The trial of the murder of Maria del Carmen Martinez, widow of the former president of Caja Mediterráneo (CAM) Vincent Hall, culminating this Wednesday in Alicante as it started. No changes, no last minute surprises. With a single defendant, the son-in-law of the victim, Miguel Lopez. With a strong legal dispute between the relevance of the evidence, that they are defending the prosecution and the private prosecution, and the absence of evidence, as argued by the defense, that in addition to heavily loaded against the police investigation. And with a similar argument, however, between the two parties. Differentiate the facts from the assumptions.

The jury has already gathered all the data to begin to deliberate. Its nine members have heard the final submissions of the parties. In the first place, the prosecutor, Joseph Llor, who has described the killing as “a horrible crime because it was for power, among people who had more money than most of the spaniards”. Llor asks for the sentence to 24 years for Lopez, “by signs”, such as, say, “endorse the Supreme Court”. And as it continues, must be done “when there is no other reasonable alternative”. The same reasoning has been used by the prosecutor to criticize the defendant has availed himself of the right not to testify. “If there are no signs,” he says, “should have stated”. The refusal to talk to the jury, infers Wept, “is a defense strategy to not put you in a compromising position”.

The prosecutor has reminded the power and profit motive that could have led to the events of December 9, 2016, the day on which Martinez was hit twice in the head while collecting his car from the laundry room Novocar, a dealership owned by the family Room. Bad family relationships, the influence of the defendant on the sisters Room, facing his mother and his brother, Vicente Jesus, by the group’s domain bequeathed by the father. The handling of firearms is the only defendant. And, above all, “the evidence more strong”, the aforementioned “to the preparation of the” crime scene”.


Two shots at point-blank range just with the life of the widow of the former president of the CAM, The defendant for the crime of the Room refuses to declare to be “psychologically fragile”

Holds the prosecutor that Lopez drove away to their employees of the laundry, gave the car to his mother-in-law personally, something that never did, according to witnesses, and took the mobile off “during the time in which the incident occurred”. “Various movements” of the defendant indicate, ensures Llor, “that I was looking for an opportunity” to commit the murder. The accusation is blunt, “the shooting occurred when Michael [Lopez] was in Novocar”. Hence, it is to judge him as the perpetrator of the shooting.

Discards as well Llor other hypotheses pointed out by the defense, as a possible theft, or the intervention of a hitman by conflicts of the main company of the group, Samar International, in their Latin american headquarters. And the same thing made by Francisco Ruiz Marco, counsel of the claimant, which defends the interests of Vicente Jesus Room. In your opinion, in this case, there are “two certainties”. The first, that “the defendant was the only person in the world that I knew” that day, at the time of the shooting, “Mari Carmen [Martinez] was going to be left alone in the laundry room, back to the dealer in the dark”. “There is not a hitman or thief who might know,” he added. The second, that “the last real person and identifiable to the one that was next to the victim when he still lived was the defendant.”

Brace Ruiz Frame his theory in the alibi, “the axis that guides all criminal action”. “Novocar is the only site in which the accused would have an alibi, since it was his place of work”, he stressed. “In any other part, the police would have asked where he was,” and there would be no response. The lawyer of the claimant has been recognized, as the prosecutor, the lack of evidence that point directly toward Lopez, especially, the absence of the weapon used in the crime. But it has been protected in the work of the investigating judge of the investigation. “If the judge had found irrefutable proof of the innocence of Miguel Lopez, we wouldn’t be here,” he expected.

The latest intervention has been the defence lawyer, Javier Sánchez-Vera. The defendant has also declined to exercise its right to the last word, but his lawyer has put into question the whole statement of the case. One by one, has been refuting all of the evidence on which are based the charges, of which he said are “four things”, which “cannot even be called evidence” and based in large part on “half-truths”. “When you mess up the investigation from the start, he can’t leave anything well,” he said.

testimony presented against a defendant demonstrate, according to the defense attorney, made the investigation “as was being investigated in the NINETEENTH century”, that the instructor “does not seem to have a fine intuition,” and currently there is a focus “on the scientific evidence”. It has appealed to the sentences of some of the criminal trials the most famous of the country, such as Laura Luelmo, the child Gabriel, the crime of the Solitary, the Lion or the Phage. In the end, have resulted in the case of Rocío Wanninkhof, that keeps many similarities with that of the Room. “It was a scientific proof, not these birrias”, in reference to the evidence that framed initially an innocent, “which led to the arrest of the true perpetrator,” said Sánchez-Vera. “When you replace the scientific evidence for speculation, for thesis more or less noveladas of the Police, it’s when mistakes are made legal”, has been sentenced.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

  +  64  =  74