Los Ángeles Press documents an investigation by Guadalupe Lizárraga that began in 2014 and developed over twelve years.
Public dossier · The Wallace Case
The Wallace Case: A Public Dossier on Journalistic Appropriation and Missing Attribution in Sam Edwards’s Reporting for The Guardian
A documentary record of Guadalupe Lizárraga’s findings, their attribution in Sam Edwards’s reporting for The Guardian, and the prior dispute involving Ricardo Raphael.
01 / Criteria
How to read the evidence
02 / Evidence matrix
The investigation compared with the published account
Open each row to examine the comparison and its source. On mobile, the columns appear as consecutive cards.
01Authorship and reporting historyVerifiable difference
The Guardian credits the report to Sam Edwards. Lizárraga is mentioned once, without identifying her investigation or crediting Los Ángeles Press.
View source ↗02The identity recordsPublished documentary evidence
On 31 May 2014, Guadalupe Lizárraga disclosed two birth certificates for Hugo Alberto: the first as Hugo Alberto Miranda Torres and the second as Hugo Alberto Wallace Miranda. On 21 April 2019, Lizárraga disclosed the third certificate as Hugo Alberto León Miranda, bearing the surname of his biological father, Carlos León Miranda; Los Ángeles Press published the corresponding report on 22 April.
The Guardian attributes the discovery of multiple identities and birth certificates to David Bertet and ‘a colleague’. The linked publications establish that Lizárraga had documented and disclosed those records beginning in 2014 and completed the triple identity in 2019.
View the birth certificates published in 2014 ↗View the third certificate and biological father ↗03Sources and linksVerifiable omission
The investigation has publications, documents and a chronological collection accessible through Los Ángeles Press.
The current version does not link to Lizárraga’s investigation or to the Los Ángeles Press publications.
View source ↗04Ricardo Raphael and the circulation chainEvidence and judicial background
The linked publications and proceedings document the sequence denounced by Guadalupe Lizárraga: Ricardo Raphael’s prior knowledge of her investigation; access to and use of case files; the subsequent reformulation of findings and hypotheses; and the start of litigation over plagiarism and authorship in 2019. In 2023, Raphael answered the claim and filed a counterclaim for moral damages in civil case 727/2019.
The Guardian presents Raphael as a source and reports a hypothesis attributed to him, but does not tell readers about those prior publications, Lizárraga’s authorship claim or the judicial background concerning the provenance and use of the materials.
View the 2025 documentary reconstruction ↗Public record from 2019 ↗Litigation begun in 2019 and 2023 proceeding ↗Documentation published in March 2025 ↗03 / Timeline
A sequence for verifying provenance
Initial publication
Los Ángeles Press identifies this as the first publication in The False Wallace Case investigation.
Books, case files and plagiarism litigation
After documenting the circulation of her materials, Lizárraga began legal action over plagiarism and authorship against Ricardo Raphael in 2019.
Counterclaim for moral damages
In civil case 727/2019, Raphael answered the claim and filed a counterclaim for moral damages. This 2023 proceeding did not mark the beginning of the plagiarism litigation.
The Guardian publishes
Sam Edwards signs the report. Ricardo Raphael appears as a source; Lizárraga receives a generic mention.
Modification and correction request
The Guardian modifies the text on 23 July. Lizárraga formally submits and publishes her request on 24 July.
Verified status
No correction, editorial note, link or additional credit is visible on the public pages reviewed.
04 / Risk and reprisals
The cost of investigating the Wallace case
Complaints, protection requests and institutional records reconstruct the risk that has accompanied this investigation.
Since 2016, I have reported attempted kidnappings, threats, a home intrusion, the exposure of personal data, smear campaigns and attacks against my family. I have identified these events as reprisals linked to my reporting on the Wallace case and other investigations into serious human-rights violations.
The records establish that the events were reported and that several institutions were informed of the risk. They do not automatically establish who materially or intellectually ordered each attack.
Attempted kidnappings and threats
The Federation of Associations of Journalists of Spain publicly documented two attempted kidnappings and threats connected to the presentation of the Wallace case.
View the FAPE statement ↗Attacks against the author and her family
The complaints include a home intrusion, doxing, smear campaigns and the attempted kidnapping of my daughter on 5 October 2019. I also published the attacks intended to discredit my investigation and pressure me to alter it.
Protection and documented harm
Mexico’s Interior Ministry included me in the federal Protection Mechanism for Journalists. IACHR precautionary-measures request 55106 was filed in 2020. An FGR letter dated 7 October 2022 conveyed a recommendation for treatment for psychological harm arising from the reported events.
View the public background ↗What the records establish
The dossier contains complaints, the communication to the federal Protection Mechanism, the IACHR request and FGR letter FEIDT-EILII-C3-580/2022. A request is not itself a favourable ruling, and the psychological assessment documents harm rather than identifying those responsible.
05 / Source archive
The reports that began the investigation
Eight reports linked to their original publication. The sequence allows readers to verify dates, narrative development and the provenance of the findings.
Book series
Books from the investigation
06 / Documents
Complaints, background and preserved versions
The Guardian’s current report
21 Jul 2026 · modified 23 Jul
OPEN ↗02Formal request and public complaint
24 Jul 2026 · Los Ángeles Press
OPEN ↗03Original Spanish complaint
24 Jul 2026 · Los Ángeles Press
OPEN ↗04Unauthorised use of case files
10 Apr 2025 · published allegation
OPEN ↗05Distortion through three hypotheses
21 Jul 2025 · published analysis
OPEN ↗06Litigation involving Ricardo Raphael
Civil case 727/2019 · answer and counterclaim in 2023
OPEN ↗07Ricardo Raphael: Disinformation Is Not an Option
10 May 2019 · public record
OPEN ↗08Ricardo Raphael: The Cynicism of a Thief
16 Mar 2025 · author’s documentation
OPEN ↗07 / Methodology
How I document the appropriation of my work
This dossier forms part of my investigation and my journalistic complaint. It compares texts, narrative structures, findings, documents, credits, links, timelines and attributions to show how an investigation published by Los Ángeles Press since 2014 was reused without acknowledging its provenance or crediting my authorship.
I use the term plagiarism to describe the appropriation of my work’s structure, my findings and my narrative. The complaint is not limited to matching words. It examines the reproduction of the evidentiary sequence I built, the reassignment of findings to other people and the removal of Los Ángeles Press as the original source.
The dossier also includes the litigation over plagiarism and authorship that I initiated against Ricardo Raphael in 2019. In 2023, Raphael answered the claim and filed a counterclaim for moral damages in civil case 727/2019. The publications and proceedings document how he displaced my authorship and presented himself as an investigator of the case, with dissemination and legitimisation by corporate media. Every allegation is linked to the publication, document or procedural record supporting it. When a legal proceeding has not reached a final decision, its procedural status is expressly identified.
The review of The Guardian distinguishes between what can be verified in its public versions—text, credits, links, dates and editorial notes—and what the newspaper has not made public. This evidentiary caution does not turn my work into an external source or reduce the complaint to opinion: it defines precisely what each document proves.