Beatriu FC stands accused in a case that centers on the death of her husband, Isaac, a 45-year-old man living with a degenerative condition that left him physically vulnerable. In December 2019, authorities allege Beatriu deliberately ended his life. The jury’s determination followed her own assertions that she acted in response to Isaac’s expressed wish for euthanasia, a view she presented while noting that Isaac supported a legal change on the subject. Isaac’s disability hampered resistance, and prosecutors argued the acts went beyond compassionate care to consist of killing a vulnerable person explicit in its design.
Legal proceedings revealed that Isaac had voiced a desire to die and had sought information on euthanasia. The jury, however, found that Beatriu had crafted a plan to terminate Isaac’s life and to conceal the crime, instead of respecting his autonomy in a lawful, vulnerable friendly way. The verdict described an arrangement where, instead of immediate family involvement, the final decision rested with public reform rather than a family-led decision, a factor the court treated as evidence of premeditation rather than mutual consent.
According to the documented findings, the acts constituted a crime against a person with a disability, a factor the prosecution argued warranted scrutiny under relevant sentencing guidelines. The jury affirmed that Beatriu formed a plan to end her husband’s life during the last months of 2019 and to conceal the body in a location chosen specifically for concealment. The details indicate the plot involved a rented plot outside a built area, prepared for a gravesite with precise measurements, forming part of the alleged scheme to achieve the criminal aim.
The investigation established that, in the weeks leading to the incident, financial movements occurred from the couple’s joint account to Beatriu’s personal account, with monthly outlays observed in the months prior to the disappearance. Authorities tracked these transactions using vehicle geolocation data, which helped corroborate the sequence of events in the days surrounding the crime.
On the afternoon of December 1, 2019, Beatriu, accompanied by her 16-year-old son, drove Isaac from their home in a modified vehicle. Isaac was placed in the passenger seat after being given a sleeping pill she claimed would alleviate pain. The plan referenced a remote location, away from their home, and involved measures designed to prevent any future investigation from uncovering the truth about Isaac’s whereabouts and fate.
To safeguard the circumstantial narrative she hoped would be accepted, Beatriu handed her husband’s phone to friends and relatives in an apparent effort to disrupt traceability. A subsequent investigation revealed that the couple had rented a rural plot in Godelleta some months earlier, setting the scene for the intended end of life scenario.
After the jury’s ruling in Godelleta, Beatriu allegedly escalated the attempt to cover up the crime. She reportedly tried to cause Isaac’s death by means including a carbonated gas release and vehicle drowning, and when that failed, leveraged her son’s clothing item to tighten a ligature around Isaac’s neck, inflicting fatal injuries through strangulation. Forensic evidence described injuries consistent with a violent struggle, including damage to the jaw, skull, chest, and back, while Isaac’s disability impeded his ability to resist the assault.
Following Isaac’s death, Beatriu and her son reportedly removed the body from the car and placed it in the prepared pit, after which caustic substances were used in an attempt to dissolve evidence. The chemicals were mixed with earth and stone as a partial safeguard, but the remains were eventually recovered. Forensics later identified the signs of strangulation and blunt force trauma during autopsy, revealing the brutal complexity of the crime beyond a single factor of disability.
Four days after the crime, Beatriu filed a report claiming Isaac had left the home voluntarily. She subsequently used manipulated communications to maintain the impression that Isaac was alive and had chosen euthanasia. Messages purportedly authored by Isaac, and sent from Beatriu’s devices, spoke of wellbeing, the decision to pursue treatment, and a desire for silence from the family about future updates. These communications were central to the defense’s attempts to depict a voluntary death, a narrative the jury found unpersuasive.
From the outset, Isaac’s relatives doubted the narrative of voluntary departure. They questioned why Isaac would distance himself from his children and family after a plan that the accused allegedly put in motion. The jurors also rejected any suggestion of full amnesty for the accused, emphasizing the severity of the acts and the vulnerability of the victim, who fought to defend himself despite clear physical limitations.
In sum, the case centers on a sequence of decisions that culminated in the death of a defenseless individual. The jury concluded that Beatriu executed a calculated plan to end Isaac’s life, to conceal the crime, and to mislead family and authorities about the true sequence of events. The court’s findings reflect a careful weighing of intent, method, and remorse, and they illustrate how a combination of personal vulnerability, alleged wishes concerning euthanasia, and deliberate concealment can be treated as a brutal crime with lasting consequences for survivors and the broader community.