In front of a judge near the City of Justice, under the glare of cameras and reporters, a quiet man reasserted his account without offering new details. Angela Dobrowolski, the former wife of audiovisual producer Josep Maria Mainat, denied injecting anyone with insulin during the events under scrutiny. The judge formally informed her of charges that include attempted murder and the disclosure of confidential information, but she was granted the right not to testify. Her attorney expressed dissatisfaction with that decision. The courtroom drama centered on a figure connected to La Trinca and the founder of Getmusic, who was accused of involving the ex-spouse in a high-stakes dispute over inheritance and secrets. The atmosphere suggested a clash not only of personal histories but of financial anxieties tied to a substantial estate.
Dobrowolski arrived late to Ciutat de la Justícia on a scooter, her appearance brief but significant. The judge notified her of the indictment, and she appealed through her counsel to the Barcelona Court. Legal observers described an accusation built on inconsistent statements, with witnesses and investigative material giving the court reason to believe there were elements of a crime linked to the woman. As the matter moved from an initial summary to a fuller examination, the case would advance to the Barcelona Court where a more comprehensive hearing would eventually take place according to procedural timelines.
12 minutes to call the ambulance
Outside the courthouse, Dobrowolski stood by the exit and reiterated her stance: her account had remained constant in every aspect. She asserted that the incident involved no harm beyond the substances she ordinarily administered in her professional practice. “I had no reason to hurt him; I never injected him with insulin,” she declared. The defense contended that the ambulance was not summoned within a half-hour, while investigators claimed a call was made about twelve and a half minutes after the critical moment. The defendant admitted a delay in responding when a second medical intervention occurred, describing it as the sole holdup among actions that night.
The sequence of events on the night of June 22, 2020, was scrutinized through lens of practical movements and repeated questions about the couple’s private life. Dobrowolski noted that such nocturnal routines were not unusual in the household tied to Mainat’s public profile. She also expressed distress at being unable to see her children in the weeks surrounding the case, requesting a revision of visiting arrangements. The divorce had proceeded separately from the legal case, yet the two matters intertwined in public perception as the estrangement and looming inheritance issues loomed large. The narrative echoed a broader theme: a fragile boundary between personal disputes and the power dynamics that accompany wealth and influence. The presence of a restraining order complicated personal logistics, and the defense argued that any arrest was not the outcome of a judge’s explicit orders but a result of her encounters with law enforcement agents.
The proceedings underscored a tension between testimony, timing, and the practicalities of emergency response. Investigators maintained that the exact timing of medical interventions could bear on the charges and potential intent, while the defense pressed for a careful distinction between professional actions and alleged malfeasance. In the courtroom’s quiet moments, legal analysts noted the potential implications for both the ongoing divorce proceedings and the control of a significant estate, with the possibility of revisiting conditions around visitation and surveillance now that the case was entering a more formal stage in the Barcelona Court.
As the public watched, the case unfolded as a study in how personal relationships become entangled with public duties, media scrutiny, and legal responsibilities. The parties approached the next phase with a blend of caution and resolve, aware that the path to resolution would require careful navigation of both legal standards and the expectations of a society attentive to every twist in a high-profile dispute. The court’s eventual determination would offer a clearer view of what happened on that night and what it signified for those involved, not just in the context of the couple’s past but also in the broader conversation about rights, responsibilities, and the limits of personal influence in a public life. The proceedings would continue under the gaze of observers who sought to understand how evidence and testimony would shape the outcome in a case that combined personal vendetta, professional reputations, and the leverage of inheritance.