The scene unfolded when the owner of the inflatable structure appeared at the site. On that day in January, seven children sustained injuries during events in Mislata. The setup ran without formal registration and without staff during both the summer fairs of 2021 and the Christmas campaign that followed.
Evidence points to the person who operates six or seven of the 23 attractions in Mislata, notably the castle branded Humor Amarillo La Selva. This particular ride drew the attention of nine children on the day of the incident. Official records show no employees listed for the period studied, spanning June 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022. The owner conducted operations inside the fairs organized by the entrepreneur during both the summer season and the New Year period, without engaging a trained workforce.
From June through January, towns such as Oliva, Mislata, Moncada, Burjassot, Mislata again, and l Eliana increased their participation in summer fairs, a fact acknowledged during court proceedings.
The lack of workers emerged after a response from Spain’s General Treasury of Social Security to the Fourth Investigation Judge of Mislata. The inquiry followed Vera’s request for information about the owner’s working life and business activity, initiated at the request of the special prosecutor handling the case involving the parents.
The seller provides only a phone number for a supposed employee who turns out to be a woman with no connection to attractions or assemblies.
Family involvement: assembly, oversight and supervision
The declared owner of the castle faced a judge on June 9 for the first time, accompanied by two other individuals under investigation: the father-in-law and an engineer hired to approve the attractions. The five people, including the owner and a manager responsible for all attractions, were questioned as the investigation continued. On the day of the accident, the owner stated that ten to twelve people were involved in the operation and acknowledged that assembly and control frequently relied on relatives.
When questioned by the prosecutor, who is a family member of Cayetana, the owner asserted that no regular job existed and suggested that the setup could be adapted quickly. Details of control were described as being carried out mainly by relatives when the judge pressed for specifics.
Father-in-law oversaw the entire site
Statements from the father-in-law, corroborated by the owner, describe him as the person responsible for organizing the fairs and directing the whole complex, including attractions not tied to family members. This view is supported by thirteen witnesses who described various young people performing control roles at other installations on site, not just the exploding castle.
Witnesses recalled a young man with a North African appearance wearing a hoodie who was identified as an employee overseeing the castle. He was described as someone who managed containment until help arrived. This individual, along with others assisting supervision, was central to the judge’s attention before concerns arose about his disappearance. The owner, who initially hid among the crowd, faced scrutiny for how order was maintained at the fairs. The judge sought phone numbers from witnesses, but only a single number was ultimately provided, belonging to a woman with no known ties to the clerks or their operations.