The second day of the oral hearing into the murder of a woman and her two children, aged eight and three, in Las Pedroñeras in 2024 has focused on assessing the expert evidence and presenting the final conclusions. In this context, the private prosecution representing the victims’ family has decided to toughen its request for conviction and calls for three revisable permanent prison sentences to be imposed, as opposed to the two requested by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, for a crime that the accused himself has admitted during the proceedings.
The session began with the appearance of the forensic examiner, Antonio Hidalgo, tasked with examining both the injuries suffered by the victims and the scene of the incident. The specialist confirmed that the pattern of cuts and stabbings is typical of someone accustomed to handling knives—a condition that the accused meets, who worked as a knacker in Las Pedroñeras—and he said that with those blows he “was seeking to ensure the death” of the person who was attacked.
The forensic report also confirmed that neither the woman, who received 18 stabbings, nor the two minors showed signs of having been able to defend themselves. The expert described the case as a “horrible and tremendous crime” and stressed that, after several five-year periods of professional experience in which he has seen “everything,” he only uses those terms when he considers that the incident deserves them. Regarding the scene of the events, he underlined that the subsequent cleaning of the premises was carried out “in a very professional manner.”
Regarding the accused’s mental state, the forensic examiner rejected the report on imputability prepared in the prison of Herrera de la Mancha, where the accused has been held in custody during the trial, and which pointed to possible hallucinations. In his view, El Mahdi “has not suffered from any mental pathology, either on the day of the events or in prison,” and he criticized the penitentiary center for the use of Artificial Intelligence tools in drafting that report.
Positions of the Prosecutor’s Office and the accusations
In his turn to give closing arguments, the Public Prosecutor’s Office emphasized both the accused’s admission of the facts and the other evidence carried out in court. The representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office maintains that the gender aggravating factor has been proven through El Mahdi’s conduct. “From the very first moment, the one who says that I’m the one in charge here is the accused,” he recalled, referring to the threatening messages that kept the victim “terrified.”
The prosecutor has highlighted the testimony of "the three brave women who have come to tell what their friend was experiencing," who have related what they knew both about her and about her eldest son, since the little girl still did not understand the situation. Likewise, she has emphasized the choice of the residence as the setting of the attack, which, in her view, prevented any possibility of defense, and the 18 stabbing wounds as an indication of cruelty. She also considers a crime of continued breach of a sentence to be proven for violating the existing restraining order and communication order.
The lawyer for the private prosecution has described the incident as "the most terrible outcome of a prolonged story of violence, threats, subjugation, and fear." He has insisted that "The accused did not accept losing Amal" and has asked the jury to take into account the totality of the evidence, because, in his words, when they are analyzed as a whole "because when they are examined together, they speak for themselves."
As an example of the accused's will to control his wife's life, the attorney has mentioned the 235 recorded calls and the intimidating messages directed at her and her children, "in which he held Amal responsible for the legal circumstances of his own acts." She has also underscored the premeditation of the crime, which, in her opinion, is evidenced by the choice of the day, coinciding with the victim's work rest day, and by the use of a butcher's knife as the homicidal weapon.
For these reasons, the private prosecution considers the request for three revisable life sentences to be grounded; a possibility contemplated in jurisprudence for cases involving three murders, such as the one being tried.
The popular prosecution, which in this proceeding acts as the representation of the Government of Castilla-La Mancha, having appeared on a regular basis in cases of gender-based violence, has decided to adhere to the conclusions formulated by the Prosecutor's Office.
Arguments of the defense and final word of the accused
By contrast, El Mahdi's defense has argued that the requirements are not met to convict him of trespass or to apply the gender aggravating circumstance. It has also requested that the classification of the breach of a sentence be reviewed, alleging that all the sentences are being imposed at their maximum level. In addition, the attorney has expressed his disagreement with the terms used by the forensic expert when criticizing the report prepared in the prison of Herrera de la Mancha.
In the final proceedings, the accused has made use of his right to the last word. He has stated that it was during his time in prison when other inmates made him aware of what had happened, and he has assured that he regrets what happened. He has added that he wants all the settlement due to him for the termination of his employment relationship to be used to indemnify the families of the victims.
Before the jury withdraws to deliberate, the magistrate must draft the subject of the verdict, with the questions of fact that the members of the popular court will have to decide in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.