Original subtitles

A NETFLIX ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY SERIES

MOST OF THESE COURT IMAGES HAVE NEVER BEEN BROADCAST.

Please sit down, both the officer and the defendant.

I remember that I was in first grade when the trial started,

so there was the need

to figure out some details

about who really was my biological father, because up until that moment,

I didn't know it and I hadn't cared about it since I was very young.

I remember that the media was at the door to the school.

I left class before the usual end time. I got out through a different door

and I was taken home.

-This man, Miguel Ricart... -Miguel Ricart...

Miguel Ricart...

The first time I saw him, it was on TV,

because every year,

on the anniversary of the girls' death, pictures have always been shown.

It's difficult to explain how I saw my father

when I didn't really know him.

He didn't get old, because I grew up with the same pictures, over and over.

I knew that he was my family,

but I don't feel like

he's a relative, yet he's actually my father.

There are always parallel trials

with those more present in the media.

MONDAY, MAY 12TH, 1997 FIRST SESSION OF MIGUEL RICART'S TRIAL

You'll be now be questioned first by the prosecutor.

POPULAR PROSECUTION CLARA CAMPOAMOR'S GROUP

Then, the private prosecution.

PRIVATE PROSECUTION PARENTS AND COUNSEL

After that, the popular prosecution attorneys.

Then, your defense attorney...

DEFENSE

And I must tell you that you have the constitutional right to remain silent.

The trial is the most important moment of this process.

And you can see there, and not read, or watch on TV...

JOURNALISTS

...what a particular Civil Guard officer said.

You actually see the Civil Guard before the court,

and you can notice whether that person hesitates,

whether they are telling a coherent narrative,

how Ricart is behaving... The trial is the key to everything.

Sit down at the front.

Officer, help him.

Two days before the trial started,

Fernando García tried to get it canceled.

EX-POLICE INSPECTOR

And a demonstration was held.

JUSTICE FOR TOÑI, MÍRIAM AND DESI

Many people attended.

He led the demonstration hugging people.

That gesture of his that became so popular.

We want justice!

We want justice!

And there was a banner he was very pleased with.

It was repeated all over the place.

"Fernando, you are the rule of law."

FERNANDO IS THE RULE OF LAW

That was terrible.

Just before a trial was going to be held guaranteeing due process,

where a defendant was sitting accused

of kidnapping, raping,

and murdering three girls,

that wasn't democratic or the rule of law for many people.

The rule of law

was what that man alluded to or what the banner was saying

on a show where,

after discussing this topic

there was a man

who hung a bell from his penis

and made it ring.

And that was the great contradiction.

We were so stupefied

that we followed the guidelines given

by these men.

We suggested the cancellation of the trial

because after analyzing the evidence, they show that there were

at least eight persons involved. A white hair and seven hairs

from seven different people.

There's biological evidence

that they were involved in the death of my daughter, Toñi and Desirée.

However,

there is none against Miguel Ricart and Antonio Anglés.

The prosecutor had already submitted his report and conclusions.

GARCIA DOESN'T THINK RICART WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE CRIME

And suddenly, something as forceful

as Fernando García saying:

"I doubt that Miguel Ricart was involved."

He didn't even say there was more or less evidence.

He began to doubt that Miguel Ricart was involved at all.

Thanks to everyone.

The sad thing about this

is that I knew the result of the trial before it started.

MÍRIAM'S FATHER

I knew that Miguel Ricart was going to be given a long sentence.

I knew that.

Just as I knew that Ricart hadn't killed my daughter.

I knew the result of the trial from the very first day.

PROVINCIAL COURT

At the first session, there was an attempt at a cancellation or a postponement.

So there was the uncertainty of whether or not the trial would be held.

The situation was

that the expiration of the four years of Ricart's pre-trial detention was close.

CLARA CAMPOAMOR LAWYER

So he was about to be released.

Number two, the trial didn't have to be suspended

because the possibility of an investigation with new facts

had always remained open.

With regard to the cancellation request, the court will not grant it.

The obsession of the parties to raise issues regarding the investigation

is, in my view, totally out of the procedure.

PRIVATE PROSECUTOR

And this court has the obligation to defend the integrity of the procedure,

otherwise, this will never end.

So they did accept the analysis of a few hairs,

but the court said, "This is enough."

And so the trial of the Alcàsser case began.

The defendant may sit at this desk.

Please, officer, set up the microphone.

May it please the court,

the defense said,

and I will just quote the statements...

AFTER THE FIRST ATTEMPT AT CANCELING THE TRIAL,

THE ALLEGED SELF-INCRIMINATION OF RICART PROMPTED A SECOND ONE.

...determine that these statements

may be deemed totally or partially invalid.

May it please the court, we'd like to support the request of the defense

and weigh whether or not those statements should be deemed invalid.

It was so bizarre that the defense requested

the nullification of Ricart's statements

and the private prosecution supported it.

Both the prosecutor and the judge reacted immediately.

Let's see, if the self-incriminating statements are declared void,

Miguel Ricart can't be questioned at all.

What kind of prosecution are you doing?

May it please the court, I don't know if I've understood this correctly.

CHIEF PROSECUTOR

Is the private prosecution

supporting the request of the defense

to try to declare invalid the statements on the record,

so that only the statements produced here are valid,

considering that Miguel Ricart has initially denied his involvement?

If this is the case, the prosecution does not understand their position.

I would like to make this clear to me.

I find it absurd

that there is a prosecution that is not prosecuting.

The private prosecution was formed...

CHIEF PROSECUTOR

...by an attorney with a solicitor,

on behalf of Fernando García Mediano.

Someone has informed Fernando García about our way of doing things.

He wanted us to represent the case.

I told him that I wasn't an expert in criminal law,

that I appreciated his trust,

but I could forward him to many of my colleagues.

PRIVATE PROSECUTOR

They insisted that I had to take the case.

Weren't you surprised or puzzled that they wanted you as their attorney?

-It's true that... -No, I mean...

It's remarkable that in probably the case with the biggest media impact in Spain,

one of the attorneys was inexperienced and not a criminal law expert.

Actually,

there was some kind of "psychological blackmail."

My wife was just pregnant with my first child, and I told him

that there were better prepared attorneys to take it.

But he said, "I don't think they're better than you, I think you'll be capable."

And tapping into the emotion of the fact that we were going to be parents,

we were told that,

in that respect, if I were him,

I'd love to take this case myself.

And I think that was what persuaded me.

And this man belonged to the private prosecution,

but his whole procedure acted

in defense of Miguel Ricart.

To him, Miguel Ricart was no more than a servant,

albeit non-uniformed,

of highly prominent

and wealthy figures in Spain.

In my 37 years as a prosecutor, I've never seen anything like this.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE VALENCIA 2018

VALENCIA PROVINCIAL COURT 1997

In that session, we found a lot of people who wanted to go in,

people who had slept there to get into the courtroom,

because the courtroom had a limited capacity of around 100 people.

You'll enter in groups of ten.

We are with Fernando!

We are with Fernando!

That was one of the key moments.

I saw a lot of people at the door who wanted to be in the courtroom.

Don't ever give up.

All parents and grandparents are with you.

Don't ever give up until the murderers are found.

That's what we'll do.

I hope it will be canceled.

I followed you since the beginning. I'm with you.

They think that these palaces are theirs.

There were a lot of people

who expected to be there.

They were just waiting for the trial to end

to shake my hand or give me a hug.

You have our full support.

For anything you need.

Cheer up!

Be strong!

Thank you.

Goodbye.

Please, sit down, both the officer and the defendant.

Public hearing.

The defendant is reminded...

MAY 13, 1997 SECOND COURT SESSION

...of his constitutional right to remain silent if he sees fit.

The prosecutor will begin his interrogation.

May it please the court.

You said that on November 13, 1992,

after having dinner at the Anglés' house,

you went to a club,

found three hitchhiking girls, you invited them in...

That's what the Civil Guard told me, but...

-That's what they told you to say? -Yes.

-And did you or didn't you say it? -What?

-That? -Yes.

If it's written there, I guess I did.

So you said it because the Civil Guard told you to say it.

Because I was threatened and they tortured me.

In front of your lawyer?

No, they didn't beat me in front of her.

But as soon as she left, they beat the shit out of me.

But when your lawyer left, you had already made your statement.

Yes, sure.

So if they beat you after your lawyer left...

At first, before, in the middle...

Okay, at first, before, and in the middle.

Well, not in the middle of it.

Not when my lawyer was present.

The statements by the Civil Guard

are repetitive. It's the same story.

So out of the three statements,

you reject the first two and accept the last one.

Did I say that?

-I don't remember. -Why did you do that

and didn't tell Your Honor and me

that you rejected the three of them,

because you had been tortured during the three of them?

Out of fear that they would hurt my daughter.

Did they tell you that, if you recanted,

something could happen to your daughter?

No, they told me

to do what they said

or my daughter could suffer the same fate as the Alcàsser girls.

-That's exactly what they told me. -The Civil Guard told you that?

Yes, sir.

They gave me the following information:

That there was a bullet in the pit.

I don't believe that.

That the girls were raped in the hut

at Llombai or at La Romana. I don't believe that either.

That the girls were murdered there.

I don't believe that either.

Oh, and they also told me that the girls had marks on their ankles.

That...

and no sticks had been put up the asses,

but they had been fucked in the ass.

That's what you were supposed to say?

-Yes, I was told that in prison. -However...

However, in your statement, you did say

that sticks were inserted.

Why?

Mr. Prosecutor, you are talking about the statement before the judge in Alzira.

-The second one in Alzira. -The second one.

They told me there that nothing had been inserted up their ass.

That's what the Civil Guard told you that you had to say?

Yes.

Yet, you didn't say that.

You said that sticks were inserted.

Well, maybe I was wrong.

-Maybe you were wrong. -Yes.

Okay.

Listen, Mr. Prosecutor,

if I receive death threats, what do you want me to do?

Let's get right down to it.

I don't care what's written there.

What I'm trying to say, Mr. Enrique, is that they put in jail,

whoever did this,

and I don't want them to use me as a scapegoat.

Don't use me as a scapegoat.

But I'm not saying that justice is using me as a scapegoat,

but some senior members of the Civil Guard before justice.

But it looks like you

are only scared at some moments.

So you're saying

that something should happen to my daughter

-for it to be true? -No, God forbid.

-Thank you very much. -I'm not saying nor thinking that.

-Thank you very much. -What I am saying

is that you have moments of fear of what may happen to your daughter...

So you want to me to take the rap?

I'm not saying this.

What I'm saying is that,

if you are in constant fear,

I wonder why there are statements where you say, "I didn't do anything."

Did your fear just vanish when you deny it?

-Not at all. -For example, right now.

Aren't you afraid now?

No, of course I am.

Okay, you answered my question.

Finally, in this statement you say that Antonio Anglés

had told you on many occasions that he wanted

to get some girls

and do with them whatever he wanted, meaning atrocities.

Is it true that Antonio Anglés told you he wanted to commit atrocities with girls?

-Yes, and... -It is true.

And Mauricio was present, too. I told him I didn't want to do such things.

Very well.

Mauricio said that I was a pussy.

-A...? -Pussy.

-A coward. -Okay, okay.

After the people saw Ricart's statement,

when we left,

some of them came to us, journalists who had come from Seville, Barcelona,

and they said, "Gosh, you're right."

And as soon as they said--

I'm getting goosebumps right now.

As soon as they said that,

and all that pressure we had built up

after hours of TV stuff, the phone calls,

all the people around you saying, "How are you saying that?"

They looked at you in a weird way as if we were involved in the case, too.

Then everything came out and I started to cry foolishly,

because it had been very hard for us.

From that moment on, the media started to...

El Periódico de Catalunya created the "counter-trial,"

a section where they contrasted how the same witnesses

said different things on TV and in court.

RICART CRACKED IN FRONT OF THE FORENSIC DOCTORS

So everything started to change.

The Alcàsser trial had an unprecedented TV following in Spain.

Over the 48 sessions, two TV shows followed it in the afternoon and evening.

10:00 A.M. - ORAL HEARING

6:00 P.M. - THE ALCÀSSER CASE

10:00 P.M. TONIGHT WE CROSS THE MISSISSIPPI

Both shows shared content and people with the public hearings.

This was the first real trial by media in Spanish history.

On the fourth day of the trial of the Alcàsser crime,

many questions around the case are still unanswered.

MAY 15, 1997 TRIAL'S FOURTH SESSION

Up next, you'll be questioned

by the attorney for the popular prosecution.

May it please the court.

In your...

Your Honor.

I will not answer the questions of the popular prosecution's attorney.

You don't want to answer his questions?

I won't answer, Your Honor.

Ricart replied to all the parties but us,

the popular prosecution.

I wanted to put on record all the questions

I would have asked

in case he had wanted to answer them.

Virgilio, in a very monotonous but forceful tone,

began to read those questions.

"Is it true that...?" And Miguel Ricart

was getting angrier by the moment, because he listened to each atrocity,

but he didn't answer.

You said that you made this statement

after having received a visit from the Civil Guard,

when you were informed of the facts that you had to tell.

I ask you:

Did they tell you that when you stopped your car,

the five of you walked in a single line?

Did they also tell you that,

when the girls protested and wanted to leave,

Antonio began to beat Míriam and Desirée furiously

with a stick

while they were tied to a post?

Did they also tell you that you had to say

that when Antonio inserted his penis into Antonia's vagina,

she showed signs of pain caused by the penetration?

Did they also tell you or did they suggest

or threaten you so that you said

that this event took ten minutes?

Did the Civil Guard tell you to say

that you held the girls by their ankles

while Antonio raped them?

Do you know that this was known only after Dr. Frontela's autopsy?

And do you know that an autopsy was performed in August 1994,

a year after your statement?

How could you know that if you hadn't been involved

precisely by grabbing the girls

by their ankles

while Antonio Anglés raped them?

And how is it possible that the Civil Guard let you know all this,

and yet the most noticeable fact

and the easiest to detect,

which was the ripping off of the nipple,

you said that you ignored

anything related to that event?

Did you rip off Desirée's nipple?

And I'm asking you this,

because in all your statements,

you only acknowledge that you had contact with Desirée.

Why with Desirée? I insist.

Did you rip off her nipple

with a pair of pliers?

A big part of the list of questions,

I don't know if there were 100, 150, 80...

They were all intended to highlight

how his argument

that his statement had been coerced through torture or threats

was inconsistent.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE VALENCIA 2018

FORENSIC CLINIC

VALENCIA PROVINCIAL COURT 1997

MAY 30, 1997 14TH SESSION OF THE TRIAL

Manuel Fenollosa González, forensic doctor.

Francisco Ros Plaza, forensic doctor.

Please explain the physical examination of the defendant that you performed.

It was a common chemical examination.

Were you able to notice any kind of sign

on the defendant's body

that could make you think...

of any...

of any non-accidental injuries?

Not at all.

-Did he have any marks on his body? -Not at all.

-Of any kind? -Of any kind.

Can you guarantee that the defendant

didn't have any mark, particularly on his forehead?

In the examination I performed on January 31, 1993,

not at all.

He didn't have any.

The impression that he gave at the trial was

that he was staging everything

because he already knew the results

of that examination by the forensic experts

and he knew what they'd say.

So, as is common, he was displaying gestures of disapproval

as a way to reject

what the experts are saying,

or to call them into question.

If you're hearing something that isn't true,

according to what you believe is true...

RICART'S DEFENSE LAWYER

...and you can't reply, would you be desperate or happy?

-Why did you get emotional, Miguel? -I wasn't emotional. I was pissed.

In the examination I performed on January 31, 1993, not at all.

This completely refutes Miguel Ricart's only remaining argument,

because it categorically and officially refutes

the claim that he had any signs of violence.

I was there today. I saw these two forensic experts.

And I thought they were pathetic.

Even my family asks me why I seem to be interested in exonerating Ricart,

and my only explanation is that Ricart didn't kill my daughter.

Ricart is not my daughter's murderer

and it's being proven.

But there are people like Jerónimo, who makes evidence out of a silly thing.

I'm respecting you, Fernando,

but I see it's not being reciprocated.

I'm not saying silly things and I ask you not to talk to me like that.

-No, you say a lot of them. -Well, I think...

And every time you say one, I'll tell you.

Fernando, defending personal insults

is something I'm not interested in at all.

-That's your problem. -I have my own way of behaving.

That's your problem. Anytime someone attacks me,

-I'll reply with words. -I'm not attacking you.

You can say whatever you think is right.

But I'm just commenting on what an expert in this area said.

EX-POLICE AND JOURNALIST

Confronting Fernando back then

brought with it immediate consequences.

I walked down the street,

and there was some deranged person

who would just insult me.

When I got out of the car

to go to the court

to see the trial,

there were 40 or 50 deranged people calling me a murderer.

Fernando, you're great!

If I contradicted their beloved leader, I was called a murderer.

Fernando, Fernando!

Fernando, Fernando!

Fernando, Fernando!

Fernando, Fernando!

We're giving you a lot of strength so that God gives you light.

This is an injustice, and the real murderers will come out.

There were people who said, "You must be well paid to cover this up,

to cover up these murderers." I was frozen.

10:00 ORAL HEARING

They came from El Mississippi, they made a speech

that was brutal, saying it was all fixed.

Everything was a setup.

They're hiding things.

I think it is extremely abhorrent.

And no one answered to that.

But then, when they came here,

and we began to argue,

and we said, "Well, no, this...

EL JUI'S SET

...Juan Ignacio, there are two possibilities.

Either you're wrong or you're right.

And since you have that paper there that I saw, you're lying."

The warrant to search the Anglés' house

is dated 1991.

That's the first point, it's not dated.

It wasn't signed by the judge

and it is recorded like this in the case file, the warrant is here.

No, no, Juan Ignacio, I'm asking you to explain this correctly.

-No, I'm explaining it very well. -The warrant to search his house.

-1991. -Excuse me,

and then, with a pen,

the number was written on top. Come on, show it.

Show it to the camera.

And about the judge's signature, there's no doubt about it.

This is the warrant.

I'd like to show it to the camera to check if it's there or not.

No, sorry, but show the second page.

-There are no more pages. Page six. -Show the second page.

Show it, that's just the first page!

That's the sixth page.

This is the next page, so you can see it clearly.

It is recorded. There wasn't a second page on the warrant to search the house.

The judge didn't sign and it isn't dated.

That's true and it's been proven.

On the last show, we had a small argument

about the warrant. Particularly Juan Ignacio.

THREE DAYS LATER

He questioned the legal validity of the warrant,

one of Juan Ignacio Blanco's usual tactics.

He only showed the first page on that lectern, and he said

that the warrant was irregular.

I must publicly say

that this wasn't a mistake, but a lie by Juan Ignacio Blanco,

who the other day showed

this warrant...

-It's not dated. -...but avoided, as I requested of him,

to show the following page, where it says:

"Catarroja, January 27, 1993."

Signed by the judge and the secretary.

This matter is serious, in my opinion, because it isn't just any manipulation

we're used to seeing, but it's an outright lie,

and quite an obvious one.

But I insist that I asked you repeatedly to show this page.

You said that it didn't exist. I think this is immoral.

-If it had been dated in 1991... -I think you haven't read it.

-I've read everything. -Or maybe you forgot.

Here, it says, "Catarroja, January 27, 1993."

-Yes, but that's at the end. -Here. Here.

And hadn't that document been previously dated on 1991?

Let's work with some honesty here.

-I've been demanding that for four years. -Let's put some order here.

-Let's do it together. -It's what I demand.

-Let's do it. -Let's remember...

Ricart said in one of his statements,

that after taking the girls to the hut in La Romana

and raping two of them, that Antonio was hungry

and decided to go to a bar to grab some sandwiches.

The first populated place with a bar is the crossroads at Catadau.

According to the owners of this bar,

Antonio Anglés and Miguel Ricart bought three sandwiches and two drinks.

Do you know who these persons are?

Yes, Miguel Ricart and Antonio Anglés.

Are you sure?

Yes, yes. They came to grab some sandwiches.

Miguel Ricart entered the bar.

-Miguel Ricart and Antonio Anglés? -No, Antonio Anglés didn't enter.

So the only one who entered was Ricart.

10TH SESSION MAY 26, 1997

-Did you see any people outside? -No. I couldn't say who they were.

-Do you know if they were in a car? -Yes, they were in a car outside.

Arturo, you said that the person in question stayed in the car

and you, Ana, said that this person was standing by a palm tree.

Yes, he was two meters away.

Was Antonio Anglés that person?

No.

He wasn't Antonio Anglés.

No, because Antonio was very tall and that boy was a bit shorter.

You said at the trial today that he resembled Mauri a lot.

Yes, but I'm not certain whether that was Mauri or some other boy.

What is particularly strong,

and this is one of the questions Miguel Ricart was asked at the trial,

is who that third sandwich was for.

In your statement, you said two.

The day of your statement before the prosecutor, you said three.

Do you know that the bar owners

said that it was three sandwiches and not two?

And if there were three,

who was the third one for?

-Mauricio, do you have anything to say? -Not now. I will talk later.

MAY 21, 1997 EIGHTH SESSION OF THE TRIAL

Mauricio Anglés Martins.

You said earlier

that Miguel and Antonio used to take girls

to the hut.

Did you ever hear

Miguel or your brother make any comments like this:

"Why don't we go and take some girls,

have a blast and then kill them?"

My brother Antonio did say such a thing.

-And what did he say in that comment? -He said that...

some girls and stuff...

I don't know, his remark was very...

-disgusting. -Say it to us, because it's of interest.

"Let's take three girls and it would be cool..."

A comment like that.

Miguel from Llíria... And I told him that that was crazy.

No way. Because we just had passed

by three girls on our way

who were hitchhiking, I remember.

And my brother made a comment like...

And Miguel from Llíria, and I told him...

Have you ever been to the huts with girls?

-No. -Never?

Never.

I want to ask you one last question.

In the deaths

of the three Alcàsser girls,

in their previous kidnapping,

and in any actions against

their sexual liberty that may have taken place,

were you involved in any way?

No.

I'm tired of saying it. No, no and no.

No more questions, Your Honor.

If Mauricio Anglés was the third person,

this would be a national scandal,

because if they couldn't determine Mauricio's involvement after four years,

I think this is a little bit embarrassing.

Mauricio Anglés and Fernando García in each other's arms.

An unpredictable image that could be seen in front of the court doors.

See you later.

-Help him. -I know.

There you go, Mauricio, why did you make that movement right after that?

Why that gesture?

Because I saw that Fernando was touched,

and I got emotional, too.

Fernando, what did you and Mauricio talk about?

We barely talked, he just said hello.

I think he's also a person, so why shouldn't I shake hands with him?

I think he said something like "I couldn't do anything else."

That it wasn't in our hands.

Something like that.

If it had been in our hands, nothing would've ever happened.

MAY 20, 1997 SEVENTH SESSION OF THE TRIAL

Kelly, Kelly!

What do you think about Ricart's statement, Kelly?

Kelly, it's me, Rubén.

Tell the Blond to go where the chain ring is.

Tell him to bring the two sleeping bags,

and the cereal and milk that are on top of the fridge.

As soon as possible.

Do you recognize that voice?

Don't you recognize it today?

I couldn't say for sure that's Antonio.

You can't say for sure that is Antonio.

No.

Can you confirm that the recording you just heard

is the same the police made you listen to?

I can't confirm that.

The two sleeping bags,

and the cereal and milk that are on top of the fridge.

As soon as possible.

Is that voice familiar?

-Sorry? -Isn't that Antonio saying that?

-I don't think so. -No.

But you would know Antonio's voice and you can recognize it,

-because you're his mother. -I think so.

It isn't his, right?

Is that your son's voice?

No.

-Are you sure it isn't his? -Of course it isn't!

One can tell...

Even if I'm deaf,

and I never pick up the phone,

but he has a different way of... More...

Of talking.

That isn't his voice!

Is that your brother's voice?

I couldn't be sure, because...

-Can we hear it again? -I don't know that voice.

-I don't know... -How come you don't know it?

-I don't know. -But you remember your brother's voice.

-Yes. -And you can't say that was his voice?

Maybe it was, I don't know.

Is it similar to your brother's voice?

-When you hear that voice... -I couldn't be sure. I couldn't be sure.

MAY 20, 1997 SEVENTH SESSION OF THE TRIAL

Enrique Anglés Martins,

do you swear to tell the truth?

Do I swear...?

Do you swear to tell the truth? Will you answer truthfully?

I don't believe in God.

I don't believe in God.

Then do you promise?

I do.

Sit on that chair.

UNAUTHORIZED SIGNAL BY COURT - ROOM 2

Your brother wasn't normally violent.

He wasn't violent. No.

But when he wanted something and couldn't have it, did he become violent?

-No. -Not then either?

He didn't then either.

That's what you said on TV last night.

But we are on trial, not on TV.

Here is where you should be, and not there. Anyway...

At that moment,

Enrique Anglés defined not the trial, but the Alcàsser case.

The Alcàsser case isn't the lawsuit over the girls' triple murder.

-They're different to me. -Yes.

The lawsuit over the girls' triple murder

is one thing, and the Alcàsser case is something fabricated

following certain interests...

-Artificially fabricated. -And that's what,

over time,

has been perpetuated and it still lingers online.

You still don't know whose voice that was on the phone?

I think, but I can't say for sure...

ANTONIO ANGLÉS' BROTHER

...I think I made that call.

And I did it with no purpose at all.

I just did it to spread doubt.

So you can't be sure, but you think it was you.

-Yes, exactly. -And can you explain that?

Well, maybe I went to a phone booth,

a man came to me, he gave me 500 pesetas and a message,

and I went there and made that call.

You know?

Come on, Enrique.

Well, I'm telling what it can or can't be, because if it's not my brother's...

Let's hear if it's your voice.

Okay. Look, the audience is laughing.

...and the cereal and milk that are on top of the fridge.

You know? As soon as possible.

It's my voice.

No way.

-Why didn't you say that during the trial? -I wasn't asked.

That was a trial and this is a TV set.

So, you made that call.

Yes.

So, it could have been you,

someone gave you a paper and 500 pesetas, you called,

and that was the story.

Yes, and it could have been different.

I have another version in which I was very pissed off with my family,

so I pretended to be Antonio to scare them.

Well, not to scare them,

but to make a joke and have a laugh.

I ran for a while before making the call,

and when I got there, I faked my voice.

I'm an expert at faking voices.

-Do you understand? -Okay, fake your voice.

Let's focus.

You said that you made that call...

-Yes. -...just to make a joke.

-Just to... -And why didn't you say that in the trial?

Because maybe I didn't remember that it was my voice.

Today we finally have with us...

JUNE 4, 1997 6:30 P.M.

...the most eagerly awaited expert.

To some, he is a prominent figure in his area of expertise,

while, to others, he is a professional who likes controversy and popularity.

I'm not trying to provide surprises

or anything spectacular.

I'll just answer the questions they ask me.

His mere presence has been enough to cause much anticipation

at the courtroom door, in the corridors of the Palace of Justice,

and, obviously, during his statement before the judge of room number 2.

Frontela Carreras, professor of legal medicine at the University of Seville.

Professor, can you guarantee, according to your report,

that there was pubic hair from several different people?

We have asked you about the hairs before.

I'm asking you now, was there pubic hair from several different people?

I understand that there was hair belonging to several people.

I should check it again to tell you how many.

According to the report, and my calculations, there were seven,

but you can confirm that was the case.

I went straight to Frontela

and told him, "Mr. Frontela, I need help,

because I'm feeling defenseless.

What's going on here? I don't believe this."

And then Professor Frontela said, "I did the analysis,

I've been investigating this and there are more people

involved in the murder of Míriam, Toñi and Desirée."

I never talked to them,

and they never gave me a chance to talk to them.

They didn't ask my opinion either.

And didn't you feel that they were misinterpreting your analysis?

-That they were taking advantage of it? -Using it to back up their theories?

I don't care, I do what I have to do,

and the rest can think whatever they want.

I don't know.

Frontela is a man of few words.

When he sees you, even if he knows you, he pretends as if he doesn't.

You can't make him answer one single question

honestly and clearly.

He messes everything up, he complicates things

and then he says he can't talk.

If he talks, he says things that don't represent reality.

JUNE 2, 1997 15TH SESSION

Ángel Carracedo, director of the Forensic Medicine Institute of Santiago.

TOXICOLOGY EXPERT

There are certainly hairs from five different people,

and maybe seven.

That's exactly as you just said.

Exactly as I just said.

-Five different persons are certain. -Yes, five different persons are certain.

At least from five different persons,

and maybe from seven.

And none of them belongs to Miguel Ricart Tárrega.

-With total certainty. -With total certainty.

Can I say with certainty

that this hair belongs to one of their killers?

Obviously not, you can't say that.

I can't say that.

-It may belong to a different person. -Obviously.

It may be be reasonable that, if the bodies were wrapped in a rug,

there may have been other hairs on that rug

from other people in different places and in different situations,

but who may have been in contact with the rug.

Obviously, the rug came into physical contact with the bodies

and the hairs could have been detached.

So we're in a vicious circle here.

The hairs that could have been on the rug

wouldn't get inside their clothes and wouldn't be found on the girls' underwear.

And then there's the rug to analyze, and this hasn't been done either.

Even assuming the hypothesis

that the girls were raped on the rug,

-which is another possible hypothesis... -Perfect.

...the hairs could have been found on their clothes when they put them on,

and the girls could have the hairs attached to their bodies.

-That could be. -That's a possible hypothesis.

The professor found the hairs,

but he classified them

and then a morphological analysis was carried out.

This hair is the same as this one I took from you.

Okay? But...

no other analysis had been legally carried out.

When we saw the chance of carrying out that new analysis,

that was when we began to know what DNA was.

"What were they saying about some evidence from some biological remains?"

There was no DNA database.

That was the first one in Spain.

We could only compare it

with the individual we had in the case,

and we weren't allowed to perform

any other tests apart from that one.

So do those hairs belong to Miguel Ricart? No.

Excluded, that's it.

Professor Luis Frontela's report was Fernando García's basis

to prove that the investigation wasn't fully finished.

But Frontela didn't bring anything really new.

JUNE 5, 1997 18TH SESSION

The room was fully closed.

This morning, the video of the girls' autopsies was shown.

Was it useful to Fernando García or to the other parties

to see these pictures again?

Well, they forced me to do it. They're forcing me to do all this.

It's not pleasant, or something I have chosen.

Obviously, I can't make any assessment.

That will be done before the court.

Is your opinion of the Valencian forensics any different now?

Is it any different? I haven't said anything about them yet.

I'll comment on it when I'm asked about it.

Watching the autopsy video in court

spurred Dr. Frontela to bring up new conclusions about the case.

Frontela caused a commotion this morning

when he introduced some elements that were not present in his reports.

When confronted with some pictures of the autopsy with insect larvae,

he suggested the girls could have died one month before their bodies were found,

and that they could have been buried in a different place from La Romana.

If the heads of some of the bodies

were a few centimeters away from the bodies,

plus the fact that the larvae had a size that didn't correspond

to the time of death, it's not too risky to say

that it's likely that the bodies had been in two places.

Either a double burial or a double movement of the bodies.

Frontela's view is not shared

by the forensic doctors who performed the first autopsy.

VALENCIAN FORENSIC EXPERTS SPOKESMAN

Where there isn't anything to see, one can't see anything, obviously.

But the sad truth is that our job is to look.

The term autopsy, as it's well known, means "I see."

And it is totally at odds with "I imagine."

Professor Frontela, who also performed the autopsy of the girls,

didn't collect any insects present on the bodies

at the moment of the autopsy that he performed.

I want to clarify something to make it totally clear.

We didn't take any larvae because there were none left.

Not because we didn't want to study them.

Because they were so totally...

And I admit that it's something that must be done after an autopsy.

After an autopsy, any autopsy...

After it, not before it, the bodies are washed, of course.

But they washed them so carefully that not a single larva was left.

Before performing the autopsy,

did you wash the girls' clothes and bodies indiscriminately

once their clothes had been removed from their bodies?

Not at all. We washed certain areas of their bodies

because that was the only way that allowed us to see

whether there were any injuries

underneath that dirt attached to the body.

Regarding their clothes,

it is true that, once they were analyzed,

some of them, I couldn't say now which ones,

were cleaned so that they were shown to the families

in order to be identified.

In three bags, soaked in water,

with a few centimeters of water, what's that?

NEXT DAY

And not a single drop of mud, what's that?

Maybe God's work? It was washed.

And I'm not lying, okay?

And one more thing, if the clothes had mud on them,

why on earth did you remove the mud? Who are you to remove the mud?

How come you didn't know that there may be some important hairs in the mud?

And if you washed the mud, where is it?

Was it analyzed or sent to toxicology?

Did that mud disappear?

Did you examine it under the microscope?

How can you know there isn't any element relevant to the crime? Be responsible!

That was Luis Frontela's statement.

4 DAYS LATER

He was here a few days ago, live.

It's odd how many times that man has to repeat "I'm not lying."

It's been repeatedly said that...

VALENCIAN FORENSICS SPOKESMAN

...the clothes were collected and classified.

They were never washed.

I don't like to question what you say, but there's something clear.

-You don't have to question what I say. -In this case, I do.

The washing of the bodies is never performed

as it was communicated to the audience.

-Fernando García was there. -The work is done properly.

The fact that Fernando García... And don't use him in this matter.

-I didn't see it. -I repeat...

-that Mr. García doesn't have to know... -Mr. Verdugo, no one uses me.

-...how an autopsy is performed. -Is there any dirt sample from the bodies?

They were collected together with the clothes

-and sent to the toxicology institute. -No.

If you say now that because the clothes were wet,

which is how the clothes were, because they were wet,

after decomposing for two months,

that can affect the results of the analysis,

it's scientific nonsense.

He said seven times that the clothes were washed.

I repeat that is something that only Professor Frontela said.

The clothes were never washed.

That criticism towards the investigating judge is odd...

OLEGARI GONZALO CANAL 9 JOURNALIST

...when the right moment

was after the second autopsy was performed by Professor Frontela.

The first one had been performed by the Valencian examiners.

And there's a public appearance by Professor Frontela,

the video which we have seen many times

with Professor Font de Mora,

director of the Valencia Forensics Institute at the time.

Our findings allow

for a precise enough reconstruction...

The press conference was...

let's say, laudatory towards themselves, right?

-Yes, but you were there. -Why did you participate?

The autopsy was carried out.

The autopsy was carried out.

What's the first thing that has to be done with the bodies afterwards?

Bury them. Well, it's not the first thing, but the bodies must be buried.

Then, a preliminary report is needed.

This preliminary report addresses mainly the cause of death.

And I agreed with that, of course.

I agreed the cause of death was a shot in the head to each of them.

I agreed with the cause of death.

The rest...

I don't think the essential part will change,

and the autopsies performed by both teams will barely change a thing.

Today is the 20th session

of the Alcàsser trial and the controversy over the evidence continues.

After watching the autopsies, Frontela's and the other examiners' conclusions

are radically different.

Frontela suggested the hypothesis of a double burial

after the type or amount of larvae found in the bodies...

We never thought of the possibility of a double burial.

That's your opinion, maybe not mine.

We think it's highly unlikely, not to say impossible.

VALENCIAN FORENSICS AGAINST FRONTELA

Asked by the private prosecution, you mentioned one hair

-and the cancellation was requested. -The hairs you considered of interest...

Asked by the private prosecution, you mentioned the double burial.

Could it be ascertained whether or not there was a double burial?

-The requested cancellation. -Why wasn't this in the file

and why did you keep these issues undisclosed

when you first came into contact with the private prosecution?

A good part of the conspiracy theories come from some questions

raised by Professor Frontela during the investigation.

He had been questioning the whole work,

from the removal of the bodies, the autopsy...

REAL AUTOPSY VIDEO

...and some results and difficulties he had during the investigation.

If I have all the resources I need and nothing is kept hidden from me...

Then the private prosecution lived off this.

Professor Frontela, I need help.

The media lived off this.

Why on earth did you remove the mud?

It's like there was an official version and a B-side

that no one wants to know and no one wants to investigate.

And Frontela's position is there.

Why did you keep these issues undisclosed

when you first came into contact

with the private prosecution?

You forget an important thing I said, that I didn't want any controversy.

I could say many things about the removal of the bodies and the first autopsy

and I didn't say a thing out of respect and because I didn't want to hurt anyone.

Be quiet!

Be quiet or I'll empty the courtroom!

The next time I hear any applause or other expressions, I'll empty the room.

We've been very respectful...

FRANCISCO ROS PLAZA FORENSIC DOCTOR

...towards Dr. Frontela in every way.

However, he hasn't behaved the same way towards us.

What a dirty trick you're doing.

You know that what the media is saying doesn't match with what's going on there.

-If you'd been there... -Yes.

Be much more objective and impartial.

Watch the videos, watch what's going on.

The forensic experts are tearing me apart, they're...

And you know that's not the case, it's the opposite.

You know what's coming to light is the lousy job they did from the beginning.

So, what happens?

Should we eliminate whoever is brave, enterprising

and thinks otherwise?

Or should we shut up and be hypocrites?

These people have declined our invitation to take part in this series:

Bambu or Netflix can't be held responsible for any statement by any interviewee.

Subtitle translation by Carolina Daza