Throw the balls out. This is how the statement of 22-year-old Marya Tereza HA, requested by the prosecution, is described. A man who killed his mother faces thirty years in prison, according to an exclusive report by Levante-EMV of the Prensa Ibérica group on Wednesday. He claimed responsibility for the murder a year ago before Investigating Judge No. 3 of Xàtiva, but with many details in dispute.
The first defense was to blame her then-17-year-old boyfriend, KTS. They allegedly acted together and were sentenced to seven years in a youth center for this crime. In her statement on February 14, 2023, Marya Tereza, nicknamed Theri, tried to convince the judge and prosecutor that she had carried out her mother’s killing under KTS’s pressure.
The alleged action was also carried out by her 45-year-old mother Anna Todorova. At the time, she allegedly screamed and stood up on the day of the crime. She admitted that sometimes substances helped her calm down, while other times they did not. She suggested she was urged to justify her actions by saying she was treated as a bad daughter and that such statements would come later as a form of defense. The facts and motives she offered referred to a plan that involved violence in a moment of distress.
Blaming the victim and her ex-boyfriend
According to the defense, a second moment involved the mother insulting Marya spontaneously. The defense claimed the mother had confided a few days earlier that she had agreed to kill her own parent. The defendant began communicating with her boyfriend through instant messaging and social networks, asking repeatedly if the act had already been carried out. He responded that the mother was not talented because she was his own mother.
He told her that if she killed the mother, they would leave and begin a better life together. Yet the defendant maintained she lacked the courage and stated that the victim was her mother, the one person she truly had. She suggested she would take action if prompted by the other party involved, who had not yet stood trial and was later sentenced to prison for a shorter period than she faced.
Although the defendant claimed the act would end harm, she continued to recount the narrative with a level of candor that raised questions about the timing and the necessity of drastic measures. The period when the country imposed restrictions during a health crisis marked a backdrop for the discussion, with the reference to the lockdown as a factor in the broader context of the events described.
They emptied his account in two months
From that moment, the defendant outlined the sequence of events in her own account to the judge and prosecutor. The murder was followed by a financial crime: the victim’s current account was debited with 6,249.74 euros between the crime day and June 4 of the same year. The body lay undisturbed for months before authorities intervened, and the scene was gradually staged as investigators pieced together the timeline. The body was found in a residence where the accomplice’s involvement was suspected, and the case unfolded in stages as the investigation progressed.
As the investigation advanced, the authorities learned of how the body remained in place, and the property was entered and searched by the Civil Guard after a formal order. The confession occurred days after related statements had been made, revealing details that connected the individuals involved. The narrative of the events shifted with new disclosures, raising questions about coercion, influence, and the degree of culpability attributed to each person in the alleged crime.
Regarding the incident itself, the accused repeatedly placed blame on the boyfriend, asserting that he had manipulated the situation with claims of violence and coercion. The narrative included descriptions of how the events may have unfolded, with mentions of a kitchen setting, a living space, and the moments leading up to the alleged act. The core issue remained the balance between self-preservation and the pressure exerted by another person in a crisis situation.
“This is love, it’s all over”
Marya Tereza continued her account, describing what she witnessed as she left the bathroom and found her mother lying on the floor. The scene was described in stark terms, with blood and a chaotic environment indicating the severity of the injuries. In her version, the boyfriend was in the kitchen at the time, and his reaction was described as a declaration that the moment marked the end of love as they knew it. She claimed she wished the situation could have unfolded differently, and she recalled attempts to seek medical help that were interrupted by the dynamics of the moment.
Her account suggested that the relationship with the boyfriend continued to influence the decisions made in those critical moments, with a plea for support that was ultimately redirected toward actions to secure what was perceived as a future from a difficult past. The narrative implied that the boyfriend would face a lighter sentence than the defendant if tried separately, reflecting the differing levels of responsibility attributed to each participant in the chain of events.
“Mom, why did we have to end like this?”
After prolonging her final confession with alleged trips back and forth between the dying body and the kitchen, she described moments of smoking, trying to cope with the overwhelming stress. She asserted she could not bring herself to kill, yet she was pressured to complete the act by the other individual involved. The tale continued with the notion that the other party demanded that the defendant finish what had begun, creating a tense dynamic with little room for a clear alternative.
The end neared as she recalled returning to the scene, where her mother lay in a condition that indicated she was not long for this world. The account included a final exchange before the fatal act, with the defendant stating a desire to protect her mother while also facing the pressure to comply with what was demanded by another person. The last words attributed to her father figure or partner were described as expressions of warmth and closeness, followed by the fatal act that left the family with lasting consequences.
In recounting the moment of violence, the defendant described the act as a singular cut during a tense moment, maintaining that the pain she described was the result of a sequence of events rather than a single decisive blow. The four-month period during which the body remained in the residence was described with detail that underscored the shock of the revelations and the sustained investigation that culminated in formal action by authorities in August of the following year.
The case ended with a dramatic exposure of the contradictions in the testimony and the challenges of reconstructing a scenario painted with fear, desperation, and a sense of fatal finality. The narrative served as a lens into the complexities of family violence, coercion, and the phenomenology of a crime that stunned a community and sparked a broader discussion about accountability and justice.