Specialists from the Scientific Police of the Civil Guard, involved in the March 2019 Seville trial over the death of a legionnaire in Agost, contested the defense version this Wednesday and rejected the theory of a backlash. Members of the Civil Guard Science Police, all based in Madrid, supported the official reports related to the bullet that claimed the deceased soldier. The accused was said to have been linked to the sergeant’s rifle, according to case sources gathered by Europa Press.
The eighth attempt in the case of the death of 21-year-old legionnaire Alejandro Jiménez resumed yesterday. The Public Ministry had indicted two lieutenants, a captain, and a sergeant, with the Second Military District Court in Seville hearing new statements after the sergeant declared innocence. Investigators defended the opposing view that the sergeant was the perpetrator of the fatal shooting.
Among the points examined were trajectory, distance, and chemical components. These investigators, from the Scientific Police, reaffirmed that the bullet that struck the fallen legionnaire originated from the rifle used by the accused, Saul Antonio Guil, a sergeant in the Legion Brigade. They noted that the fatal impact affected the upper torso and described the bullet as having a typical trajectory for a high-velocity round, a characteristic the primary defendant had used to justify his actions in court.
The trial began last week with the appearance of Saul Antonio Guil, a sergeant with seven years, five months, and 15 days of service in prison terms in perspective.
Maneuvers in August
The events occurred during training at the Agost shooting range on March 25, 2019, when the platoon led by Sergeant Guil fired during an assault exercise on a merlon with four targets.
According to the investigation, after completing the planned drill, the sergeant ordered, “Step forward, to the foot of the mountain, the enemy in white,” a command that was not previously listed in the exercise program or communicated to the squad. The order urged the unit to advance to the most advanced position and then to resume firing from a prone stance as the drill moved forward.
In this context, prosecutors said, one of the shots fired by the sergeant struck the late legionnaire, who stood about 12.5 meters from the merlon. The person in the front row on the left flank, kneeling, had the rifle pointed toward the ground at that moment. The shot apparently hit the tip of the victim’s rifle, knocked him off balance, and flipped the weapon, yet did not alter the bullet’s direction, ultimately fatally wounding him with a hole in the right side of the chest.
During the hearing, the accused sergeant acknowledged that as platoon leader he had suddenly promoted the second target after the first attack on the merlon. He claimed to have fired even though the first maneuver had been completed and stated that he did not fire the second target on its own initiative.
Expert reports
The sergeant asserted that he was aware of expert analyses showing that the bullet hitting the legionnaire came from the rifle he used and that there were seven cartridge cases fired from that weapon at the attacked merlon. He described these expert reports as inaccurate.
In his testimony, he argued that he never believed he could be the shooter and, without being a ballistics expert, he thought the impact might be the result of recoil. He added that Captain A. Cabello, also charged, together with Lieutenant R. Gascón and another lieutenant identified as PF, had reached the same conclusion about the ballistic event.
Lieutenant R. Gascón, who served as platoon manager and faced charges alongside the accused, confirmed his view that the soldier hit after the incident could have been the result of a recoil from a shot. He described the scenario as the most likely explanation given the positions in the maneuver area and the gun aimed toward the ground at the moment of the incident.
The judge overseeing the investigation into the death of Legionnaire Alejandro Jiménez Cruz noted the presence of multiple versions and a clear contradiction between the reports and their wording. This inconsistency prompted questions about efforts to obscure what happened or to silence critical details, all of which complicates the forensic and investigative conclusions about the incident.