The case centered on a six‑month‑old baby named Daniel, who died on May 24, 2021, in Elche. The couple accused of causing his death faced a popular jury trial at the Elche Palace of Justice, to be heard this week. The stepfather contends that Daniel fell from a car, while the mother maintains she did not suspect anything as the infant died while in the stepfather’s care. She later reflected that bringing certain people into her home had drastic consequences she did not foresee.
The prosecutors initially sought a combined sentence of twenty-nine years for murder and continued ill‑treatment. The defendants offered a different version of events than the Public Ministry’s indictment. The baby’s stepfather, Ginés SA, answered only questions from his defense attorney, Fernando Rocamora of the law firm Francisco Miguel Galiana Botella. He claimed that Daniel never suffered abuse and that a fall from the sofa, three days before the death, left bruises. He said he told the mother there was no need to seek medical help because the bruises were normal during a fall.
The defense asserts that on the day Daniel died, the mother rose in response to the baby crying and began to verbally berate him as he was moved from the cradle into the car. The mother reportedly left for work shortly after and later conducted a video call to check on her son, showing him sleeping on the phone.
According to the defense, the accused then entered the room where the baby slept and stepped on a toy as she prepared to leave with the car. In that moment the child was allegedly jolted out of the cradle. She says she heard a loud crash and followed with actions that included pouring water on the child, who momentarily smiled before being placed back in the car.
The infant remained in the car until the mother returned in the morning to discover him cold. Following the events, the family sought hospital care, but medical professionals could not revive Daniel.
Maria Concepcion E, represented by lawyer Beatriz de Vicente, gave testimony asserting that she never mistreated Daniel and that her partner’s alleged abuse occurred during a brief three‑month relationship. She stated that she was unaware of any history of injury, illegal detention, coercion, threats, or harassment attributed to Ginés until after Daniel’s death. In the witness stand, she expressed remorse for bringing such danger into her home, saying she did not know a monster lived there.
Regarding a bar incident nine days before the death, the defense claims she did not notice someone looking at her phone and did not engage in a confrontation. The mother, in her testimony, described the day the baby fell from the couch. She said the child had a minor injury around the eye, and she went to work with instructions to watch him and prevent further harm. The prosecutor reminded her of a WhatsApp exchange with Ginés that suggested personal tension, while she replied that the messages showed a calm stance in a difficult moment.
She could not explain four facial bruises observed on the baby, noting only one was remembered. She maintained she was working at the time of Daniel’s death, returning home to find him seemingly asleep in a stroller but then discovering him with pale lips. They rushed him to the hospital, where resuscitation attempts were made but Daniel died.
Beatriz de Vicente described her client as a triple victim: a mother who lost her child to violence, a woman subjected to a controlling and abusive relationship, and a citizen wrongly accused in a murder case. She asked the court to consider Daniel’s mother as a person harmed by this traumatic episode rather than a perpetrator.
When asked directly about involvement in Daniel’s beating, the mother responded that she did not intend to harm him and emphasized that she loves children. In parts of her testimony, she cried and admitted that she had never witnessed her husband harming their son or children in general, insisting that Daniel was her life and the brightest part of her family. She described her husband as someone who did not initially share the truth about the car incident, and she said she realized the gravity of the situation only after Daniel’s death. She explained that she focused on her work while he stayed home, and their early strain led to misunderstandings rather than clear intent to commit harm.
The private prosecution by Daniel’s biological father ultimately supported the mother’s acquittal from the charge of murder. The defense argued that the stepfather, not the mother, bore sole responsibility for the infant’s death as part of a pattern of abuse in the couple’s relationship.
In sum, the case has exposed a deeply painful sequence of events, leaving questions about responsibility and the dynamics in a household that became a scene of tragedy. The popular jury will weigh these narratives and the evidence presented by both sides to determine the outcome in this emotionally charged case. Sources: Elche Palace of Justice proceedings, court documents, and statements provided in court testimony.