Following the January 24 commemoration, new details emerged about the murder of Marta del Castillo in 2009, a case that kept the Baja community attentive for years. Marta, sentenced to a lengthy prison term, remains a focal point for her family and supporters who still seek truth and closure. In recent days, a fresh inquiry was opened at the request of her father, aiming to locate the victim’s remains and bring some certainty to a case that has lingered for over a decade.
Antonio del Castillo took to social media to share his perspective. He indicated that more than six months had passed since promises were made that the National Police would conduct a discreet search at a site shown in a posted image. The photo depicted an abandoned well, framed by uneven terrain around its opening. He insisted that attention to the site should be more than a quick glance and stressed that there were numerous indicators suggesting further action was warranted.
He wrote that the promise from authorities had not translated into action and that the situation deserved more serious handling. The post included a brief message about the importance of not merely looking at the site but pursuing multiple leads that might reveal decisive information. A accompanying note underscored a sense of urgency and the need for patient, thorough investigation.
The National Police responded by clarifying that the location is privately owned agricultural land with a nursery. The authorities described their approach as careful and regulated, awaiting permission from the property owners to conduct any search. They noted that only if objective elements supported a real possibility of finding the body would steps be taken to obtain access for a search, with the aim of achieving a positive outcome.
Officials stressed that once the procedures were completed, the results would be communicated to the judicial authorities, and a search would be initiated if warranted. The process would be driven by evidence and legal authorization, ensuring that actions complied with all applicable rules and rights linked to property access and investigative procedures.
Gratitude was extended to volunteers who offered to help dig at the site. After many years, the trench where the search would be carried out had shown signs of long-term weathering. Still, the resolve of those involved remained palpable, with a sense that a single machine could accelerate the process and bring the investigation closer to its goal in a matter of hours if the conditions permitted.
In a separate section of this ongoing saga, the trial’s third phase revisited earlier questions about the handling of digital evidence and the involvement of various individuals connected to the case. While some persons were acquitted in earlier trials, others faced different outcomes in subsequent proceedings. The discussion highlighted how the court interpreted the scope of investigative actions and how long the investigation could reasonably extend under the law when new doctrines were applied or changed through jurisprudence.
Analyses of past decisions revealed that, in some instances, the court determined that the investigation period had effectively ended due to the length of the inquiry. This meant that certain actions could not be counted as valid steps once the statutory window had closed, even if they occurred within what some saw as the broader pursuit of truth about the crime. The implications of such rulings were discussed in relation to the handling of evidence gathered during the long years of inquiry and how it influenced the outcomes of the main case against the central figure in the tragedy.
The discussion also touched on motions filed by the victim’s family, including appeals related to new evidence or the potential for reopening parts of the case. The court’s stance suggested there was limited room for ordinary avenues of appeal regarding those specific resolutions, reinforcing the sense that the path to resolution could be constrained by prior legal determinations and the timeline established for the investigation.
More recently, prosecutors filed a formal letter outlining the possibility of continuing the search for the body without a fixed end date. The new stance indicated that the investigation would remain open until there was substantial reason to believe new findings could surface, with the judicial authority asked to define the precise objective in subsequent rulings. This approach underscored the ongoing tension between preserving access to potential evidence and respecting the legal boundaries that govern investigations and the rights of all parties involved.
The case remains deeply felt in the community. It raises questions about how long a case should be pursued, how evidence is weighed, and how families cope when the pursuit of truth stretches over many years. The latest developments reflect an ongoing commitment among investigators, prosecutors, and the public to pursue every viable lead while adhering to the standards that protect due process and justice for all involved.