All language subtitles for Rosa Perals Tapes (2023)

Hello. I'm Rosa, and, well,
you know I'm calling you from prison.

I would like people to have
the chance to get to know the real me,

not the person
who the media has made me out to be.

Of course, it may not be very easy

to explain and understand
my side of the story.

What I've been through, for example.

All of this… this…
I really don't know how to explain it.

The character assassination I suffered

before, during,
and after the trial continues.

I am still being attacked like this
six years later.

If this had happened
to a man instead of a woman,

they would not be talking about

who he did or did not have
intimate relationships with.

Maybe they would've really tried to find
real evidence to make their case.

Because that evidence is needed
to find out what happened to Pedro

and how it happened.

THIS IS THE FIRST INTERVIEW
ROSA PERAL HAS GRANTED

SINCE BEING SENTENCED
TO 25 YEARS IN PRISON

Hey! Say, "Action!"

-C'mon.
-Hi.

Hey. Say hi. You're all on camera.

Hey.

THIS FOOTAGE WAS RECORDED
BY PEDRO RODRÍGUEZ

TWO MONTHS BEFORE HIS MURDER

I remember
that year we went on a skiing trip.

We went with Pedro that year.

And I remember that my youngest was
very attached to me, you know?

She'd say, "I wanna be with Mommy."

And the oldest would say,
"Okay, well, then, I'll go with Pedro."

And I thought, "Oh my gosh.
This is what I'm lookin' for."

-Hi.
-Pretty.

ROSA PERAL'S TAPES

And now for an update on the Barcelona
Police Department murder case.

The jury has turned in the verdict.

Defendants Rosa Peral and Albert López
were found guilty of premeditated murder.

It all goes back to 2017,

when police officers
and lovers, Rosa and Albert,

planned the murder of Pedro Rodríguez,
who was also a police officer

and Rosa's partner
at the time of the crime.

Apparently, the event was triggered

when the victim discovered the infidelity
and he became an obstacle.

That's when Rosa and Albert
planned to take his life.

According to the verdict,
he was drugged, murdered,

and put in the trunk of a car
that was later set on fire

next to the Foix Reservoir.

The two Barcelona police officers,
arrested for the murder of a colleague…

They have accused each other.

Both have admitted that they participated
in the crime, but only as accessories.

There are three theories here.

Ms. Rosa's defense theory, that
the architect of this crime is Mr. Albert.

Mr. Albert's defense theory,
that the mastermind is Ms. Rosa.

And the prosecution's theory,
that they colluded in this crime.

Rosa's story falls apart when you see
how she acted in the days after the crime.

She says she had
an insurmountable fear of Albert,

so she didn't dare go to the police.

But Rosa was a police officer.

Rosa Peral might not be a saint,

but what I can tell you for sure
is that Rosa Peral is not a murderer.

For her, flirting, seducing,
and owning was a kind of… life cycle.

She was always seducing.

Mr. Pedro wanted
to leave the relationship.

And his partner, who was Ms. Rosa Peral,

did not accept this
and planned to kill him.

I don't know if she did it.

I'm just a journalist.

But I know that Rosa Peral
was not given a fair trial.

Do you swear
by everything that you just told me?

Or do you want to confess that this crime

is nothing more than a devilish
and perverse proof of love

that would bind you and Albert forever?

I did not plan anything
with Albert, and I did not kill Pedro.

I stand by everything
that I have said here.

MAY 2, 2017
DAY AFTER THE MURDER

From the beginning,

one of the things
which really bothered me a great deal,

and which I thought a lot about

and wondered how it could be,

because it seemed unfair to me,

was that those
who were responsible for this crime

had burned the body and erased
the evidence of the manner of death.

It's better for them if it's ruled
a homicide rather than a murder.

And since I can't prove
how they killed him specifically…

PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE

…I can't prove it was premeditated,
or else it would be a murder.

And this really bothered me
as a prosecutor.

It… It tormented me.

They knew a homicide conviction
would get a shorter sentence.

But given the serious nature of the crime,
they wanted a murder verdict,

so the penalty would be higher.

ROSA'S LAWYER

From that point on,
they tried to build a case

with a murder conviction already in mind,

searching for evidence
that wasn't evidence,

but rather conjecture
and suspicion, at best.

We didn't have prints.
We didn't have a weapon.

The victim's body told us nothing.

So then, what did we really have?

We needed to expand our perspective.

To see if we could find
circumstantial evidence

that would allow us to reach a conclusion.

What happened?

Since the evidence is circumstantial,
it would have to be more compelling.

And I always visualize the evidence
as breadcrumbs

or a yellow brick road that you build.

And this road will lead you
in only one direction,

toward the guilt of the defendants.

Saturday, I went
to the police station,

and I said, "Look, I'm gonna tell you
everything I know to put an end to this."

MAY 13
12 DAYS AFTER THE CRIME

The first shock came
while I was explaining things.

They told me, "We're going to arrest you."

And I said, "But this is a mistake."

"I came here to tell you what I know."

"I've been quiet,
but I came to share what I know."

I said, "This can't be happening.
No, no. This can't be happening to me."

And I was worried about my daughters.

"How do I tell them
we won't see each other tonight?"

When they brought me to the jail,
I don't even remember when that happened,

it had already been four days
without eating or having a shower,

talking to anyone, not even my daughters.

Not knowing anything
about the outside world.

Stuck in a hole
for 24 hours a day, for four days.

They took me to some sort of basement.

They called it the punishment area,
you know?

Where they punished women.

It wasn't the cell
they usually use for holding

because they didn't know
what to do with me.

I didn't know that I was in the media.

I hadn't seen the news
or the TV at all during that time.

I was disconnected from everything.

Let's go now
to our colleague, Miquel Valls,

for an exclusive report

on the so-called "black widow
of the Barcelona police department."

The prosecutor
has characterized Rosa as unfaithful,

lying, manipulative, and cold.

She's sick.

She's very disturbed. And regardless
of the presumption of innocence,

Rosa Peral is a very dangerous character.

Honestly, Spain's history
is filled with many sensational cases.

JOURNALIST

This is just another one.

A beautiful young woman.

JOURNALIST

Sexually promiscuous
in Judeo-Christian terms.

Who is also a police officer.

Accused of the murder of her partner.

We love crimes of passion.

All the juicy ingredients were there.

Everything we needed
to go in for the kill with this story.

The situation is becoming
more complicated for Rosa Peral.

While in prison,
she tried to hire a hit man

to kill her daughters' father.

It has been revealed that Rosa drugged
her boyfriend Pedro before killing him.

She's very manipulative.

She's a charming person, very seductive.

During the heart
of the investigation,

how many relationships
did she have at once?

She may have had three
to four relationships at the same time.

It seemed strange that
after her partner disappeared,

she didn't try to find him for four days.

Why did Rosa wait 15 days
to file a complaint?

She doesn't act
like a threatened woman.

Police have considered
her the main suspect since the beginning.

…all pointing to her
as the murderer.

Our commentator's
first conclusions.

This was a premeditated crime,

where she seemed to be the one
who manipulated and masterminded the plan.

Awful things were said about me on TV.

So awful, I couldn't believe it.

I was shocked that people
would even say such things.

And that they would talk to me
about the right to information.

The right to information?

But what kind of information?

And before the start of the trial,
I was already…

Everyone already knew me.

They already knew my name.
They already knew my face.

They already knew the case,
how it had been reported.

And, obviously, it was very difficult.

It was very hard
to be able to clear your mind

and to objectively take in the evidence
that was really there.

It was very difficult.

Jury trial number 25/2019 begins
for the alleged crime

of murder with malice,
against defendants Mr. Albert López Ferrer

and Ms. Rosa María Peral Viñuela.

It was the most high-profile trial
in recent years.

It wasn't just about seeing Albert López
and Rosa Peral on the defendants' bench.

JOURNALIST

But also about what they were saying,
how they defended themselves.

The first day of the trial, I thought,

"I don't know how I'm going to make it
through six weeks at trial because…"

But that's how it is.
It's a lot of responsibility.

When a prosecutor signs an indictment,
asking for a 25-year sentence…

You must take it very seriously

because you're going to…
"destroy the life" of a citizen, you know?

Jury trials always have
a tense atmosphere, you know?

A really important aspect is
that there are nine jury members,

nine citizens, and you're looking
at their anxious faces.

PRIVATE PROSECUTOR

The jury was especially anxious
during this trial,

which had a lot of media coverage.

They look at you like they're saying,
"What am I doing here?"

I would like to pass on,
or share with you,

one of the questions
Rosa frequently asks me, which is,

"Are they judging me
for who I've had sexual relations with,

or for whether
or not I have killed Pedro?"

I thought that the most important thing
to convey to them

was something we were finding to be
very characteristic of this trial,

the difference between sin and crime.

The lawyer herself, because it's obvious,

she knows perfectly well that,
in any crime of passion,

we have to look into their private lives.

I see it as a good rule of thumb,
you know, but…

we only went so far.

Ms. Rosa,
a second round of questions

that refer to your relationships
with Mr. Rubén, Mr. Albert, and Mr. Pedro.

Okay? Let's see.

When did you begin
the intimate relationship with Mr. Rubén?

In 2000.

In 2000?

-In 2000, yes.
-When did you get married?

In 2013.

When were your daughters born?

-In 2010 and 2012.
-Mm-hmm.

While you were with Mr. Rubén,

did you start a relationship
with Mr. Albert?

When… I mean, the thing with Rubén…

my relationship with Rubén
was a rather toxic relationship.

I met Rubén
when I was 16 years old.

We met when he was working at a nightclub.

I requested some songs.

I don't think he played them,
but when I was about to leave,

well, he came up behind me to ask me
if we could see each other again.

If we could hang out.

And from that point on, we started dating.

I remember that he came to the high school
many times to see me,

to pick me up,
because he already had a driver's license.

He would pick me up and take me home.

Or we would meet on the weekend
and go for a walk.

We would go to the movies.

Back then, I was super in love,
and I thought he was the man of my dreams.

But, over time, all of that faded away.

We had the girls, but after that,
we only grew further apart.

Basically, our relationship
was already broken.

And I started working with Albert.

And we started going
on 12-hour patrols together,

and, little by little, our affection
for one another grew stronger,

and we became closer.

Was your relationship sexual?

We had an emotional relationship.

What does that mean?

And then, with Albert,
I found someone who listened to me,

who heard me, you know?

I felt he was there for me.

And after a while,
things got more serious,

but I didn't want it to continue.

But during that time, I thought,

"Well, for now, we can be friends
with… let's say with benefits."

I don't know how to say it.

His expectations of a relationship
were not the same as mine.

He didn't want a family.

He wanted nothing to do with children,

and for me, obviously,
my daughters come first.

If he was never going to accept that,

then realistically, the relationship
wasn't going anywhere.

That's when I started
riding motorcycles.

That kind of thing, you know?
And then Pedro showed up.

He was a colleague at work.

Uh, we started to go out.
We started to ride motorcycles together.

We started to find
more and more in common.

Maybe they were similar in a way.

Probably. Like with, uh…

Well, for example, people sometimes said,

"Have you noticed
that Albert and Pedro look alike?"

Look what happened with Pedro
in La Rabassada.

AUGUST 15, 2016
RABASSADA ROAD

ASSAULTED DRIVER
SWERVED DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO OFFICERS

I wrote that article.

I went to a gas station
on La Rabassada Road.

That's an area where the bikers
like to go to ride the curves.

The gas station employee showed me
some footage of a biker

skipping a police checkpoint.

In this case,
Pedro Rodríguez's checkpoint.

After that, Pedro Rodríguez quickly jumped
on his own motorcycle

and chased down the biker.

Pedro pushed the biker,
knocking him off the bike,

and then raised his fist.

But just as he was about to punch him,
he stopped and let the biker go.

It's true that, off the record,

some officers said that,
at the time, Pedro was…

that Rosa had driven him crazy.

At that time, Pedro was trying to decide
whether to leave his wife

in order to pursue his relationship
with Rosa Peral.

So, I truly believe that this became
a kind of explosive cocktail,

which exploded in La Rabassada

because Pedro did not know
how to manage his feelings.

I saw Pedro differently

because, even with that,
that particular event in La Rabassada,

I didn't consider him a violent person.

He helped me. He took care of me.
He was very attentive.

Uh, when there was the so-called
"revenge porn trial,"

I told him, "Look, what I want
is to forget this and to move on."

And Pedro said,
"No, no. You're going to get a lawyer."

"This can't be allowed."

-PROSECUTION ASKS FOR 3-YEAR SENTENCE
-REVENGE PORN

The revenge porn email event
took place in 2008.

Back then, Rosa was a 23-year-old officer

who had just started
at the Ciutat Vella police precinct,

and who, well, after a few months,
ended up having an affair

with Sub-Inspector Óscar, unbeknownst
to her official partner, Rubén.

It seems that Rosa wanted to end
the relationship with… with Óscar,

and supposedly, he got angry.

He didn't take it very well.

And he decided to send out a mass email

with a photograph of himself
and Rosa having sex.

He ended up hacking Rosa Peral's
email account

and sent the picture to everyone,
to all of Rosa Peral's contacts.

FEBRUARY 28, 2008, 9:42 P.M.
FROM: ROSA PERAL

TO: ALL CONTACTS
SUBJECT: SEE ATTACHED FILE

HI, IT'S ROSA.
SINCE I LEFT SCHOOL,

I'VE MISSED SUCKING COPS' DICKS,

SO NOW THAT I'M IN THE FORCE,
I'VE SUCKED OFF A CORPORAL

AND A COUPLE OFFICERS.

I FUCK WITH NO CONDOM.
MORE PLEASURE FOR ALL.

CALL ME AT…

She received unanimous support
from her commanding officers.

And the theory was
that the email had been…

that she had been the one who had sent it.

When I filed the complaint
about the revenge porn,

first, I received calls from the police
and even from higher-ups telling me,

"Withdraw the complaint.
You're going to ruin his life."

"Sure, I ruined his life,
but he sent the photo."

"That's absurd," they told me.
"It's already in the past."

"It's in the past,
but the photo's being shared."

CITY OF JUSTICE

The revenge porn investigation continued

after Rosa had been arrested
for Pedro's murder.

At the trial, she was no longer seen
as a female victim,

but as a woman accused of murder.

So her credibility had really diminished.

The revenge porn investigation
was mishandled.

There was more evidence
that they could have included.

Rosa recorded the accused
admitting culpability.

I understand you're calling
to ask me to withdraw the complaint,

but you haven't told me yet
where the photo came from.

Okay, Rosa. I sent the email.

-You sent it?
-Yes.

I sent the email.

But that investigation
amounted to nothing.

The sub-inspector was acquitted
because it couldn't be definitively proven

that it was actually he who had sent
the email with the sexual photo.

Is Rosa Peral capable of sending
that picture to all of her colleagues?

I don't know.

But she was capable of killing… um… Pedro.

MAY 1, 2017
9:37 P.M.

When you got back home,

what did you do?

When we got back home,
I put the girls to bed.

And we started to gather
the clothes we had downstairs,

the laundry we had washed. We had, um…

MAY 16, 2017
FIRST DEPOSITION

…clothes to fold.

What happened next?
What did you do?

Albert kept sending me messages,
saying that he wanted to come over.

That he wanted to talk.

He was still texting me
from outside the house.

I opened the door, and he was approaching.

JUNE 20, 2017
CRIME REENACTMENT

When I stepped outside, I saw him jumping
over the lower part of the fence.

Then he approached me.

He was wearing a neck gaiter, gloves,

and a backpack, and there was
a hatchet handle sticking out.

You don't usually see a person coming
toward you and lifting up their shirt

to show you a gun.

He didn't take out the gun and point it
at me, but he was still armed.

That had the same effect
as if he had pointed the gun at my head.

He told me, "Give me your phone."

"I told you to give me your phone."

I gave him my cell phone,
I threw it down, then I ran upstairs.

When I got upstairs, I locked the door,

and at that moment,
I started to hear a lot of banging.

Rosa, was the banging
you heard like this?

-Not as hard.
-Not as hard.

I went to see
if the girls were okay,

if the noise
from Albert had woken them up.

With the fence and the door and so on.

I saw that they were both still asleep,

so I came back to the dining room
and sat down.

I was nervous, so I went to the kitchen
and drank some water.

I paced back and forth.

And I thought, "How can I stop him
from coming after me?"

"What should I do?"

"Should I jump out the window
with a four-year-old and a six-year-old?"

When did you unlock the door?
When did--

When he told me to come out.
And if I didn't, he would come in.

I went downstairs,
and he told me to clean up.

I said, "What do you want me to clean up?"

And he told me, "Here."

I said, "What should I use to clean?"

"Water and bleach?"

"Why do I need to clean
with water and bleach?"

I start cleaning up
and looking around, looking for Pedro,

trying to see what had happened to him,
where the banging had come from.

But I could find absolutely nothing.
There were no stains.

Pedro wasn't there. There was nothing.

She said that Albert terrified her,
and that's why she didn't react.

She didn't know how.

She'd say, "Well, if I hadn't been a cop,

no one would be shocked
that I acted the way I did."

But, of course, you were a police officer.

All she had to do was call a friend
and say, "This has happened."

And they would come to rescue her
or help her, right?

But that's not what she did.

The argument is that paralyzing fear

contributed to her behavior
after the events.

But Ms. Rosa wasn't in close proximity
to Mr. Albert for several days.

So, of course,
it's very difficult to believe her, right?

To justify why she did not report Albert
during those following several days.

Uh, if an intruder had been in my house,

and I had been able
to talk to other people after,

the fact
that I did not divulge anything is…

It's very suspicious
because the fear constraining me

would need to be present at all times.

You'd have to have been
in a similar situation.

If you haven't been,
I guess it's hard to understand.

Anyone who's been in a scary,
traumatizing situation like that…

Who has been threatened, coerced,
or made to feel unsafe by another person

who is armed and dangerous…

Well, understandably, your reaction
may not be that rational.

In hindsight, I think that I…

I made a bad… the wrong decision.

And that choice
has led to people doubting me afterwards.

Or not believing me.

"Why did she act like that?
Why didn't she confront him?"

"Why didn't I stand up to him?"

"Why didn't she go to the police?
Why didn't she trust them?"

I understand that I have a history,
so to speak, with the police

and that… that it caused… well,

it caused me to have some distrust
in them over the years.

Like what happened
with the so-called revenge porn incident.

So, based on an experience like that,

I reached a point where I felt like,

"Can I really trust all these people?"

"People who have betrayed my trust
and let me down time and time again?"

Especially when I needed them the most.

When I felt completely alone.

Oh!

APRIL 23, 2023
ROSA PERAL'S HOUSE

Rosa has been in jail
for almost six years now.

She hasn't lost her mind at all.

She hasn't lost herself.

She continues to assert her innocence
and the truth.

She's lucky I'm here to support her.
I'm always present.

ROSA'S FATHER

Every month, I take the girls to see her,
and that brings a lot of joy to her life.

Well, my father helps me
as much as he can.

And I try not to be too much of a burden,

but… but of course,
many times, it's unavoidable.

Because… well, that's normal, isn't it?

It's been six years.

And he helps me a lot,
especially with my daughters.

My mother also helped with them,
but not now.

I didn't mention
that she's not with us anymore.

If it hadn't been for my parents,

I wouldn't have been able
to see my daughters.

It's complicated.

It's really complicated
every time they come to visit me.

I end up feeling like I'm an outsider.

But what I want is to take advantage
of all the time that we get.

I really have to go above and beyond
to make sure they have fun.

And I want to make sure
that they will always want to come back.

I worry they won't want to.

Maybe they won't be excited to return

because the environment is so hostile,
so ugly, right?

They're just little kids,
entering a prison.

They're told,
"You have to take off your watch."

"You have to take it off."

But what if one day they visit

and one of them wants to bring me
some candy because she's tried it before.

She might say, "I want to take some
to Mommy because I want her to try it."

And she says, "Mommy, I've tried it,
and I want to bring you some."

And then one day,
she brings the candy, and they tell her,

"No, you have to throw it away."

FEBRUARY 4, 2020
WITNESS TESTIMONY

Witness testimony
has started today.

The testimony will include more
than 50 witnesses in the upcoming weeks

and has just kicked off.

Multiple witnesses appeared in the trial

who characterized Rosa as a woman
with many very complicated relationships

with the various men in her life.

Experts concluded that she suffers from,

and I don't know
if this is the correct term,

but a type of anti-monogamous pathology.

She cannot be with just one person.

However, it has not been established
that her behavior is sexually promiscuous,

which would, of course,
be within her rights.

Rosa was a very attractive woman,

and some journalists
even confessed this to me.

The story of two jealous men fighting over
an attractive woman was not that appealing

or that original.

But the story of a black widow…

Now, that would sell many more newspapers
and draw a much larger audience.

And there were, um,
new affairs popping up almost every week.

Almost every week.

Those, combined with
her prior relationships, fed the story.

I'm sure of that.

The media didn't have any vested interest
in revealing her love affairs.

But the men involved in the crime

had actually had romantic relationships
with her.

I respect and appreciate my colleagues,
but in this case,

I believe they have not acted impartially
and professionally.

I'm guilty of it myself.

I remember at the beginning of everything,
when she was arrested, and so on,

I published an article.

I reread it the other day and was ashamed.

GO-GO DANCER, ALLEGED MURDERER

I wrote, "Rosa Peral,
this stripper woman…"

She never worked as a stripper.
She was never a go-go dancer.

She didn't dance topless.

She didn't do any of the stupid things
that were reported.

They invented a character
because there was no evidence against me.

The evidence is against him.

So the only way they could build a case
against me was to say we colluded

and to present me as a black widow.

And they built on that character
during the trial.

For example, they asked each witness
if they had been intimate with me,

whether they were a man or a woman.

Did you have some kind
of romantic attachment to Ms. Rosa?

No.

You still state that you only had
a sexual encounter with Ms. Rosa?

I only had one sexual encounter.

Did you know whether Ms. Rosa
was married to another person at the time?

No.

Did you have
a romantic relationship?

Romantic in what sense?

Did you feel
in love or attracted to her?

-Oh no. No.
-No.

At that time, was Ms. Rosa herself
in another romantic relationship?

No.

Did you know that later, Ms. Rosa
began a relationship with Mr. Pedro?

Yes.

Did you know
Ms. Rosa's relationship status?

Who she was with? Who her partner was?

At that time,
her partner was Pedro.

Was there
some romantic relationship

between Ms. Tania and Ms. Rosa?

A love relationship?

-No. No.
-No.

We're not lesbians.

That gave her
the reputation of a femme fatale.

Of a sexual woman, of a kinky woman.

And that image
really helped the prosecution

make their winning argument.

-Manuel, I have to ask.
-Okay.

Isn't it true that you
and Ms. Rosa saw each other often?

What do you mean by "often"?

That you had
frequent sexual encounters.

No. Just the one time.

The court should never have allowed
these things to come out.

If she had a relationship
or not with the neighbor?

They shouldn't have allowed that.

When the justice system
taps into a suspect's phone,

anything recorded by the police
that does not have relevance

to the investigation
does not have to be made public.

It does not have to be included.

Forgive me for this question,
Isaam, but I have to ask it.

At that moment, did you have
any kind of romantic interest

or affection toward Ms. Rosa?

-No. None. I--
-Uh-huh.

And Ms. Rosa towards you?

No, I didn't see it that way.

-Okay.
-Not at the time. Or, well, never.

Um…

Could the same verdict… have been reached

without detailing all
of her romantic relationships?

But the triangle, the main love triangle,
was the primary focus.

Let's be clear.

To me, as a representative
of the Public Prosecutor's Office,

the private life of a man
or a woman does not matter.

I don't care how they live their lives.

But… but if there are elements
of that private life

that allow us to understand the psychology
that leads a person to kill,

and there are elements
that allow us to understand

the reason why someone
would commit murder,

in that case, I do care.

But not to judge,
not to prosecute, not to lecture anyone.

But to present the evidence of a murder.

Saying, "We only exposed
the characteristics of Rosa's personality

that show motive and explain the crime…"

CRIMINAL LAWYER

…establishes a link between sin and crime.

To prove that someone is a murderer,
has committed a homicide,

you don't have to explain
their personality.

You have to show me evidence
that that person murdered someone.

This case… can only be understood
by the details found in the police reports

and heard during the trial
that show her emotional trajectory

and how she conducts…
her personal and romantic relationships.

Otherwise, there is no case.

MAY 1, 2017
DAY OF THE CRIME

On May 1st,

Rosa and Pedro spent a family day out
at Pedro's house.

They went with Rosa's parents
and Rosa's daughters.

First, they went
to Calafell to ride some slides.

They made me ride the slide.

I thought I was a little old for that,

but in the end,
they made me ride with the kids.

They rode two or three times.

Pedro, with one daughter,
and Rosa, with the other.

And after having lunch there,
we went to Pedro's house.

After that, they spent the afternoon
at Pedro's house.

Rosa's father and Pedro worked
in the yard.

I told my father and my mother,

"Hey, we're gonna clean.
Can you lend us a hand?"

They always agreed to everything.

They always lent us a hand.
They always helped us out.

My mother had back problems.

She wasn't feeling very well,
so she would say, "Okay, we'll go."

"We can have lunch somewhere."

"I'll be sitting,
so I can take care of the girls,

and you three can clean up."

We worked hard, cleaning up half the yard.

Then taking all the trash out,
throwing it away and all that.

And we continued working there
until around eight o'clock.

So, it was an idyllic family day,

during which Rosa Peral
also took many photos.

More photos than usual.

To us, although it was hard to argue this,
many of those photos

seemed deliberately taken
to create an alibi for Ms. Rosa.

Based on our thesis.

While investigating, I realized
that we didn't have any hard evidence.

That was the biggest challenge
of this trial.

All the evidence
we had was circumstantial.

And my colleagues
and I came to the conclusion

that it was going to be very important
to prove premeditation in this case.

Why?

If premeditation can be proven,

it is irrelevant
who has physically carried out the act.

JANUARY 12, 2017
3 MONTHS BEFORE THE CRIME

To understand a bit
how things developed

and why Pedro's murder took place,
we have to go back, let's say,

to January 2017.

When Albert López
went to Rosa Peral's house

because he still believed he had
a romantic relationship with her.

He saw that Pedro Rodríguez
was living there.

It is true that Mr. Albert discovered,
on January 12, 2017,

that you and Pedro had a relationship,
and that provoked a confrontation

between you and Mr. Albert?

They didn't come to blows that day

because I told Pedro not to come outside
and that he should stay out of it.

I made a scene, but just with her.

Because of what I had just discovered.

The exchange never went beyond words.

I told her to go to hell, so to speak.

Excuse my French.
I got on my motorcycle and left.

January 29, 2017 - From: Albert
To: Rosa

You have no idea
what you're putting me through, you slut!

I hate you!

I loved you and was gonna give up
everything for you and the girls.

Now I've cried
over the worst betrayal of my life.

Don't talk to me again!

Everyone at the precinct knows
what you and that pig did.

I'm not ashamed
because I'm worth more than you both.

You disgust me.

I'm writing in tears of helplessness,
but I'll never forgive you.

If I ever quit the force
and no longer care about my life,

mark my words, you'll hear from me again.

Don't you dare reply, you whore!

Those emails were preceded
by 77 emails from her,

telling me to come back.

That it wasn't what it looked like
and so on.

But it obviously was what it looked like.

After that incident, when Albert showed up
at my house, shouting insults,

and they almost came to blows,

I became really scared of Albert.

Okay, you're saying
that you were afraid of him,

but I want you to hear
your following email.

Mr. Pedro's email is at 10:05 p.m.

And four minutes later, you write

to Mr. Albert, who you are afraid of,

and who has threatened
to kill your partner.

You tell him,
"He hasn't had me and never will."

And 24 minutes later,

"You're the only person
who's really had me,

and I want you to continue having me."

What's surprising, from the outside,

although I think it is
also consistent with psychology…

The defendants' psychology
is very important for us in this case.

Is that Ms. Rosa always denies
having anything to do with Mr. Pedro.

I was afraid to tell him that
I had started a relationship with Pedro.

I thought that he might try
and talk to Pedro and start an argument

or create bigger problems.

I planned to let him know
at a more appropriate time,

after the dust had settled.

Once he had calmed down
and gotten over his obsession with me.

Did you take your time saying,

"You're the only person who's really
had me, continue having me"?

Is that taking your time with Mr. Albert?
Is this what you're saying?

Regrettably, that was my way
of doing it at that time.

Common behaviors
for women in relationships

are never taken into account

and are not given
appropriate consideration by the courts.

What coping and survival strategies
are commonly used

by women in relationships?

Avoidance.

The public prosecutor asks,

"Why didn't you tell Albert
that you were with Pedro?"

"Because you were already hatching
an evil plan?"

"No, because I didn't want any problems."

"I didn't want to give Albert
any kind of explanation. Period."

This is never taken at face value.

The woman's strategy
of conflict avoidance,

her survival in a controlling relationship
is discredited with…

with the prosecution's questions.

JANUARY 30, 2017

MARCH 27, 2017

ALBERT LÓPEZ: HEY.
BECAUSE YOU'RE AT THE PRECINCT TODAY,

EVERYBODY'S WAITING TO SEE
IF WE BUMP INTO EACH OTHER.

TYPICAL GOSSIPS TRYING
TO STIR UP MORE SHIT ABOUT YOU.

At the end of March,
Mr. Albert restarts,

or tries to restart contact,
with Ms. Rosa.

I think it was through Facebook.

But with a totally different tone.

HOW ABOUT WHEN WE BUMP INTO EACH OTHER,
WE PRETEND LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED?

ALBERT LÓPEZ
COPY THAT. YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED.

WHY WON'T YOU UNBLOCK ME ON WHATSAPP?
IS THE COUCH POTATO THAT JEALOUS?

DON'T BE LIKE THAT, DUMMY.
YOU KNOW I HAVE A HEART OF GOLD.

I WON'T GIVE YOU ANY MORE TROUBLE.

TRUST ME. I NEVER LIED TO YOU.

But his messages,
at that point, were not threatening.

They were not filled with hatred.

His messages did not rise to the level
they had previously, back in January.

I got the impression
that his tone had shifted.

His language was more friendly.

We were unable to determine
whether Rosa, in that moment,

wanted to resume
a romantic or sexual relationship

with Mr. Albert or not.

But we did notice a change
in her tone in April.

From the day she received the ring.

Total shift. Very noticeable.

We noticed a significant change
in both of them.

Let's move on to April 8th,
the famous day of the ring.

Did you deliberately plan

to see each other
when you were with your friends?

I thought
that it would be better not to meet.

To avoid misunderstandings.

To avoid everything
that had happened before.

I wanted to be clear.

But on that day, I said,
"Look, I'm not going to meet you alone."

"But if you want to come by right now,
I am with my friends,

so it might be more comfortable

and allow us
to avoid any misunderstandings."

"If you want to, come by
and say hello since you're working."

Wearing his uniform, Albert walks over

and throws a ring at Rosa
and says, "Just in case you reconsider."

I did that so she'd consider
working together again.

I had suggested this to her before,
in those conversations you've mentioned,

but she was skeptical.

So I thought, "Damn.
Maybe I can convince her this way."

You used a ring
so she'd work with you again?

Yes, to work together again.

But if something more arose,
I wouldn't say no.

Giving her that ring was a symbol.

It means, "I'm willing to do anything.
This time, it will be different."

"Look, I'll show you
in front of your friends."

And this time, there was a ring,

which is the symbol
of a strong commitment.

A commitment which involves family,
which involves her children.

And she was fooling around
with both of them.

In fact, one of the most shocking moments
of the trial

was when a friend stated
that there was a moment over coffee

when Rosa was wearing a ring on each hand.

Pedro's ring and Albert's ring.

Did she tell you what she decided?

"I'm going to say yes"?
"I'm going to leave Pedro"?

"I'm going to return the ring to Albert"?

Well, no. Not at that time.

Did she say,
"I think Pedro is better,"

or something like that?

At the end of the day,
yes, she chose Pedro.

Explain it to us.
What did she say? What did she tell you?

How exactly did she say
she was going to stay with Pedro?

Hmm… Exactly?

As exact as you can.

"He dresses and fucks better."

-Sorry, I didn't hear you.
-"He dresses and fucks better."

No, that was not true.
That's not what happened.

Sure, my friend asked,
"What are you gonna do?"

Of course, that question did come up.

And I told her.
I said, "I'm staying with Pedro."

That was never in question.

I never had any doubts.

None at all.

And if I'm not with Pedro, I'll be alone.

Definitely not with Albert.

So it's funny that she took the stand
and made that joke.

But, of course, they're talking about sex.

They're talking about…
about what Pedro likes.

There was never any question
about which one of them I would choose.

No, no. My decision was final.

First, because Pedro
accepted my daughters.

Second, because he put his heart
into the relationship.

He wanted to get to know me,
to get to know the kids.

He was so attentive with my daughters.

But he said, "I don't want…
I don't want to replace Rubén."

"I'm just going to be your partner,
and I want to be someone special to them."

And he told me,

"And since I'm not their uncle,
because they already have uncles,

well, I want to be their titi."

"I want them to feel like
I'm someone special."

"That they can count on me,
to teach them, to help them."

"With whatever they need."

Pedro began to awaken a part of me
that had fallen asleep, you know?

The feminine part of me, and…

Wait, the call's going to drop.

New evidence doesn't normally appear
before the trial.

Even during the trial.

But, in this case,
a very strange thing happened.

All the material that they had taken

or that they had recovered
from Rosa Peral's mobile phone

was brought to the trial.

A lot of files,
thousands and thousands of files.

And, well, they found a message.

From April 19th, an audio message
from Rosa Peral to Albert López.

In this message, she uses
the nickname usually reserved for Albert.

Listening to that audio message
is chilling.

Hey, dummy.
Your phone is turned off. No big deal.

I went shopping in Caprabo, and I got
a discount coupon for Port Aventura.

So I was thinking that if we all went back
to Caprabo next weekend,

we could go to Port Aventura
and stay overnight with the kids.

What do you think?

Ms. Rosa, tell me
about this audio message.

That audio has nothing to do with Albert.

I mean, I don't know
why you're saying that it does.

I'm talking to Pedro.

I use a lot of terms like that
so I don't swear in front of my daughters.

I say "dummy," "idiot," "silly."
I use many words like that.

Ms. Rosa, we have thousands
of pages of messages. Thousands.

I'm asking you, can you point us
to a single… a single conversation,

a single email where you call someone
other than Mr. Albert "dummy"?

I'm telling you that I say it.
I always say it.

I talk like that
so my daughters don't hear me swear.

On both of their phones,
there were thousands of conversations.

And hundreds of WhatsApps and emails.

If she could have proven
that she also called others "dummy,"

I could've believed
that the text was to someone else.

It wasn't proven.

The experts explained two
or three things about this audio message.

They can demonstrate for us
how they did this, if needed.

First, your phone's GPS
on April 19, 2017, placed it in Caprabo.

And you say, "I went shopping in Caprabo."

Second, at 3:24 p.m., just prior,
you make two attempts to call Mr. Albert.

Not Mr. Manuel, but Mr. Albert.

And then, right after this audio message,

immediately following, the first person
you talk to is Mr. Albert.

That audio file was on Rosa's phone,

but it was not connected
to any conversation.

It was a single piece
of audio on the phone.

And it didn't even have
what the experts call "metadata,"

which could have provided us
with a time stamp,

day, time, place, and everything.

But there was only a modification date.

The defense argued that this audio message
could be from three years earlier.

But the thing is, on April 19th,

the modification date
of the audio message,

Rosa is geopositioned
next to a Caprabo supermarket.

Do you go to Caprabo sometimes?

I wouldn't say every day,
but pretty often.

Because not only is Caprabo
close to our home,

it's also really close
to the girls' school.

So I usually pass by there
on my way back and forth,

between home and the school.

The defense was aware
that this audio message,

without context, had no value.

But looking at the big picture,

which was part of the argument
the prosecution put forward,

the audio message is pivotal.

And logically and understandably,
the defense shout their voices raw,

trying to prove that the audio
is not from that date.

A final question on this topic.
What did you mean by, "if we did it"?

I don't know
what I was referring to.

Considering the plans we had
with Manuel, that I told you about,

it was probably some motorcycle trip
we had planned, or--

What was "it"?
For the prosecution, that was very clear.

"It" was killing Pedro.

Yes, that was really significant.

Why significant?

Well, I debated the topic
with my colleagues endlessly.

I analyzed every word endlessly.

And the message is really significant
because she says,

"If we," first person plural, "did it."

But if you had killed Pedro,

would you have gone to Port Aventura
the following weekend?

Wouldn't you have been more discreet?

Instead, you go to Port Aventura
with your lover,

who was your partner in crime?

To me, it seems illogical
and completely out of character, right?

Only a true psychopath
would do something like that.

And none of Rosa's psych reports
showed those tendencies.

I mean, that would be really heartless,
wouldn't it?

But we do not know what she means
in the audio recording.

It could refer to anything.
It could be a barbecue.

I watched the trial every day.
I was there.

And the truth is that
everything the prosecutor talked about,

everything that he said…

none of it made any sense at all.

They had no evidence.

Nothing that said, "Here, we have this."

That's why… we thought that…
At least, I thought…

that nothing would come of it.

And at that time,
my wife was no longer well.

She was already in decline.

It hurt my mother a lot,
seeing me stuck like this,

imprisoned and restricted,

witnessing what was happening to me.

All the media commentary and attention.

FEBRUARY 3, 2020
FIRST DAY OF THE TRIAL

My wife could only say, "But why?"

"Why does my daughter have to be in prison
if she hasn't done anything? Why?"

And of course,
how could I have explained it to her

when she didn't have
her faculties anymore?

No matter how hard I tried.

The truth is that… it's very hard,
very hard. I'm telling you.

I called one morning,
and I asked, "How is she doing?"

And he said,
"Well, her vital signs aren't good."

And I said,
"But she's been hanging in there."

"She survived the surgery.
Don't worry. She'll be okay."

"With everything she's been through,
how could she not be?"

And my father said, "Yeah."

"But this time, I'm not so sure."

I called and called
and checked to see if she had recovered,

to see if she was better, and…

"Maybe she's about to turn a corner.
Just wait. You'll see."

But… she didn't.

I hadn't considered
that this could happen, you know?

It happened so suddenly.

And with me being so far away,
when I usually saw her all the time.

Look!

Honestly,
it hasn't fully sunken in.

I can't process it
because I'm in here, and I can't go.

I'm not at home.
I can't tell that she's not there anymore.

Moving on, Ms. Rosa.

Let me recap.

The ring is on April 8th.

Next, the audio message from the 19th.

And now, we move on to the following day.

One day after the audio message
from April 19th.

The purchase… Sorry,
the purchase of the phone.

By Mr. Albert, the Lyca phone.
Do you know which phone I mean?

-Yes, I know.
-Okay.

That phone was bought
by Albert López on April 20th.

The day after he received a message
from Rosa, saying,

"Let's go to Port Aventura
with our daughters."

A few days earlier,
he had given the ring to Rosa, right?

Therefore, it looks like April 20th
is when they made the choice

to embark on the plan to end Pedro's life.

APRIL 2017
MONDAY 27, FACEBOOK MESSAGE

SATURDAY 8, RING
WEDNESDAY 19, MESSAGE

This Lyca phone
is also more significant

than it may seem at first.

Obviously, this phone isn't very relevant
at all without context.

But it is relevant because the phone is
only used on two very significant

and very important occasions.

First, the phone is purchased
on April 20th.

And, just after buying it,
a few hours later,

Mr. Albert goes to an area which is
in the vicinity of Ms. Rosa's home.

The very same day, Ms. Rosa places
a missed call to that phone.

But this phone was not actually activated
until the night of May 1st.

And on the night of May 2nd,
he makes two missed calls with this phone.

For one thing, the relationship
was clearly back on again.

And there are a series of incidents.

Circumstances that do indicate

that they were,
let's say… plotting something.

Already suspicious of Rosa and Albert,

when investigators looked closely
at their relationship,

they realized that Rosa and Albert

had had a frenzied exchange
of phone calls.

Telephones tell us many things.

They can tell us,
to start with, the number of calls,

the duration of the calls,

the fluctuations in communications
between people.

But in addition,
a telephone positions people.

The sender and the receiver.
Where they are at any given time.

Therefore, we can place Rosa
and Albert together.

We can also place Rosa and Albert
in the vicinity of Rosa's home

on several occasions
when Mr. Pedro is not there.

I just left the kids,
and I'm headed home.

Let's see if he leaves soon.

I'll let you know.

When I get back home,
I'll start the laundry.

I'll do the dishes.

And I'll let you know when he leaves.

What catches our attention about the 25th
is not only that they see each other,

but also the audio messages
that she sends him.

The shocking thing about
these audio messages is the contempt

that Rosa shows toward Pedro.

I'll ignore him
a little, so he'll leave sooner.

I'm asking you, do you think
that it is respectful

to talk about your partner
like that with someone else?

Does that seem like
an appropriate conversation

to have with someone
who you want nothing to do with,

but yet are still inviting to your home?

It did not seem inappropriate to me

because I wanted to get the ring
back to him.

I'd had it since April 8th,

and I still hadn't been able
to see him to give it back.

That does not matter.
Let's be clear.

I'm asking you, does that seem
like an appropriate way

to talk about your partner?

I already told you that I was in a hurry
to return the ring. Not--

To speed up Mr. Pedro
leaving the house, you mean.

I was in a hurry then because I wanted
to return the ring to Albert.

I wanted to give it back to him
as soon as possible.

I didn't think there would be
another chance to meet him to return it.

APRIL 25

APRIL 15

ROSA PERAL - 5:22 P.M.
I USED TO BE SO HAPPY

BECAUSE HE GAVE ME ALL I WANTED,
MOVED TO CUBELLAS,

WANTED TO GET MARRIED, EVERYTHING…

ROSA PERAL - 5:22 P.M.
BUT NOW EVERY DAY IS A FIGHT

JUDIT - 5:27 P.M.
SHIT

It doesn't sound like you had
a good relationship with Mr. Pedro.

You said, "Every day is a fight."

That day we had… um,
an argument or, um…

Well, I don't know
if I would call it "an argument."

We were just two people
who had left their previous relationships,

with children from different partners.

Pardon me for interrupting.
Were there fights every day? Yes or no?

-No.
-So then, you were lying to Judit?

It's not that I was lying.

I might have exaggerated
because I was angry.

That specific time frame
is like an emotional rollercoaster.

In other words, we can see
that a day or two before the events,

Pedro went and declared
his undying love for Rosa,

but four days before that,
he had a serious crisis, you know?

So, it's like this.

Let me continue reading.

"Albert wasn't that nice
to all my friends."

Then you say,
"I was very taken with Albert."

Your friend says,

"Things between you went south,

and now each of you
should follow your own path."

And you respond,
and pay attention to your answer,

"You never know."

"If he changed his attitude

and gave his all,
and I wasn't with this other guy…"

You said that.

Yes, yes.

And you go on, "Impossible things
are just a little more challenging."

That didn't mean
that I wanted to kill him or leave him.

I've had thousands of arguments
with everyone,

with everyone I've been with.

But that doesn't mean that…

In any relationship,
there will be many arguments

and also many times when there aren't any.

Anyone who tells me that
they've never argued with their partner

or that they've never said,

"Look, I just need some space."

"I'm gonna take a walk,
and I'll be back later."

Anyone who denies that is lying.

APRIL 15, 2017
JUDIT'S WHATSAPP MESSAGE

We concluded that,
from April 8th on, they are thinking about

what it might be like
to get back together.

We're convinced of that.

We also believe that…
that Rosa somehow indicates to Albert

that Pedro is going to be an obstacle

in the rekindling
of their romantic relationship.

This is what we believe.

And, from the 8th, until the end of April,

there are about 50 calls
between Rosa and Albert.

Reciprocal calls. This is very important.

ROSA - ALBERT (APRIL 2017)

TUESDAY 4
ROSA 2 CALLS, ALBERT 2 CALLS

SATURDAY 8
ROSA 2 CALLS, ALBERT 6 CALLS

THURSDAY 20
ROSA 3 CALLS, ALBERT 3 CALLS

That is not entirely true.

Because although 50 calls were made,
only 31 were completed.

The others were all missed calls.

Therefore, they did not speak.

And on top of that,

if the prosecution intended
to show the planning of the murder,

between delivery of the ring on April 8th
and the audio recording on April 19th,

it then turns out that there were
only four calls during that time.

And those four calls only lasted
30 minutes in total.

Even less, 28 minutes.

Therefore, they would've had
to have planned the entire murder

in those 28 minutes.

Let's see. I believe that…

The fact that there are four calls

can be interpreted to mean,

"We're going to do it,"
but not, "How we're going to do it."

I don't know if I'm making myself clear.

In other words, the main takeaway
is that the decision was made.

But how to execute it…

We'll never know
if that was decided over one or two calls,

or at their meeting on the 25th.

Or if they met another time
in person without their phones.

They also could've communicated
over Telegram,

which would make
accessing the messages impossible.

So, that might offer an explanation
as to why they did not talk again.

Why there are no other records.

But the truth is
that we can't make assumptions here.

In reality, we need to have proof.

And therefore, the hypothesis
of whether they communicated via Telegram

or by smoke signals or by any other means,

or if they met more
or less times, is not valid.

What counts is the evidence we have,
not the evidence we don't have.

The last night Pedro and I spent
together was a really tough night for me.

APRIL 30, 2017
ONE DAY BEFORE THE CRIME

I was… I was having a hard time

because my daughters were switching over
to their father's house.

So Pedro decided to try to cheer me up.

We went out to dinner.

Then we went for a walk on the beach.

It doesn't make sense when they talk
about the crime being premeditated.

Everything the prosecution claimed
about planning a murder and so on

just doesn't make sense.

The night before,
we're walking on the beach.

We're having dinner,
and I am disconnected from the world.

It just wouldn't make any sense.

You know? What happened the following day.

MAY 1, 2017
9:37 P.M.

We verified that at 9:37 p.m.,

Rosa, her children,
and Pedro arrived home.

How did we know?

Thanks to their phones.

At this point, it is very important
for us to pay close attention

to each and every minute that follows

because they're all crucial.

At 9:51 p.m., you call Mr. Albert,
but it's a missed call.

-Yes.
-Mr. Albert doesn't answer.

-Yes.
-Why'd you call?

I had an insane amount
of messages from Albert,

and I wasn't going to read all of them.

It was just easier to call him and say,
"Hey, stop texting me."

At 9:53 p.m., she makes
a second call to Mr. Albert,

which goes through.

That is, Mr. Albert answers.

And they talk for four minutes.

I really wish we knew
what they had talked about

during that call.

We would, without a doubt,

have a better understanding
of what really happened.

Keep in mind, I just said 9:53 p.m.

Coincidentally, ten minutes later,
11 minutes to be exact,

Mr. Albert activates the famous Lyca phone

for the first time and calls you,
but you don't answer.

The police and the prosecutor

have always contended that that phone call
was the signal for "let's start the plan."

The jury took for granted
the premise that Rosa and Albert

took the opportunity to kill Pedro
while he was asleep or resting.

Pedro was a very strong person.

He was a very large person.

He would not be easy
to knock down physically.

And I think that Rosa
tried to cover all the bases, you know?

They gave him a drug
to slow him down, right?

Half asleep, half conscious.

As a result, he does not have
the capacity to react

and to defend himself when Albert arrives.

And I believe Albert is the person

who actively participated
in Pedro's death.

This argument is presented

based primarily
on the testimony of Antonia.

Antonia is Rosa's ex-husband,
Rubén's, new partner.

Is it true that in your contacts,
Ms. Antonia, Mr. Rubén's partner,

is listed under the name "Antonia bitch"?

Yes, I've had a very bad relationship
with her. Very bad.

And Antonia is the one who explains
that Rosa's eldest daughter

made a series of statements

that supported Rosa's active role
in the crime.

Since Rosa's eldest daughter
was a minor during the investigation,

she was assigned a guardian by the court,
who decided that,

since the girl had the right
not to testify against her mother,

she would not have to testify
during the trial.

There's another thing
that I would also like to clarify.

Because it's been said
on TV shows and publications,

and there's been a lot of confusion.

Many people say,
"Even her daughters said they saw her."

Or, "Her daughters said…"

No, my daughters have not said anything

because my daughters
have not seen anything.

And I really want to make that very clear.

Make no mistake,
my daughters have not seen anything.

But my ex-husband's wife, Antonia…

Well, Antonia appeared to testify.

When… and how?
Also, I need you to say it word for word.

Not your interpretation,
but the exact words that the minor used

when she told you
about the incident that she witnessed.

-Wait. Please, stop. No. Stop.
-Look.

At that moment, the judge interrupted.

Because if it had already been decided

that Rosa's daughter
would not be testifying,

then her indirect testimony

through the person
to whom she innocently confessed

would not be allowed either.

Because, really,
it's a way of circumventing

her choice not to testify.

We cannot allow a proxy witness

to circumvent the right
of a minor not to testify.

I'm very sorry.

Then I asked if they would allow Antonia
to describe how Rosa's daughter moved

when she was imitating Pedro.

Okay. Emma's mom…

was carrying Titi down the stairs.

-Your Honor, I object.
-No, no. You cannot speak.

-Don't talk.
-Act it out.

-Show us.
-Okay.

While she was miming,
which was actually more of a performance,

she was also talking.

Of course, if she had only mimed
without talking,

it wouldn't have added
anything to the trial.

He was like a robot.

Arms hanging like this.

Like a robot.

What?
Sorry. We can't hear you well.

Can you… You're too far
from the microphone.

-Get closer to the mic.
-I'll sit down, okay?

By allowing Antonia to mime the behavior,
but without the, uh…

with… without a commentary.

Without the actions
being described verbally…

Well, it looked like a silent movie,
you know?

And the truth is that, even though it was
a very serious and tragic topic,

it was a little funny.

That was
an impersonation of Titi.

So we understand,
by Titi, you mean Mr. Pedro.

Was the girl referring
to a particular day?

To the day of the events.

-Okay. No more questions.
-Thank you. Defense counsel?

With all due respect,

how do you know
it was the day of the events?

What events?

Because she told me…

Because I know--

-Your Honor, with all due respect--
-Enough. Enough.

I must point out a contradiction

with what the witness said
in her previous statements.

Enough. I cannot allow it.
That's why it cannot be admitted.

Of course. But that is why
the witness's spoken testimony

cannot be allowed.

The jury will ignore
the statements just made by the witness.

"Don't pay attention to her words,
just to her actions."

As a result, the jury
should've only interpreted her gestures

and should have ignored what was said,
but they heard it.

It was true
that the jury heeded the judge's warning

and did not make the slightest reference
to words uttered by the witness.

It's true.

In the verdict, the jury said

she lowered him like a robot.

And that was the proof
that Rosa drugged Pedro.

That was what put me in prison.

I repeat, my daughters
have never said anything,

nor will they ever say anything
because they saw absolutely nothing.

Okay?

So then, don't treat Antonia's statement
as if it's the truth,

as if it is an established fact.

Because she is a woman
who I never got along with.

So, logically,
she exploited the situation and thought,

"Now it's my chance to screw her over."

You understand?

I don't really know
if she ever considered the consequences

of making those statements.

She won't change her testimony now
because she's been told,

"If you do that, you'll perjure yourself,
and you'll go to prison."

PEDRO'S MURDER

18 HOURS LATER
MAY 2

Ms. Rosa's big mistake was keeping
Mr. Pedro's cell phone with her.

In her house.

PEDRO RODRÍGUEZ - 9:26 P.M.
BAAAAABE

The strategy used by the defendants was

to fake periods of activity
by Mr. Pedro, okay?

How did they do that?

Well, for example, messages were sent
between Rosa and, supposedly, Pedro.

They admitted to this.

That they took Pedro's cell phone.

They parked Pedro's car near the house
where Rubén lived at the time,

then pretended that Pedro
had approached Rubén's house,

thus implying that Rubén had killed him.

PEDRO RODRÍGUEZ - 9:50 P.M.
TURNING OFF PHONE, DON'T WANT IT VIBRATING

At 9:50 p.m., when "Pedro"
says he's turning off his phone,

the cell GPS locates him
in the vicinity of Rubén's house.

-Is that correct?
-Yes. That's right.

As soon as we arrived at Rubén's house,
Albert told me to send those messages.

That was when I began to wonder
what he might have done to Pedro,

or if they had argued.

If he had hit him
or threatened him or whatever.

And now he was trying to involve Rubén.

Ms. Rosa, after turning off Pedro's phone
near Rubén's house, what did you do?

After that, he drove me back to my house.

And that's when he gave me
Pedro's car keys.

So, you drove Pedro's car,
and Albert drove his. Is that right?

That's right. I followed him.

Albert drove his car,
and I followed behind with Pedro's car.

You were alone.

You could've gone to a police station,
called someone.

But for some reason,

you decided against that
and followed Albert.

If I had taken off,

I would've had to have driven
like I was in a race,

managed to get to a police station,
and been immediately believed.

That is what I would've had to have done--

-You're a police officer, right?
-Yes, exactly.

That's why I thought that way.

All those thoughts
raced through my mind, of course.

By the time I would've reached
a police station,

he would have driven back to my house.

-So you followed Albert.
-Uh-huh.

How long did it take to arrive?
Did you go straight to the reservoir?

Yes. He knew perfectly well
where he was going.

He knew the exact destination,
where he was headed.

He used his turn signal. He seemed sure.

I was thinking,
"What should I do now?"

I stayed very still, waiting, motionless.

Just like the day before.
I didn't know how to react.

I didn't know what to do.

I couldn't just take the car and leave.

I couldn't do that.

All I could do
was just stay there, frozen,

and watch as he approached me
with gas cans.

I have it etched in my memory.

He opened the car door
and took out two cans.

I remember they were big and red.

And I thought,
"Oh my gosh. That looks like gasoline."

As he approached me, I wondered
if he was going to pour the gas over me.

"If that happens,
I can run as fast as I want,

but if he throws one match
at me, then I'm done for."

I ran for it, hoping to escape
being splashed with the gasoline.

I dropped things as I was running,
but I never stopped to pick them up.

I didn't even look back once.

Because all I could think about
was just running away from him,

and that he might shoot me
in the back while I was running.

And then, she began
to walk along the road,

but Albert approached
with his car and told her, "Get in."

"If you don't,
I'll get to your daughters before you do."

For Rosa's defense,
it was a crucial argument

that her keys were so close to the road

because that placed them
very far from the car.

And therefore, that supported
her version of the events.

That she ran up to the road
and the keys fell out of her pocket,

or she still had them
in her hand when she ran away.

From the prosecution's point of view,
it just was not relevant that the…

that the keys of the vehicle were
on the road near the scene of the crime.

Because we believed that the two suspects
had gone voluntarily to the reservoir.

It's an established fact that they needed
to use two cars to drive to the reservoir.

Let's move on, Ms. Rosa.

So, you get in the car,
and where do you go?

That was
when he drove me back home.

He told me to say
absolutely nothing to anyone.

I said, "I'm not gonna report you
for the car."

"I don't care. A car's a car."

"It doesn't matter."

"I don't care. Just leave me alone."

"All I want is for you to leave me alone."

In order for Rosa's version of events
to be plausible,

you have to believe
the insurmountable fear she suffered.

If you believe that Rosa
was so terrified of Albert,

then everything else fits.

"I'm scared."

"The next day,
I didn't dare say anything."

"I was quiet for two days."

"I was in shock, completely overwhelmed."

But day three, day four,
day five, day six, day seven, day eight,

when you've had time to react,
when many people are helping you,

when you already know
that the homicide task force

is investigating the case
and that they will certainly protect you…

She has been judged
for her behavior after the fact.

But there's no proof
of what happened that day, right?

Like I said before,

whether she cries or doesn't cry,
whether she didn't report it or does,

if you understand that she was terrified
that Albert might do something to her,

or, even worse, to her daughters,
who are the ones she loves the most,

then you understand
her resulting behavior.

Where is it written how and what is fear?

What is fear?

If she says
that she had an insurmountable fear,

can anyone, based on objective data,

question that Rosa Peral has no right
to be afraid or to feel that fear?

Rosa's biggest fear wasn't
what would happen to her or her parents.

Her biggest fear was for her daughters.

In my opinion, everything she did
was to protect her daughters.

Which no one appreciates.

You know something?

Back then, what concerned me most,

more than anything else,
was keeping my children safe.

Keeping them out of harm's way.

Keeping them alive because…

…the real danger was Albert.

I weighed the sentence
I would receive for staying silent

against the knowledge that
my family would be protected from harm.

You know?

Um, but this has led to confusion.

With everyone offering their opinions.

And, of course, they're intrigued.

Because the initial investigation
started with me.

I was the first person of interest.
After that, everything snowballed.

A few years have passed.

There have been books written.

TV series shot. Etcetera, etcetera.

But there are still
many unanswered questions.

And each of us has an interpretation
of what happened in this case.

Although not always successful,

justice helped to clarify
and to explain this case.

But in the end,
who are the guilty parties,

and who are the victims?

Where is the plan?

When was the plan formalized?

What was the plan?

Whose idea was the plan?

If it's proven irrefutably,

Rosa Peral and Albert López can say
whatever they want. They're guilty.

But when it can't be proven,

when it's only suspected
that something happened,

and there's no proof,
none of this makes sense.

Come on.

Most people interpret crime
through a narrative lens.

And fiction, at its core, tells a story.

It's a narrative retelling
of what has happened.

The events that took place.

Why the characters did what they did,
what motivated them.

Reality, though, is very different.

I'm convinced of the truth
when a person has such consistent

and thorough answers
and remembers so many particular details.

And that's what made me believe her story.

Because if a person
is really lying to you,

there are parts where there are gaps
without an explanation.

The whole story characterizing Rosa

as that evil, bloodthirsty woman
was built, from my point of view,

based on questions
from the public prosecutor.

And also,
because of the constant coverage,

week after week, in the media.

We probably overdid it.

Because Rosa's character, Rosa's persona…

Uh… could manipulate
your perception of her,

and it was very easy to be seduced.

Honestly, I don't lose any sleep
over how I did my job.

Yes, it's true that
when there's a lot of media attention,

it can influence a trial's outcome
to a certain extent.

All the garbage they said,
all of it… is horrendous.

They didn't know her at all.

All she ever wanted was to be beautiful,
to have a good body,

and, if she felt like it,
to sleep with whoever she wanted.

Rosa lives
in an alternate reality.

Different rules apply to her
than to the rest of us.

PROSECUTION'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS

To me, that is,
she can be very persuasive and charming.

That is, she's like a con artist,

trying to sell you a remedy
for hair growth

which is only made of soap and water.

I'll tell you one thing.

If you spent two or three hours with Rosa,

she would be capable of convincing you
that you are the one who killed Pedro.

That is Ms. Rosa Peral.

It's been a long, long time, and

I wish I could have a real conversation
with my daughters.

Really spend time with them.

I'd really like to know
if they have any doubts.

When I talk to them, I'll tell them,

"Look, if you really have
any doubts about anything,

it might be good
for you to hear all sides."

"To gather as much information
as possible."

Maybe they don't feel
like they need to find out more.

Maybe tomorrow they'll just say,

"My mother has always said
that she is innocent."

Maybe they don't even need
to hear an explanation.

I can only hope
that they keep me in their thoughts.

And that they share their plans
for the future with me, you know?

I feel very present in their lives.
More than I would've imagined.

I'm gonna be cut off.
Wait, wait. The call is gonna drop.

Rosa Peral appealed her 25-year sentence.

In September 2021, the Supreme Court

ratified the aggravating circumstance
of premeditation.

Antonia's testimony was nullified.

It was found the defendants
had taken measures

to ensure Pedro could not defend himself,

since he was attacked at home
"while he slept or rested."

Rosa is currently serving her sixth year
at the Mas Enric prison in Tarragona.

Subtitle translation by:
Soledad Etchemendy