The defense of Jonathan Andic, led by lawyer Cristóbal Martell, has filed an appeal this Thursday, which Europa Press has accessed, requesting that the provisional prison order under bail be annulled and that the current precautionary measures be withdrawn. In the document, it is argued that the mark found in the area where the fatal fall of the founder of Mango, Isak Andic, father of the investigated party, occurred, could have originated prior to the events.
In the challenged order, the head of Court of Instruction 5 of Martorell (Barcelona) relies on a report from the Mountain Intervention Unit of the Mossos d'Esquadra, which includes the results of 10 simulations. These tests confirmed that, to obtain a mark on the ground similar to the one found at the point where Andic fell, it was essential to repeat the action "4 times in both directions," with forward and backward movements.
According to the magistrate's reasoning, the investigators concluded that to produce such a trace with the sole of shoes like those worn by the deceased, an intentional action was necessary, pressing the ground, so that "a single forward rub simulating a slip cannot generate a footprint like the one found on the day of the events."
However, the defense emphasizes that the police instructor himself already stated in his report that "it cannot be determined if this slip had already been made prior to the fall" of the businessman.
The appeal further criticizes that the officers returned to the scene of the incident "again and again," despite it being an area that was never cordoned off and which the defense considers contaminated and, therefore, unsuitable for conducting a reliable expert examination.
Relationship between father and son
Regarding the alleged disagreements between father and son mentioned in the order, the defense includes a large block of statements: those of Jonathan Andic's two sisters, those of Isak Andic's brother, those of a friend of the founder of Mango, his secretary, the head of services and staff of the family since 1983, and the CEO and current president of the company. All agree, according to the appeal, that the relationship between the two was good.
The document also alludes to the emails exchanged by the investigated party with his therapist, in which, since February 2024, "there is not a single reproach" between father and son, which, in the opinion of the defense, denies a climate of confrontation.
Change of mobile phone and trip to Quito
Regarding the alleged theft of Jonathan Andic's mobile phone during a "lightning" trip to Quito (Peru), the defense argues that it is not unusual or extravagant behavior for a fashion industry executive to travel to distant places for brief meetings, lasting only a few hours, which require their physical presence.
In relation to the theft, the appeal emphasizes that it is "not a strange circumstance" to suffer a robbery in the city of Quito: "It is enough to consult open sources on the statistics of thefts and robberies in public places."
The document adds that Jonathan Andic renewed his phone every two years and clarifies that, regarding the alleged deletion of the device, the statement is not accurate, as the Mossos limited themselves to indicating that "the backup of WhatsApp conversations was not recovered."
Forensic report and version of events
Regarding the conclusions of the forensic report, the appealed order highlights the absence of palmar injuries and that the victim fell feet first, thus ruling out a slip on a stone or a fall forward. The defense replies that the report does not mention a homicidal cause nor does it point to the intervention of third parties.
According to the multidisciplinary expert study provided by the defense, the injuries would be consistent with an accidental fall. Furthermore, it recalls that the Mossos stated in their report that they could not determine the causes of the fall or the participation of other people in the events that led to the death: "It is surprising that the appealed order ignores and sidelines this relevant conclusion of the investigation."
Regarding the alleged contradictions observed by the investigating judge in Jonathan Andic's statements—the one made on the same day as his father's death, December 14, 2024, the one on December 31 of that year, and the last one, before the judge, last week—in relation to his exact position at the time of the events, the defense maintains that "there is no modification in the account."
The appeal emphasizes that the sequence described by Jonathan Andic in the call to the Sistema d'Emergències Mèdiques (SEM) is "essentially coincident" with his subsequent statements to the Mossos. It maintains that he always stated he did not witness the fall, but only the last part of the body's slide, and that his statements contain no elements that could be interpreted as incriminating evidence.
"Social condemnation" and media pressure
Regarding the media coverage of the case, Jonathan Andic's defense denounces a "social condemnation as anticipated punishment" which, in their opinion, a State of Law must avoid, recalling that this is an investigation into an event that, in his case, would correspond to a trial by Jury Court.
The appeal also considers Andic's arrest last week and the images that were disseminated as a result of it to be "entirely unnecessary," an "information tsunami" which, combined with the order—which, according to the defense, was deliberately handed over to the media—would have led to an "anticipated social condemnation" that is difficult for the investigated person to bear.