A detailed autopsy report on the seven-month-old Daniela A. S. who died in Elche on May 24 of the previous year notes multiple skull fractures and additional bruising that led to the infant’s death. The investigation highlights an absence of documentary records showing that the child ever received medical attention, suggesting that the injuries stemmed from repeated blows attributed to the baby’s mother and her partner, who allegedly used such violence to discipline the child. The prosecution’s indictment indicates that the couple will face trial in the High Criminal Court within days. A common jury will decide whether both defendants or only one are guilty as charged by the baby’s biological father, who seeks a permanent prison term for the partner and absolution for the mother’s involvement in the homicide.
For the prosecution, there is little doubt that both the 36-year-old mother and her 44-year-old partner are culpable. The initial request calls for a combined maximum sentence of 29 years for murder, treason, and two counts of ill-treatment, one of which is described as habitual, along with 75,000 euros in damages. The exact charge may be refined after the verdict. The Supreme Court is asked to approve permanent imprisonment for the murder of a minor under the age of 16 in cases like this.
The defense attorney for the stepfather, Fernando Rocamora, argues for acquittal, contesting that his client was not the source of the blows that resulted in the child’s death. The mother, Anne, likewise denies any authorship, placing the decision in the hands of the public jury to determine guilt or innocence.
The accused couple, held since May 28, 2021, lived with Daniela and the mother’s two children from a prior relationship. The mother, María Concepción E., had a three-month relationship with Ginés S. A., and both resided in a home in the La Hoya district. From the outset, the Public Ministry asserts that the defendants exhibited poor educational skills and routinely resorted to blows to discipline the child. Whether acted upon individually or with mutual consent, the injuries inflicted were severe and repeated, and no evidence existed of the child ever receiving medical care or being taken to a physician to address the harm, a point emphasized by the Public Ministry.
According to the public accusation, this pattern of violence served to silence the abuse to which the baby was subjected, and the repeated and severe blows sustained by Daniela were documented in the postmortem autopsy report. The prosecutor asserts that the defendants were aware of their conduct and continued to harm the child without interfering with the attacks. In the filing, on May 15, the stepfather is described as scolding the baby violently and delivering a harsh slap at a La Hoya workplace. The mother was present but did not intervene, allegedly condoning the aggression.
Nine days later, on May 24, Daniela was subjected to intense violence and severe blows, with particular attention drawn to blows to the head. The child lost consciousness from the assaults and died despite efforts to revive him at Elche General Hospital. The Special Prosecutor’s Office contends that the stepfather killed the child with a heavy object, while the mother was reportedly away working at a shoe repair shop when the tragedy occurred.
As the case advances, the court will determine whether the defendants acted jointly or if one party bears sole responsibility for Daniela’s death. The public proceeding will also consider whether the acts described constitute murder, treason, and multiple counts of ill-treatment, and whether the defendants should face the highest penalties available under the law. The neighborhood where the events unfolded and the timeline of the alleged abuse are central to the defense and prosecution arguments alike, shaping the narrative of what happened to Daniela and why.
This case underscores the legal process surrounding violence against minors, including how juries assess evidence of repeated harm, the responsibility of guardians, and the standards used to measure intent and awareness of wrongdoing. The outcome will hinge on the jury’s interpretation of the defendants’ actions and the corroborating evidence presented by prosecutors, medical examiners, and the defense. The courtroom will weigh whether the injuries were the result of deliberate conduct intended to inflict harm or whether a broader context of alleged neglect and mismanagement contributed to Daniela’s death. The deliberations will set a precedent for how similar cases are judged in the future and how accountability is assigned to those entrusted with the care of vulnerable children.