Truths
A tense case from Madrid centers on a Romanian nanny accused of attempting to kill a two-year-old girl in her care. The prosecution contends that the middle child, then four, and the baby were present during the alleged attack, and that the parents were also verbally abusive toward their children. A key point of the defense is that the baby’s sibling, then four years old, could have been responsible for some of the acts. The narrative unfolded in the Madrid Court, with the trial beginning earlier in the week in the Fifteenth Domestic Court, as witnesses were called and the full timeline came under examination.
Witness statements from the parents, who were among the first to testify, described a household marked by harsh treatment. The nanny, who faces the charge of attempted murder, denies the charges and argues that the person responsible could be anyone other than herself. She even raises questions about the involvement of the four-year-old sibling. These lines of defense emphasize inconsistencies in the accounts provided by the family and other participants in the case, according to court testimony and documents reviewed in the hearing.
In a section titled Truths by the prosecution, it is asserted that the defendant inflicted two blows on the head of the baby with an unidentified blunt object. The prosecutors argue that the severity and timing of the attack suggested a real risk of death, given the minor’s age and limited ability to defend herself. The incident is described as premeditated in the sense that the danger to the child was clear and the attacker was left alone with the children in the family home on February 28, 2018. The evidence indicates the head injuries were serious and potentially life-threatening, leading to questions about the defendant’s intent and state of mind at the time.
The girl was transported to La Paz University Hospital in Madrid and spent thirteen days under medical care before being released. The second reported attempt occurred on March 13, 2018, at approximately 4:30 p.m., when the same method of attack was allegedly used again. The court is currently weighing expert testimony, medical evaluations, and documentary evidence as part of the ongoing proceedings.
The hearing continues with expert analysis from doctors and other specialists, moving through the forensic details and the broader context of the case as it unfolds in court.