José Antonio AC, a neighbor from Sueca, was charged after the life of his 11-year-old son ended in tragedy at their home on April 3, 2022. He confessed to the crime yesterday, though it appeared reluctant, again hinting that his ex-wife had left him alone and that the child had claimed not to be his father. The case, a patricide, has placed the defendant on the dock before a jury of six women and two men, with two alternates. He claimed to suffer from some form of mental illness or alcohol influence, and he asserted an addiction to alcohol.
The defense entered the case in the City of Justice. If the schedule set by the rapporteur judge who previously presided over the Marta Calvo case is followed, proceedings are expected to extend through Friday, despite the defendant previously agreeing to an oral hearing and then changing course at the last moment. The timetable had already been adjusted before the Christmas holidays, which delayed the hearing until after the holiday break.
“He killed his son out of pure malice.”
“His life is over.”
During the first session, the defendant stood by most of his account. Earlier, a representative from the Justice Administration (LAJ) read the provisional qualification letters to the jurors, emphasizing the prosecutor’s position that the defendant faced murder charges and seven additional years for repeated abuse and threats, as well as a breach of a suspended sentence related to past abuse.
As the prosecutor outlined the reasons for seeking these penalties and framed the case as a sexist crime, the special prosecutor presented by the mother’s side stressed the harsh impact of Jordi’s death on her. “His life is over,” the prosecutor stated.
“Be careful with forensic medicine.”
The Valencian defense, presenting the case as popular action, explained to the jury why this was viewed as indirect gender-based violence. They argued that the motive was to inflict maximum harm on the mother rather than stemming from care for the child. Forensic experts noted that the defendant did not display a psychological disturbance at the time of the incident and that alcohol did not alter his awareness of his actions. He did not appear to be experiencing a loss of control; he made deliberate choices that day. The defense contended that the accused might have a mental health issue but the evidence pointed to clear intention. The bench listened intently as a case was built around a policy of accountability rather than a focus on mental illness alone.
The defense asked jurors to consider gray areas rather than a simple black or white explanation. The court heard from both sides, and the defendant answered variably to questions from the prosecutor and the defense about his state of mind.
“Jordi paid the price for this.”
The Generalitat’s spokesperson made clear that the interrogation revealed a restrained man who admitted feeling a loss of power over his ex-wife and who could not hide the effect this had on his son. He acknowledged that Jordi’s death was linked to tensions arising from the relationship and its deterioration. The record shows he expressed that if the person involved had returned to him, the outcome might have been different.
“The child screamed, calling for mother, and the call was cut off.”
The testimony recounted a stark moment when the relationship split after declarations of love for someone else and a desire to end an ongoing pattern of social and familial isolation. On two separate dates in early 2021, the defendant allegedly grabbed Dolores by the neck, slammed her against a wall or bed, and briefly threatened with a knife. In August 2021, after a separate trial for mistreatment, the defendant admitted certain actions, receiving a light sentence in exchange for cooperation. At the patricide hearing, the defense petitioned to have earlier testimony presented to jurors to show that some of those statements had not been accurately reflected.
Asked about the breakup, the defendant insisted that he was left alone. This was another attempt to shift blame away from his own actions.
“He told me he wasn’t the father.”
The day of the murder arrived. Jordi, who had just turned eleven, had returned from his mother Dolores’s care, a visitation routine that had included Sunday meetings. Dolores had previously left the family home after a knife incident and strangulation attempt, seeking refuge with her parents.
The defendant acknowledged that Dolores adhered to religious guidelines and arranged Jordi’s visits. He admitted that tensions resurfaced when Jordi arrived and that a dispute ensued. When asked why the argument intensified, he claimed Jordi said he was not his father. The child, barely eleven, would have heard that harsh line during a volatile moment. The prosecutor’s team noted the brutal fact count: twenty-four stab wounds, most of them on the front of Jordi’s body, with the cases prominently documented by forensic examiners who will testify in the days ahead.
In response to questions, the defendant offered limited, often yes and no, answers. The defense asked jurors to weigh the testimony given earlier in the investigation against his later statements, urging them to see that the defendant did not fully reveal the truth in the moment of questioning. The public defender pressed the issue of whether Jordi’s life could have been saved with different actions, while the authorities emphasized that the evidence points to deliberate harm rather than accidental death.
The case continues with further testimonies and expert analyses scheduled as the court moves through the details of the accusation, the defenses offered, and the impact on the family left behind. The proceedings hope to illuminate the timeline of events on that fateful day and the dynamics of the relationships involved in this tragic story, as both sides present their case to the jury for consideration of guilt and appropriate penalties.