In Monesterio, on the night of July 5, 2016, Manuela Chavero became the focal point of a police inquiry as investigators assessed conflicting statements about the circumstances surrounding her death. The Badajoz Institute of Forensic Medicine concluded that Eugenio Delgado’s neighbor appeared to have died from an illness, a view that contradicted earlier theories. The new forensic assessment, which emerged through Prensa Ibérica’s OPEN CASE project, also raised questions about the role of Chavero’s family in the case and the way the body was treated. This update signals a shift in the understanding of what happened that night and what it might reveal about the broader sequence of events. (Citation: Prensa Ibérica OPEN CASE)
Delgado, who later admitted to concealing the woman’s body on a farm he owned for years, reportedly disclosed the location only after his arrest by Civil Guards. Investigators found that the injuries observed on Manuela did not align with a simple backward fall. Autopsy records describe fractures to three ribs, two teeth, and a nasal bone, injuries that the accused could not plausibly account for. The medical experts argued that this pattern pointed to a more violent series of events than a single mishap would suggest. (Citation: Open Case investigation file)
According to the specialist Miguel Botella, a professor of Physical Anthropology at the University of Granada, the rib fractures were traumatic and incompatible with a fall from a standing position or from a trivial incident. His assessment, backed by material from Zafra’s courthouse records dated February 17, was presented to the court as part of the ongoing inquiry. Botella emphasized that the described injuries are consistent with stronger forces and multiple incidents rather than a lone accident.
“Four Events”
From the expert’s review of Manuela’s remains, the facial injuries likewise did not fit Delgado’s stated scenario. The examiner noted high‑energy direct impacts and argued that the wounds could not be explained by a single fall. Rather, they suggested multiple violent encounters—at least four distinct episodes—that affected the victim. This conclusion challenges Delgado’s narrative and strengthens the case that more serious wrongdoing occurred. (Citation: Expert testimony in the case)
During his testimony, Delgado defended himself by claiming the facial fractures resulted from actions he took while handling tools during the burial process. The defense contended that the injuries could have occurred during the attempt to move the body with heavy machinery. However, independent analysis concluded that several injuries, including the right nasal bone fracture, could not arise from a fall or a burial maneuver using a tractor shovel; the energy required to produce such damage did not align with the described sequence of events. These findings cast doubt on Delgado’s explanations and reinforced questions about the true cause of death. (Citation: Forensic imaging report)
Further, the evidence showed that two teeth were fractured and one was lost, a pattern the investigators argued could not be fully explained by burial maneuvers alone. The forensic team noted that the timing of these dental injuries pointed to violence occurring before the body was placed in the pit. The description of the burial scene included a plastic bag, a sheet, a robe, and a blanket covering the corpse, details that raised serious concerns about the circumstances surrounding Manuela’s death and whether the person responsible sought to conceal the crime. The Civil Guard noted that, had the tooth moved or been exposed during soil inspection, it would likely have appeared in the bag, which did not happen in the examination process. (Citation: Judicial records)
sexual assault
Representatives for Manuela’s family, including attorney Verónica Guerrero, declined comment on the forensic report or any allegations of sexual assault. The prosecutor described Delgado’s account as filled with inconsistencies and contradictions, while acknowledging that the evidence could point toward crimes against life, including potential murder or manslaughter, and possibly offenses affecting Manuela’s sexual autonomy. The contrast between Delgado’s statements and the forensic findings prompted ongoing concern among the family and prosecutors alike. (Citation: Prosecutor’s office statement)
The Civil Guard reinforced this direction, with an agent from the Central Operations Unit concluding that the scene, where a naked woman was found wrapped in a sheet and robe, partly secured by a plastic bag and knotted strings, suggested a violent scenario in which sexual assault could have occurred. This assessment contributed to the continuing investigation as judges weighed the different lines of inquiry and the potential charges that might follow if the proportionality of the claims were proven. (Citation: Central Operations Unit report)
petition for freedom
Delgado filed a request for release, sending a letter to the judge on March 31, which was processed by OPEN CASE. His attorney argued that new investigative steps had not yet been conducted in the months since. The court rejected the request for release for a fourth time, noting that if he were allowed to go free, there would be a risk of hiding or destroying evidence in a case that remains sensitive and under active investigation. The judge highlighted the practicalities of the timeline and the importance of preserving potential clues that could remain with Delgado. In a dated note from April 13, the defense criticized the ongoing process and claimed that critical evidence had not yet been fully examined. (Citation: Court ruling)
The judge also recalled that the accused, at the outset of the case, had attempted to remove evidence that tied him to the crime scene. He was accused of attempting to burn clothes, erase traces of blood, and conceal the body, as described in the court records. These actions were cited as additional reasons to keep him detained while investigators pursued further leads and verified each element of the sequence of events. (Citation: Court documents)