Cintia Rocho Testifies: Why Was Biedma a Possible ‘Elimination’ Target?

TVS News AI, editorially supervised, presents Cintia Rocho Testifies: Why Was Biedma a Possible ‘Elimination’ Target.

On November 24 at 10:15 a.m., Cintia Rocho is due to testify before the Audiencia Nacional. The summons was ordered in the Leire Díez case by the investigating judge Santiago Pedraz. Rocho is also known by the alias Celsa and is linked to a suspected drug clan from Badajoz.

The testimony concerns a specific point: Rocho told the Civil Guard’s Unidad Central Operativa (UCO) that former magistrate Luis Sáenz de Tejada had said to her that Judge Beatriz Biedma was “un puto grano en el culo” and that they had to “eliminarla.” She described physical harm to Biedma as the target of those words. Biedma is leading the investigation against David Sánchez, the brother of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.

According to reports, the Leire Díez case concerns an alleged organization that sought to sabotage judicial investigations involving the PSOE, the government and families of the prime minister. The possible organizers cited are Santos Cerdán, the socialists’ former organizational secretary, and former PSOE activist Leire Díez. These are investigative allegations, not a judicial conviction.

El País reports that the hearing has been scheduled for the final phase of the election campaign ahead of the general election on November 29. A possible threat against a sitting judge will therefore move into the center of an especially politically charged week.

What Rocho Is Expected to Say in Court

The UCO testimony is the core of the summons

Rocho became known through her witness interview with the UCO, according to sources. In a report drawing on her account, she said Sáenz de Tejada had described Biedma as someone who needed to be eliminated. According to her account, the statement was intended not only to cause political or professional harm but to inflict physical harm on Biedma.

Rocho is therefore expected to establish a connection between three elements: the alleged Rocho clan, former magistrate Sáenz de Tejada and a threat against Biedma. That connection, however, has not been established in court. It rests on Rocho’s account and is now due to be tested in a public witness hearing.

The case is not identical to another proceeding: Biedma has appeared before the Audiencia Nacional as a victim. She said there that she had felt threatened while leading the investigation against David Sánchez after becoming suspicious that she was being followed. She also said she had been told that Sáenz de Tejada had contacted Rocho.

In an audio recording of her statement to Pedraz, Biedma said: “Yo he metido en prisión a su padre, a su hermano, a su marido […] He tenido causas contra todos ellos.” She thereby pointed to the family and professional conflicts she associates with the former magistrate’s circle. Rocho’s interview is expected to examine whether this amounted to a specific threat against her.

The Testimony Is Circumstantial — but Not Proven

Two statements pit the former magistrate

Sáenz de Tejada denies the allegation. He told Pedraz that he had “nunca” spoken with Rocho. He also rejected the accusation that he had received instructions or payments from Leire Díez. He described the allegation as “bulo,” meaning a rumor. Sources close to the former socialist support his account.

The UCO nevertheless assumes in its report that Sáenz de Tejada spoke with Rocho. It bases this on a series of alleged telematic contacts between the two, meaning connections through social media. According to El País, the report contains no evidence that the alleged organization actually commissioned anyone to physically harm Biedma.

This is precisely where the witness testimony must be carefully separated. Rocho’s words may establish that she reported such a statement to the UCO. They do not yet prove that Sáenz de Tejada actually said those words to her. Nor would a proven threat automatically be equivalent to an order to carry it out.

Another factor comes into play: according to reports, the former magistrate was removed from the bench because of a conviction involving violent behavior toward women. For the current case, his past and possible proximity to the suspected drug environment play a role in the investigation. However, they do not replace evidence of the specific threat.

Why the Hearing Falls Five Days Before the Election

Political proximity rather than additional evidence

The summons follows a clear date: November 24 at 10:15 a.m. The general election is on November 29. There are five days between the two dates.

This proximity makes the hearing especially charged because Biedma’s investigation of David Sánchez has a direct connection to Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. The proceedings against the prime minister’s brother form part of a corruption and threat investigation that, according to investigators, also involves the government and the PSOE. Rocho’s account of an alleged elimination of the investigating judge can therefore attract attention beyond the narrower case.

The temporal proximity, however, proves nothing about the content of the testimony. It only shows that the hearing is taking place during a phase in which the political significance of the Leire Díez case is especially high. The legal assessment hinges first on something else: Rocho’s account will be weighed against that of a former magistrate who denies it and receives support from people close to Leire Díez.

What the Hearing Could Clarify in the Investigation

A potential key to contacts and instructions

The interview could show investigators how Rocho remembers the words documented by the UCO, whether the formulation “había que eliminarla” was actually used and how she understood the reference to possible physical harm. It could also clarify whether Rocho can provide information about further contacts or participants.

Until the hearing, the firm position must remain cautious: there is a UCO report that draws on Rocho’s account and assumes contacts between her and Sáenz de Tejada. There is also a denial from the former magistrate. The report contains no evidence of an order to physically harm Biedma. Nor is there any report that such an attack was carried out.

The interview on November 24 is therefore expected primarily to clarify a gap: if Rocho confirms the account and corroborates her description of the contacts recorded by the UCO, the allegation gains weight. If she remains ambiguous or contradicts the available information, the alleged connection would be considerably weaker. Until then, the testimony remains an account from the investigation whose examination begins on November 24.