The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Valencia (TSJCV) has completed the review of the murders of Arliene Ramos, Lady Marcela Vargas, and Marta Calvo, along with the attempted murder of seven other women. During the public hearing, where the defense teams briefly presented their arguments drawn from their own sources, the accused attended, was moved from the prison, and appeared indifferent, mirroring the demeanor seen during last year’s media trial held between June and June of July.
A special accusation filed by the defendant, Juan Carlos Navarro, acting on behalf of the families of Arliene and Lady Marcela and the six survivors, reduced the initial appeal from three reviewable permanent sentences to two. One sentence targets the murder of Marta Calvo, the third in the series, with the prosecution seeking the harshest possible punishment for the first two deaths, already establishing 153 years in prison for Palma.
The second reviewable permanent prison sentence Navarro requests concerns the death of Lady Marcela, noting that she had fulfilled the legal elements indicating that the victim was killed after the crime was committed against her.
In the Marta Calvo case, Navarro emphasized that the method assumed by the judge in Palma’s sentence to avoid a permanent review could not apply here due to the temporal and spatial gaps that characterize this as a serial killing—where seven months of killings occurred with Palma knowingly continuing the acts rather than a single, discrete event.
To support this view, Navarro cited several court decisions, including a recent Supreme Court article from the same year that resolves the debate over the time frame used when discussing the criminal act of a convicted person. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the language around this issue and concentrates on imposing a permanent prison, which the legislator can revise, with the aim of stronger punishment for serial killers.
For their part, the attorneys for Marta Calvo’s parents reiterate the crime against moral integrity, pointing to Palma’s concealment of the young woman’s body and his repeated refusal to disclose his whereabouts.
Lawyer Pilar Jové, counsel for Marta’s mother, underscored that the defendant lied about how he disposed of the body to hide the evidence, arguing that the family suffered ongoing harm while Palma maintained his presumption of innocence. The parents’ representatives stressed the harm they endured as a result.
Regarding the reviewable permanent prison, both Jové and Marta’s father’s attorney asserted that this punishment is fitting for the murder of the young Estivella, the third in seven months.
Vicente Escribano, a lawyer for one of the survivors, joined the chorus of opposition to the defense’s objection. Other special prosecutors and prosecutors likewise supported the position, reminding the Chamber that the jury based its verdict on credible evidence from each survivor who testified about the same facts, demonstrating that Palma used drugs as a weapon and treated women as objects. The testimony met the standards of prosecution evidence, with no contradictions, no false motives observed, and corroborated by surrounding circumstances.
defense thesis
The defense of Jorge Ignacio Palma seeks prison terms totaling up to 159 years and 11 months, arguing that the appeal was filed under circumstances of material, hypothetical, and circumstantial reasoning. The defense describes the survivors’ heartbreaking testimonies, the assessments of forensic psychiatrists, and the evidence gathered by the Civil Guard and National Police as the basis for their position.
In the Marta Calvo murder, the defense claimed that the sentence was unbelievable and that the decision lacked sufficient objective evidence to support it, suggesting the death could have resulted from intoxication.
Among the issues raised to seek acquittal, the attorney asserted that certain actions by Palma could be interpreted in different ways, including alleged cases involving choose-your-partners and other disturbing scenarios associated with the serial killer’s victims. The defense contended that the jury’s conclusion about Palma introducing victims to high-purity cocaine without consent was not connected to the concept of the so-called white party.
The state court convicted Palma of crimes against public health, with five years in prison; another count related to sexual freedom and compensation, with two years and five months; six counts of sexual freedom and compensation, with fourteen years for each; in combination with six attempted murders and three other crimes linked to sexual violence, with twenty-two years and ten months imprisonment for each.
Related posts:
A Valencia High Court Decision on Palma Case and Related Appeals { A Survivor’s Courage and the Palma Case: Truths in the Courtroom In Valencia and Beyond: A Tale of Fear, Flight, and Family Resilience TSJCV Decision on Permanent Imprisonment, Damages, and Case Consolidation meta not provided Prosecutors Seek Severe Sentences in Palma Case Linked to Disappearances and Alleged Murders Appeal Denied in Ibiza Threats Case Involving Shopper Family Reactions and Appeals in the Marta Calvo Case: Justice, Appeals, and the Call for Stronger Sentences Reimagining Spain’s Eurovision Comeback: The Lady, Lady Era Supreme Court vs Constitutional Tribunal: Authority and Pardons in Poland {“title”:”Revised Coverage of Palma Prison Status Extension”}