The owner of a bouncy castle attraction in Mislata faced a critical moment when the structure lifted off the ground during a public event on a January day. Inside the inflatable, eleven children were present. The incident resulted in the deaths of two young girls, aged four and eight. An examining judge in Mislata began a formal inquiry, and investigators conducted an on‑site inspection of the fairground and the inflatable itself. Relatives and local officials awaited findings as authorities gathered evidence from the site and reviewed related records stored at the operator’s office, located in Elx. The case hinges on whether compliance measures and maintenance protocols were properly followed and whether any failure to secure the equipment contributed to the tragedy.
During subsequent discussions, questions arose about the timing of the event and the audit process. The fair was set up for an extended period leading up to the accident, and investigators worked to verify the sequence of inspections. At one point, a municipal technician planned to visit the fairground jointly with an auditor, but schedules shifted. There were notes of a professional visit on a different day, which added complexity to the timeline. Authorities sought to understand if any photos or records had been intentionally omitted, and whether standard disclosure procedures had been faithfully followed.
Expert testimony was given by a professional who acknowledged answering only questions posed by his attorney. The analysis of geolocation data from mobile devices became part of the discussion, with questions about the presence of a technician in Mislata on December 2 and the possibility of location in Elx on December 2 and in the days afterward. Local media coverage, including reports from Levante-EMV, was cited as part of the public record, though officials emphasized that the investigation should rely on verifiable evidence rather than media speculation. The timeline shifted as investigators examined when the device connected to Valencia antennas, noting a later connection date that coincided with ongoing court proceedings related to the deadly crash.
The incident drew attention to the roles and responsibilities of the castle operator, the fair organizers, and the owners of the attractions. The individuals involved in the business, including the engineer responsible for the Mislata fair and the owners of the inflatable attractions, appeared in court as part of the criminal proceedings alleging reckless behavior leading to death. The engineer arrived at the courthouse ahead of the scheduled hearing time, and, like others, faced media attention outside the venue. Scheduling adjustments followed, with the hearing rescheduled due to a lawyer’s other commitments at the City of Justice in Valencia. The proceedings proceeded with all involved parties present, including the judge, the prosecutor, and the legal representatives for the families of the deceased.
Testimony revealed that the event unfolded during a time when the fairground activities continued after noon. Explanations regarding why the inflatable castle remained in its setup and whether it was dismantled prior to the incident were discussed, along with the speed at which winds affected the structure. Questions were raised about the existence of a staff member who may have been overlooked in the records and the identity of other individuals who were associated with ticketing and operation of the facility. Investigators sought to establish who was responsible for monitoring and enforcing safety rules at the time of the accident.
As the courtroom session continued, the families of the victims, including their legal representatives, emphasized the need for full disclosure. The case questioned whether the rest of the fairgrounds and the attraction installations complied with the project submitted for approval by the municipality of Mislata. Local authorities had approved the setup, but questions persisted about the engineering and installation process, including whether the inflatable castle was properly tracked and whether it adheres to the applicable safety standards. The police analysis of mobile device data formed part of the evidentiary matrix, while questions remained about the number of workers employed by the operator and their working status, among other factors.
The proceedings highlighted the human impact of the tragedy and the ongoing effort to uncover the truth behind the accident. Families seeking answers, along with the public, look to a thorough, transparent process that ensures accountability and clarifies the sequence of events that led to the loss of two young lives. Judges, prosecutors, and defense teams continue to review every element of the case to determine what happened, why it happened, and how similar incidents can be prevented in the future.
In the closing stages of the session, the court prepared to hear further testimony and materials related to the safety practices at the fairground. The aim remains clear: to establish a clear, fact-based account of the accident, identify any lapses in safety and compliance, and implement measures that protect attendees, especially children, at similar events in the future. The investigation continues as authorities analyze engineering reports, maintenance records, and the overall management of inflatable attractions at outdoor fairs.