Defense changes for Luis Lorenzo and his wife Arancha Palomino. The attorney who has represented the couple since their arrest last year disclosed a dramatic shift in the case, reporting a claim of poisoning leading to death. He has transferred his role to his elderly aunt to safeguard the couple’s assets, a move confirmed by CASO ABIERTO, the investigative and events program from Prensa Ibérica.
In a letter addressed to the Investigating Court Number 9 in Arganda del Rey, Madrid, and reviewed by this outlet on September 6, the Asturian lawyer, Francisco Perez Platas, informs the examining magistrate in the María Isabel Suárez case that he will step aside. The decision comes after what he describes as irreconcilable differences with Lorenzo and Palomino that prevent him from continuing as counsel. Perez Platas asks the court to encourage the defendants to appoint new representation or, if necessary, to appoint a court-appointed attorney to ensure the defendants’ legal rights are protected.
case file
The development arrives two months after a major turn in the defense strategy. On June 23, two forensic physicians appointed by the judge reviewed the case and concluded that there is no objective data supporting the allegation that the couple poisoned the elderly woman at their home on June 28, 2021. The forensic assessment questions the initial autopsy and the Civil Guard’s earlier conclusions. In light of this revision, the defense sought the case file before summer to reassess the evidence.
Experts noted the toxicology results, highlighting that cadmium and manganese were present in the deceased’s blood at levels far above normal. The report also references the medical history and the discovery of four antipsychotic drugs in the victim’s system, factors that complicate the interpretation of the poisoning hypothesis.
Postmortem diffusion
According to postmortem analysis, the forensic physician who performed the autopsy emphasized that acute heavy metal poisoning was determined from the blood sample alone, without full consideration of all living-reference values. The specialists cautioned that postmortem findings can vary based on where samples are taken, the interval between death and collection, and the specific circumstances surrounding the death, which can influence diffusion and redistribution processes after death.
In the event that the deceased woman died from acute poisoning, experts noted, the body would typically show injuries to the respiratory and digestive tracts, a pattern not observed in this case. They also concluded that chronic poisoning could not be ruled out by these findings, since residues of heavy metals would generally appear in soil, hair, lungs, kidneys, liver, and other tissues if the exposure had been ongoing over time.
These conclusions bear on the core evidence presented by the prosecution, which relied on the initial autopsy results. They align with the defense’s position that Perez Platas has long advocated, arguing that the available scientific data could support alternative explanations for the presence of heavy metals in the victim’s body, including natural postmortem processes. The attorney who previously represented the couple asserted early on that the defendants were innocent, a stance echoed by his clients and by other experts who suggest the metal traces might arise from non-criminal factors.
As the case unfolds, commentators note that the recent evaluation shifts the tone of the investigation, with potential implications for how the court weighs autopsy findings, toxicology results, and the broader medical history of the deceased. The evolving narrative underscores the delicate balance between forensic science, legal strategy, and the standards governing criminal responsibility in complex poisoning cases.