one of the officers replied: "We know everything about you, we've been following you for days." And he would have added that they had followed her on the train and that they knew what route she took. Aina Maria's account fits with one of the elements that appear in the police report: the surveillance prior to the arrest. The Civil Guard maintains that it had carried out surveillance tasks to confirm the identity of the people who appeared in the camera images.

That same morning, Maria had received a call from a landline number and, subsequently, from a mobile. According to her account, a person speaking in Spanish asked her to report to the Civil Guard in the Marratxí industrial estate. When she asked what it was about, they replied that it was confidential and that they would explain it to her there.

The young woman went to the industrial estate with a friend. As they were about to get into the van, a man appeared behind her and asked her to confirm her identity. When she replied affirmatively, he informed her that she was being arrested for the alleged crimes of continuous damage, belonging to a criminal group, and damage to historical heritage. The arrest therefore took place before she reached the police station. The activist explains that they put handcuffs on her and that she was taken to the police station in the Marratxí industrial estate.

When Ramis arrived at the Marratxí station, according to her account, an officer began to explain that they had her recorded with the other detainee and that they could see "their faces perfectly". She also spoke to her about a third detainee and asked her where he was.

The young woman explains that they took her fingerprints, read her rights, and informed her of the crimes she was accused of. When she asked for explanations about belonging to a criminal organization, according to her account, the officers replied that it was "a way of putting it because there were more than three of us". They also explained that the continuous damage referred to the fact that the graffiti had affected more than one real estate company. Along these lines, she explains that an officer identified as Tomeu (fictitious name) informed her that Morro was also detained.

One of the central points of both accounts is the agents' insistence on locating certain objects. Aina Maria explains that Tomeu told her that, if she wanted to avoid the situation "escalating" and be able to leave the courts soon, she had to "collaborate" and hand over anything that could be related to the crime. According to her account, they first asked her for the hammer and then for the spray paints.

The detainee claims that she denied having any. According to her testimony, the officer told her that, if she didn't help, they would have to go to her house to search it and he referred to the fact that her parents lived there. "You won't want to do that to your mother," the civil guard would have said.

Finally, the agents proposed that she accompany them to her house. They would not enter, as they told her, but would wait outside while she went in to look for the clothes she was wearing on the day of the graffiti. They specified that she should look for a black sweatshirt, black trousers, Nike trainers, and a balaclava. The young woman asked them about the trousers, as she didn't know which ones they were referring to, and the officer would have told her: "Any black tracksuit bottoms".

"We've just caught your friend"

While Aina Maria continued at the police station, Tomeu returned to the office, according to his statement, and informed her that they had just arrested Maria in Santa Maria, when she was with her friend who also knew her.

The agent asked him if the friend accompanying Morro had also been there on the day of the events and if there were more girls in the group. Ramis decided not to answer. "I don't want to answer," he explains he replied. Shortly after, according to the statement, he saw Morro handcuffed and crying in front of a room on the other side of the corridor. The agent who was with Aina Maria would have closed the door so she could not see her anymore.

Morro also recounts that moment from her perspective. During her stay at the Marratxí station, she received a call from her mother. The young woman explains that she started crying and told her that they had arrested her because she was accused of the graffiti on the real estate agencies. According to the statement, an agent interrupted the conversation and told the mother that he would speak with his daughter "at another time." The mother claimed that she had the right to know what was happening.

The clothes that had to match the images

After Maria's arrest, the two young women met again. According to their accounts, the officers again asked them for their "collaboration" and warned them that if they did not comply, they could spend the evening in the cells, separated. At that point, the two agreed to hand over the clothes.

When it was time to go to Santa Maria, the officers asked if anyone would be at their home or if they needed the keys to get in. The two were transferred together.

First they went to Maria's house and then to the house of Aina Maria's parents. According to the latter's account, an officer waited outside while she went in to look for the items they had indicated. The young woman explains that she took the first black hooded jacket she found, some tracksuit bottoms, and an orange scarf from the town's festivities because she didn't have a balaclava.

She also handed over some black trainers, very worn and stained with white paint. According to her account, her mother came out of the house crying and asked the officers when they would be released. One of the police officers replied: "Don't worry, madam, the mischief is already done" and told her that he thought they would be released that same afternoon.

"A safe place, without microphones or cameras"

For her part, Morro explains that in one of the conversations with a civil guard, the agent asked her if she was from Santa Maria and if she loved the town. "Very much," she assures that Maria replied. According to her testimony, the agent then questioned that she loved the municipality and at the same time "broke the town" by painting walls that were historical heritage. The young woman assures that she did not answer. This conversation is framed within the interrogations that, according to the investigated women, included questions about their relationships, their activity, and the people whom the agents considered linked to the events.

In the same vein, Ramis recounts a similar conversation with the same agent. Shortly after her arrival at the police facilities, who according to her statement was the same civil guard who had arrested her in Santa Maria, she introduced herself and explained to her again what she was accused of and why. Subsequently, she asked her colleague from the corps to leave the room and close the door.

Aina Maria explains that the agent assured her at the time that it was "a safe place", without microphones or cameras, and that she could speak with him because it "would not be recorded anywhere". According to her account, the civil guard also told her that he was "in favor of the cause" and that he too was bothered by so many tourists and not finding a place to put his towel when he went to the beach.

According to the detainee, the same agent was the only one who spoke to her in Catalan and asked her about S.C. and her brother. Aina Maria explains that she chose not to provide information about them. The conversation then turned to her personal and professional life. The young woman explains that, upon learning she was a teacher, he asked her if she already had the competitive exams or if she planned to take them.

According to her testimony, the agent warned her that to work in public service she could not have a criminal record and recommended that she think about her future. When she asked him if that arrest could end up generating a record, the agent, always according to her account, replied that if they did not cooperate and "things got very dirty", yes.

The agent would have given her the example of a friend of his who had passed the competitive exams for teacher in Ibiza and would have recommended that she worry about her future and stop doing "certain things". The conversation, according to Aina Maria's account, ended with a reference to the money her education had cost. "Because who paid for your degree?", she explains the agent asked her. The young woman replied that it was between her parents and her. According to her testimony, the agent replied that she should not "waste her parents' money", who had worked hard for her to have a good future.

The two accounts thus coincide in placing conversations with the same agent in which, in addition to questions about the investigated facts and about other people whom the Civil Guard sought to identify, issues related to her personal and professional trajectory were addressed.

Beyond the graffiti

The report by the Civil Guard dedicates a large and important part of its proceedings to establishing connections between the investigated individuals and the activism against the turistification. The investigators incorporate social media posts, photographs, surveillance, and other elements to support the hypothesis that the graffiti was the result of a coordinated action.

As previously reported by ARA Balears, one of the elements highlighted in the report is a banner with the slogan 'SOS Residents. STOP Overturisme' which was found at the home of one of the young women. The Civil Guard considers it an indication of her involvement with the movement against tourist overcrowding and relates it as 'proof' of a criminal act. The officers also consider relevant the coincidence between the modus operandi attributed to the authors of the graffiti and a direct action manual disseminated by Menys Turisme, Més Vida, facts that the defense questions as having probative value.

Given this police reconstruction, the lawyer has filed a written request asking the court to consider the validity of the report challenged and to declare the points raised by the defense illicit. The petition includes that these elements should have no 'probative and circumstantial' value and that, before resolving the issue, the judicial declaration of the two investigated individuals should be carried out.

The crux of the matter thus centers on the value of the evidence that the Civil Guard has gathered during the investigation and how it was obtained. While the report argues that the two young women were part of a coordinated and premeditated action, their accounts focus on the prior surveillance, the agents' insistence on obtaining objects and clothing, and the questions about other individuals allegedly linked to the events. The case will now have to determine whether the evidence provided by the Civil Guard is legitimate to support the accusations of continuous damage, damage to historical heritage, and membership in a criminal group, and what probative value the proceedings questioned by the defense hold.