Isabel Elena, 36, was pregnant when she was brutally murdered . This woman of Romanian origin was stabbed on June 11, 2019 at her home in the Valencian town of Xàtiva. She had 37 stab wounds in the area of the neck and under the chin, although the autopsy determined that there were indications that earlier she could have been suffocated, leaving her defenseless.
After a few months, in March of the following year, the National Police arrested his sentimental partner, the Spanish JVAN Faced with the evidence that incriminated him, the judge ordered his entry into prison, where he has remained until this month of February.
The Court of Valencia decreed his release on bail, which has stirred and irritated the spirits of the Romanian community that cries for justice to be done. Some of its members point to discriminatory treatment due to the nationality of the victim.
“If it had been Spanish, it would be different,” they say. The police sent a new report to the court at the end of last week in which they ratify all the initiations that exist against JVAN, when it is already free.
The agents of the Police Homicide Group concluded that the suspect was at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed, thanks to the positioning analysis of his mobile phone, according to the prison order to which EL PERIÓDICO has had access . He was not at work, indicates the judge, as he had stated.
The gown lists more evidence, such as the genetic remains of the arrested man in the woman’s vaginal area, which “indicates that he had sex with her” that day, despite the fact that JVAN had denied it In the kitchen sink, he details , the police found knives with traces of the woman’s blood. The detainee justified it by stating that he had washed his hands after finding his partner dead and touching her.
The judge offers another piece of information: according to mobile messages, the couple’s relationship was not as JVA N. reported, but “was full of constant discussions”, to the point that the woman had been attacked before by him and forced to have sex.
The car collects the testimony of a friend of Isabel Elena, who explained that she had explained to her that the suspect “threatened to kill her, to cut her neck if he left her.” The judge also highlights the searches that the detainee had made on the internet, such as one on security cameras in a supermarket or the one made the night before the crime with the phrase “Xàtiva national police.”
Members of the Romanian community consider that freedom should not have occurred. “You can tell the difference when the victim is Spanish or Romanian. She alone could not kill herself with a knife, “says the representative of an association. “Justice has to investigate regardless of nationalities,” he adds.
From an entity in Valencia they insist that the release of the suspect is “a shame” “if there are indications against him.” “Justice has to investigate thoroughly”, they emphasize. They want justice to be done and the crime clarified, although there are those who say that, given this case, the only conclusion is that “the life of a Romanian is worth less than the freedom of a Spaniard.”
The Valencia Court has thrown these indications to the ground and, above all, the analysis of the National Police on the positioning of the JVA N mobile, validating a defense opinion that questions the result of the police investigation, and highlights the testimony of three co-workers of the accused who said they had seen him at the company when the crime was supposed to take place.
The justice has rejected the request of the private prosecution that a counter-expert test be carried out. Last week the Homicide Group sent a new report to the court in which it ratified that the motive in which it denies contradictions in the positioning of the defendant’s motive and it is ratified that he was at the scene of the crime when it was committed.
The court of the Hearing maintains, however, that “the existing evidence of criminality is enough to maintain the imputation of the factual account, with the appearance of a crime of murder”, but another “different thing” is that the requirements that justify the prison, rejecting the risk of escape.
“There are multiple signs of charge and discharge,” he admits. The private prosecution qualifies as “error” the decision of the Hearing, because, to its understanding, it has not evaluated all the incriminating elements, adhering to the expert opinion of the defense.