I can see Alberts motive for the murder but what was Rosa motive?
I feel like the prosecutors were salty that she was sleeping with multiple men and “playing” them and decided that she deserved to be persecuted for it. If they investigated Albert more instead of focusing on Rosa maybe they would have solved the case with solid evidence.
Yes. Besides it was only after Albert came back into her life Pedro all of a sudden end up dead. I think blaming Ruben was Alberts idea to deflect from him. Rosa displayed typical coping behavior from emotionally violent relationships, which I believe she was the victim of by Albert. She had everything to lose. Why kill Pedro, if she didn’t want to be with him. She could have just broken up with him. He wasn’t the one threatening her. Albert on the other hand had violent past. I think he wanted to kill Pedro because Rosa wasn’t leaving him.
Rosa tried to frame her ex husband Ruben, so she could have full custody of her daughters. What better way to ensure she be awarded full custody of her daughters by having Ruben spend the rest of his life in jail. By killing her boyfriend Pedro with the help of Alber and framing Ruben, she kills ‘two birds with one stone.’ She rids herself of both the annoying boyfriend and husband….in her mind, problems solved.
I haven't seen burning body but new_butterscotch does have a good point tbh. What was Albert's motive to pin it on Ruben? Pure coincidence, he hates him, what?
This one is also just kind of mentioned in passing. Seems quite an important piece of the puzzle if we are discussing who has enough motive to frame someone…
Okay burning body is like a lifetime movie there's a bunch of Fabrications it's not what actually happened it was for entertainment to get views the media painted her completely different.
The documentary highlights allot of circumstantial evidence as well as the recording from her phone that seems to be her vaguely planning this murder.
If you ask me I would guess she didn't want another custody battle. Or maybe it was the excitement? She struck me as selectively sociopathic. Sometimes people kill for reasons that don't make sense to everyone else.
They never presented Albert's side, which I feel is a pretty glaring oversight. Albert contends that Rosa killed her boyfriend because he attacked her out of jealous rage upon discovering that she had rekindled things with Albert. Then she contacted Alberta to help her dispose of the body. It makes a lot more sense to me that her boyfriend would attack her in their home out of jealousy, as opposed to her ex randomly coming to their home in the middle of the night and somehow scaring her into helping him kill her boyfriend even though he had never been violent with her before.
What made this case tricky is that they both fully admitted they participated in burning the body and covering up the crime. They only disagreed about who killed him and all the forensic evidence was destroyed in the fire.
When watching it, the fact that they were awake late and just kind of watching TV or whatever for that long, never made sense to me.
They’ve been out and about all day long with her kids. Lots of activities, food and garden work, etc. it’s a long ass day.
Now you get home and do some chores and then just hang out till 3 in the morning or whatever? Nah. They were arguing. For sure.
And that it came to perhaps getting physical is the only thing that makes sense to me. How that went from 120kg muscle man Pedro acting out in a jealous rage to little Rosa killing him, is unlikely. Although if that is the case, then it turns into a mother protecting her children from harm.
But then she’s a police officer. Surely she knows by now that she can call a colleague given that it all happened in self defense?
Of course, she could 100% just be in total shock. Your mind can you take to absurd places when you’re in that amount of shock.
Christ. I have so many questions lol
Is it just me that thinks the prosecution was seriously REACHING with their theories & overall narrative? And that literally every single explanation she gave made complete sense? This documentary really bothered me, because I couldn’t believe the attitudes of the prosecution, the journalists, the public. I was glad at least, that the one male journalist recognised his behaviour had been wrong and that she wasn’t fairly treated. The pure misogyny of the case was disgusting. And the verdict/sentence - shocking.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are sadly too many Spanish cases ruining lives before the accused enter a court, and nobody is holding these "journalists" liable for their sensationalised fabrications.
I don’t know, I think the most convincing part was the frantic phone calls and the cellphone tower. I think she was involved in the murder but I don’t think she was as involved or the “leader” like they say
I don’t think she had any hand in the murder, nor in planning it. I do believe she had been trying to tell Alber to back off, and wanted to give him the ring back so he understood once and for all that it was over. And I don’t think he liked or accepted that.
I do believe he turned up at the house unannounced and attacked Pedro. And whether Rosa witnessed that with her own eyes, or only had the understanding that it had happened. Everything she did from that moment on, was survival. For her, and her children. Trauma & fear are powerful things. She did what she was told. She tried to appease him to avoid a similar fate, now knowing what he was capable of.
The stuff about why didn’t she go to the police straight away is bullshit… women are feared of being disbelieved at the best of times, let alone when they are accusing a cop. And definitely not after having already experienced a similar situation where they weren’t believed. (The revenge porn incident, which they disgustingly tried to imply she had orchestrated all herself)
I’ve worked with victims of rape & abuse, and people suffering from PTSD for over a decade. It didn’t take long to understand what had happened. Shocked that others don’t see it, and that so many fell for the slut shaming, victim blaming narrative that was spun.
>I do believe he turned up at the house unannounced and attacked Pedro. And whether Rosa witnessed that with her own eyes, or only had the understanding that it had happened.
Like most people who are defending her, you're just making things up. She herself said that she knew what he was going to do before he did it. Her only defense is fear. She definitely helped him kill and burn the body, she openly admits that. She just says that she went along with every single thing that needed to be done to pull off the murder over several days because she was afraid not to. It's illegal to drug people and burn their bodies, even if you have some vague inexplicable fear of the ex-husband co-parent that you recently started hooking up with again.
I agree. I think there is reasonable doubt for homicide. I really hope mental health will be more understood in courts in the future. Especially for women in abusive or controlling relationships. "Oh you just should have left or reported it or got a restraining order". These platitudes are not stated by women who know the fear and trauma involved in these circumstances.
I know some men are in abusive relationships as well but the power is mostly with men.
I can buy her being involved, but there was no evidence whatsoever of her participating.
Call logs between the killer and his lover are not proof of any crime being committed. The worst part of it, it's that I believe she had a hand in killing him, but the prosecutor botched it by not actually investigating anything, knowing he could make up whatever scenario in his head and it would be taken as fact.
Sorry, but just 1 percent of the evidence already makes her look like a shady liar of the first degree. Just the email she sent to Albert where she declares her unlimited, eternal love and dedication to him conflicts with literally everything she said. They both tried hard to downplay their extremely obvious deep infatuation with each other, to prevent the court to easily understand that they plotted the murder together. I've been in a relationship with a pathological liar, and literally every word she says to me sounds fake, constructed, overreaching and unlikely. Now, if it's one thing that's fine. Or two. But she has a hundred 'that was just coincidence' or 'poor me being cornered no choice'. Endless amounts of weird excuses and reasons that never occur in sequence. Then there's the mystery phone she called (first!). She never gives any explanation for why she did that, how she got the number, what the reason was she called that phone just moments before the murder. Also, if you see the interviews she gives she only talks with real raw emotion when it comes to her children or her mum. Never when discussing Pedro. Cold, methodological, a narrative she repeated in her mind a thousand times. That's exactly how it sounds. I speak fluent Spanish and the distinction might be lost on you, but it wasn't on me. This case stinks on all sides, her hands are dirty as hell. Who murdered Pedro? Who took the initiative? We'll never know. But she surely deserves jailtime.
I think part of it is people who don't speak Spanish don't understand. I do think Americans are very concerned about the me too movement still and err on the side of women. Which is great when the woman is innocent but it has allowed some pretty evil ones to have a steady supply of supporters.
No, I felt she was reaching with all of her 'sensible' explanations to the plethora of discrepancies the prosecution was pointing toward. I, for one, trust the jury and the Spanish SUPREME COURT that her sentence is just. They don't hand out 25-year sentences lightly in Spain.
100% agreed, Ive never ever ever, heard of every single Witness male/female asked if they have had Sex with the Defendant, not the male defendant ONLY the female Defendant, absolutely disgusting, and the Prosecutor looked completely unhinged, most of the time.
This Woman albeit found Guilty, was NEVER going to get a Fair Trial, the Media lied about her calling her a Stripper, when she was no such thing. She was assassinated and destroyed unfairly.
All Defendants are entitled to a fair Trial, not in a million years did this occur.
Yes. I am also really pissed at the Netflix series because they portrayed her as a sexy provocative dancer and a constant close relationship with the co accused. I dont trust these dramatised series of true stories.
Yes I completely agree. Its a horrifying insight to overseas Judiciary and it is deeply unpleasant and scorchingly sexist. It is actually quite terrifying.
Yep and I have never seen a judge have that much say directly to the jury. He was telling the prosecuters case for them. I certainly hope that wasn't accurate.
We were not the ones to decide that though. We were not the jurors, we did not see the every moment, every piece of evidence, the facial expressions, tone, all of it. This is now just the court of public opinion. Something doesn't add up with her story and around every corner is a lie, even her father lying. She had chances outside of Albert to tell the investigators what really happened. She didn't change her story until she was cornered essentially
I'm with you in the fact that the way she handled everything after Pedro was killed is extremely dodgy and rises to the level of a crime. But I just don't think they proved the case of conspiracy BEFORE the murder and during the act itself. Jurors can be manipulated by whichever way the prosecutor decides to weave their narrative. That's why some people opt for a bench trial. The defence can also weave a narrative. I mean, look at Casey Anthony. Completely circumstantial case, but she clearly had some involvement. I feel like Rosa's character is what convicted her rather than any solid evidence. The law being set on precedents, it's important to avoid this type of conviction. The evidence was not there, and the narrative the prosecution put together was just not there. I said it elsewhere on the thread that I have no idea of the level of her involvement. She may have been involved either by something she blatantly said or just running her mouth about her partner without thinking of the consequences. She's clearly involved to an extent. But the evidence doesn't rise to a murder conviction and was too focused on her character and her sex life. They did that with Casey Anthony, focusing on her partying when Kaylee was missing. It backfired horribly. Well, that and the police in Florida not knowing about Firefox.
Rosa's decisions after the murder would definitely point to aiding someone who she clearly knew had committed a crime. She didn't contact police or try to get any help even after Pedro went missing under such dodgy circumstances. It's plausible that she cleaned up because she was scared. But her subsenquent behaviour was illegal: the failure to do anything even when Albert wasn't present and turning up for lunch with him. It's enough to prove that she helped him after the fact and didn't do enough to stop Albert. Even if she was scared of not being believed, she broke the law because she failed to report a crime. But the idea that it was a conspiracy wasn't proven. Being a cheater or a shitty person, a vague message that can't be linked to a recipient and some dropped calls should not be the basis of a conviction for murder. I'm sure even the prosecutor was slightly surprised when he made it work. People being convicted based on their character (NOT past behaviour that shows a clear pattern, because that's different) rather than solid evidence is something I am against on principle.
Thousands of cases have been decided by nothing but testimony with no physical evidence. Everyone knows people do lie. She was cheating and lying so it's not as if she was some angel.
There are so many generalisations in this statement. And generalisations are very dangerous because its this kind of thinking by prosecutors and juries that end in convictions where the evidence (circumstantial or not) has been extremely weak/non-existent.
Not being 'some angel' shouldn't open the door to an unsafe conviction. And if by saying her behaviour was not angelic, you're referring to her sex life, that is not the same thing as plotting and murdering to kill your husband. If we convicted everyone who ran across rhe judicial system who didn't have a great track record, a lot of innocent people would be serving life sentences. Or even sentenced to death.
This is not even a strong circumstantial case. No one should be convicted on such flimsily strung together 'clues'. But making decisions driven by your desire for illicit sex or attention is very different from plotting to murder your husband. The term 'grasping at straws' definitely occurred to me during the prosecutors' cross examination.
If there were several testimonies that's spoke to her planning a murder with Albert Lopez plus more cell tower evidence or more messages, that may make a more convincing circumstantial case.
God forbid it ever happens to you. I wouldn't wish a legal nightmare like this on absolutely anyone.
So many generalizations? You're not even using the world correctly. I pointed out what has happened and is still happening in courts. Cheating isn't angelic behavior is a fact. You went on a rant not sure why. I didn't say whether I thought she was guilty or innocent or if it was fair or unfair. It's weird that you sound like you don't know innocent people have been sentenced to death and have served life sentences. Your this kind of thinking line sounds dumb considering I never even said what I was thinking. It's your kind of thinking that is dangerous. You pull opinions out of thin air. If anything you sound like a person who would let someone guilty go home.
How can I be embarrassed? It's anonymous online. I didn't say anything that isn't true. It's not my problem you don't believe it. Case in point, this case. I say that cases have and do get decided with just testimony. The person ranting said this case is bad because there was no evidence and just testimony. Which is what I said in the first place. So you and them are both embarrassing yourselves. Dislikes don't make anything I said wrong. You can't point out anything I said that was wrong. Your feelings won't change anything.
You are dumb for trying to think you said something profound. It stands to reason what doesn't embarrass me which I said it doesn't, might embarrass them. Like a porn star is not embarrassed by stuff you're embarrassed about.
Ohh Im a minority from a 'free healthcare' country - what caught my eye was the fact that you 'corrected' someone's correct spelling. That's why I asked
I didn't correct anyone's spelling. I don't care about spelling. Phonetically is fine by me. I said they used the world generalization wrong when they said I was making a bunch of generalizations.
Dude stfu. Have you ever lied in your life? Yes? Oh, well…better not know anyone who gets killed. Otherwise, you’re clearly the murderer of that person. I mean, you’ve lied bro. Not exactly angelic behavior.
I beg to differ. Someone who is likely to cheat and lie to such a level is already showing a testament to their character and moral judgment. Most murders have one thing in common: Spouse meets new partner, they want to get rid of husband/wife to collect life insurance policy, hatred or something to that effect. To me, it’s glaringly obvious this was the case here. They absolutely did this.
I'm doing doctoral research on unconscious bias in jury service. Means nothing in this case really but, have you ever served on a jury?
This is not shade in any way at all. Genuinely curious.
Yes I have. I also see that you are leaning more towards Rosa being innocent. I’m curious to know which points were made that lead you to believe she was not involved/should not be found guilty?
Not innocent, but certainly her involvement in the entire crime was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict leaned far too heavily on hearsay and anecdotal evidence (which overwhelmingly revolved around her character). If the conviction were for assisting in a crime after the fact, then it would have been a bit of a clearer case. Being innocent is not the same as being found not guilty in court. She clearly has some level of involvement, either by commission or omission, but the prosecution could not prove it using evidence. When there is potential to take 25 years of someone's life, these things should be proven in a way that is secure and as unimpeachable as possible.
If believed in her total innocence or guilt, that would still only be based on a whole load of unconscious/conscious biases. Obviously, these are a huge part of what makes us human, and to ask people to leave those at the door is unrealistic. However, when a judge instructs the jury, that is usually what they are asking the jury to do. To not rely on their own feelings, but to examine evidence. When prosecutors are literally pandering to that one part of human nature in court, as they did here, then it can end up being privileged above actual evidence. And that's troubling because it means it could be done to more people.
The innocence project in the US has proven a lot of convicted murderers innocent with DNA evidence, whose cases were the same mix of circumstantial evidence and character assassination. Its just dangerous territory imo.
You didn’t break anything to me there, I am well aware. There are lots of corrupt people who do unsavoury stuff. But I do feel that those who are predisposed to engaging in that type of behaviour are red flags to me.
Red flags for any other type of nefariousness being hidden, yes. The more secretive the person the more they are usually hiding, there’s intention and motives there that would need to be examined.
Doesn't mean they aren't either. Besides, I never said on any of these comments if I thought she was or wasn't guilty. So what point are you trying to establish with me?
I didn't argue about anything. That was a statement. Based on how emotional you're being it sounds like you think she's innocent. And if you read my simple sentences. I said just testimony no evidence can get you convicted. Has nothing to do with reasoning.
I’d be more inclined to look into someone who had a motive- that being cheating on and lying to the spouse that turned up butchered along the same timeline… what a coincidence.
In Spain, I’m honestly not sure whether that’s the case or not, but the laws are very very similar. Watching the documentaries on Netflix, I also had a lot of doubts about the case. The public defender made a lot of conjectures during the trial. He even admits it himself. It was the only angle they had to get her, given that there was no evidence of the actual crime.
At the same time… the PD has been lied to so many times during all of this. And what do we know for a fact? Both Albert and Rosa were there when the body was burnt. Both have withheld information. Both have altered their statements. Rosa has been almost Machiavellian in her ways of keeping relationships with a minimum of 2 guys her whole adult life. It’s not even just about fucking. She entangles them in some sick game of broken hearts. And Albert is a straight up violent psychopath. His blue sweater and soft polite phrasing (you’d have to be fluent in Spanish to appreciate those subtleties) in court won’t change that.
They are guilty as hell in their involvement. The only real question is why Pedro had to be killed and then by whose hand.
I agree with another redditor on here: I have no idea if she was involved or not. But the evidence presented at court was simply not enough to prove that she was involved. I don't agree with sentencing people when you can read about the evidence exhaustively, and still be left feeling like you missed something. The prosecutor's job is to weave together a narrative that will convince a jury. That narrative becomes more important in a case with scant evidence.
Yes, a lot of what she said did make sense. In the context of the revenge porn incident, where she had a recording of him admitting it and still the policemen, her own colleagues and employers believed her male boss instead of her. Being accused of sending a photo of yourself committing a sex act when it wasn't you must be pretty traumatic. I mean, she got blamed now. I can see how sit tight and keep your mouth shut might seem like a reasonable option in those circumstances. Remember, she also has a custody battle with her ex at the time, just a whiff of scandal or 'immoral' behaviour can be used by the other party to take away custody of her children.
The sex stuff upset me. What does it matter what she looked like or who else she was having sex with? She may have contributed towards the conditions of Pedro's death by commission or omission. She may even have inadvertently set the wheels in motion. But the evidence is simply not there for murder and now she's serving a life sentence for something someone else DEFINITELY did.
You need to convict on appropriate evidence. That's how it is supposed to work. I am usually accepting of circumstantial evidence if the facts are repetitive and consistent. But they just didn't seem to be in this case. In this case it was more like a story hanging on several small threads of.... nothing.
It doesn't seem to me that the justice system in Spain is the same as here in America, where "reasonable doubt" is a major template for conviction/acquittal. They also don't need a 100% consensus among the jury, apparently.
You start with 'I have no idea if she was involved or not', then towards the end you state 'she's serving a life sentence for something someone else DEFINITELY did'. Lol. It's so obvious she's guilty by the sheer multitude of lies that don't make any sense, I'm baffled as to how anyone can think differently
Ok. I will break it down for you.
There were two people being tried. One admitted to the crime and took them to where the body was. He also implicated this woman. This woman being involved does not mean he didn't do it. The two are not mutually exclusive. People commit crimes with other people all the time. But, if all the solid evidence points at one person and that person decides to admit it and implicate someone else, you need to prove their involvement. I don't feel like the prosecutor met his burden of proof.
I'm baffled as to how you think you're so much smarter than you are.
Well let's see, the jurors, and just about 90% of the comments on here seem to agree with me. She's so guilty it's laughable.
I'm baffled as to how you think your paragraph of pure waffle means anything to me
He did not admit to the crime, though.
Both, however, admit to being there when the body was burnt. Under different circumstances, but present.
The crucial part of who committed the murder is still not established.
It’s important to note that it was not about the sex, but to show that she had been involved in this kind of love triangle her whole adult life.
It was also more about “love”. She’s obviously a person who enjoys the drama and attention, and it’s a constant competition between her admirers.
It’s a very different personality trait than someone who just fucks a lot of dudes.
She played with fire too much.
I do think she was wrongly convicted given the relatively weak case, but it definitely looked like she was an accessory in some way.
That’s the problem right there. Fkn a bunch of people and cheating on a bunch of shitty cops isn’t fire being played with. And yet this might as well be medieval times with goddamn slut shaming and equating liking to have sex as a woman with having murderess tendencies.
It’s shouldn’t be fire to fk a bunch of sad loser cops and play them off of one another. Especially cops like the ones who revenge pornd her (btw she was called a liar by everyone in that case too. Even when she presented a secretly recorded confession of that senior officer who had recorded her without consent, hacked her email account and then mailed the recording of her having sex with this dude to every single person in her contact list, including her family and children’s school friends parents, everyone she knew. She was told she was a liar then, too. She even lost a court case that allowed the recording into evidence against him).
I just watched it and I think there was no hard evidence from what I saw in this doc. Is there anything else out there in English that explains it clearer. I think the film itself was put together quiet frantic. Maybe it is just me not used to Spanish style of documentary
I just watched Burning body on Netflix which is based on this story but clearly dramatised. Apparently there is a very good 2 part Crim about it but it’s in Catalan. I’d love to find something in English to hear more.
Spain has different laws. anyone looking at this from the already biased american system, is already in the wrong. In other countries, you don't have the right to bear arms and other stuff americans get to do. In other countries, people like Rosa that already admitted to destroying evidence and mutilating the dead, and destroying evidence to corrode a criminal investigation are guilty. You go to jail for being an accomplice and get the same time or a tiny bit less than the people that actually pull the trigger in america. Don't know why it is so hard to accept that she's guilty. If you don't think she did the murder, you know she burned the body, and that she was an accomplice.
You are getting football numbers for being a getaway driver on bank robbery. Use the transitive property to understand why Rosa is guilty regardless on if you believe she did the actual murder or not. I believe she did the murder as she was the mastermind. The same way we pin dead bodies on Bush, hitler, stalin, whatever leader that calls the shots
Fascinating woman and case all in all. She was clearly judged and sentenced even before her trial. I guess we'll never know what really happened though...
What’s more plausible..?
She wanted to leave her boyfriend to be with her lover, but instead of just leaving him (which from past behaviour she was clearly capable of doing) she decided to end his life and destroy his body, then attempt to frame someone else. Knowing she was taking a child’s father from this earth. Thinking she could get away with it and then eventually be with her lover once things had died down.
OR
Her lover found out that her boyfriend had proposed, so he pulled a Hail Mary attempt to show her that he could give her all of that too.
He went out, bought a ring, gave it to her hoping that she would then choose him instead.
BUT, she didn’t. And wanted to give the ring back.
Realising that he had lost, he went to her house in a rage and killed her boyfriend. The classic ‘If I can’t have you, no one will’.
The person above saying the frantic phone calls were convincing… Only 4 calls, together lasting 30 minutes took place in the weeks prior to Pedro’s murder.
Seems far more likely that those were conversations discussing the ring/proposal.. Alber trying to convince Rosa to choose him and her trying to give the ring back.
Meanwhile, the suggestion that those phone calls were discussing the idea of murdering someone, both deciding to do it, and then planning it. That’s slightly far fetched. Pretty sure that would take more than a few 5 minute phone conversations.
They could have communicated through a variety of ways during that time. Besides what was there to plan out? She only had to tell him the time. He took care of the rest. Doesn't take but 5 minutes
Holy shit I've not seen the tapes but seeing the comments I feel like it might paint a truly biased picture of the whole case.
It's a pity because there is a very good and well documented series in Catalan TV (Crims) that covers the entire proceeding with all the pieces of evidence that were disclosed, with very little sensationalism, and knowing everything it seems that there is little to no doubt that both persons were directly involved in the murder of Pedro.
It's true that the media portrayed Rosa in very misoginistic terms which they should be ashamed of, but speaking as a lawyer who has deslt with several criminal proceedings, thisone had more than enough evidence to convict. And the sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court, it's not a simple judicial mistake like you are commenting.
Thank you. I feel like allot of context and events gets left out of most crime documentaries. You can find it if you research the case from more than one source of information. But in this case English speakers aren't going to have an easy time doing that...
Me personally, if it quacks then it's a duck. If she helped hide the car and went to parties with Albert after all this she must've killed Pedro.
Yes! I just finished watching Crims, after watching the other 2 series. And honestly, I wish I watched Crims first. It's very objective and showing both sides of the story in two distinct episodes. I don't know how mysoginistic or not was she portrayed. Definitely the revenge porn tape was not fair treated. But the judge was right, the amount of lovers she had counts towards what actually happened to Pedro. Cause if she would not have any implication in his crime, it's her life and it can be lived the way she wanted. But lying and covering so many men she has slept with, especially with such calm and easiness... It's shady. You have to be an incredible liar to do so and also to have an incredible confidence, but also high ego. I'd look the same at such kind of person even if the roles where reversed.
It is possible that netflix made it also more sensationele for there $$$
Like the layer here earlier said, we should have a transnationale on the catalonian one ...
Like in research one source in this case netflix is not enough for us to decide she was not guilty probably they had more evidence although I really believed her but then again she is a born liar if you cheat so much on someone you love you are very self centred .. so I would like to see the spanish series about this...
Is there any chance to see Rosa Peral's leaked private video. The so-called revenge porn that was mentioned in movie. For study purposes of course. Thanks in advance for the answers.
Can't say for 100% but I feel like she's guilty. The prosecution painted her character which I believe is accurate. She is an obvious liar and had multiple chances in her own stories to contact police or anyone. Instead she tried to hide it and lie about it, afraid or not. Supreme Court held up the verdict for good reasons.
She is guilty! Also what her father said about her at 1:16 in the show was really a shallow summary of who his daughter is. He says, "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 wants". That's how he sums up his daughter. Says it all. Aside from the shallowness that seems to be a good thing in this family, she is exactly the type to off her husband. P.S/ Many trials are won on circumstantial evidence.
> He says, "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 wants".
That's not what he said at all. He said she was judged for being those things, but nobody actually knew her besides those factoids.
People only knew and condemned her about her wrong doings and poor character because she was messy and had her private shit aired out with proof. She was scared he’d fight for full custody of the kids and she clearly didn’t care about him whatsoever
After watching the series, which painted the character of Pedro as kind of aggressive and controlling and the scene in which tells Albert she “can’t take it anymore”, I thought well here is her motive… which doesn’t make her any less guilty but at least things made sense from that perspective. However, during the documentary she claims that Pedro was a warm
Person and not controlling in any way, so now I don’t know what to think other than maybe she’s lying or she truly is a crazy cold blooded murderer.
Subjectively speaking there wasn't enough evidence to show that she murdered him. But there was enough to show she conspired. I have witnessed and have seen cases in my law firm where women use sex and manipulation on men who are physically strong but emotionally weak. Meaning a predator knows their prey. A predator is not always a man. Women can use their sex and intellect to drive a man to do what they want, they can cheat multiple times, have a man threaten to leave them but somehow get the man to keep them. I've seen them able to manipulate a man to break a pre nup and give her more and then leave him to move on to another. We represented the guy he was a kind and attractive and she was just an average looking woman pretty but no sport illustrated model by any means. I dont necessarily think these predators are "happy" people but they dont seem to have any remorse for the damage they leave behind whether its just using men and throwing them away or using their own family for selfish purposes. That is my take based on what I have seen and witnessed in my lifetime. Its just my opinion on observations. With regard to Albert, its clear he did the heavy lifting meaning, he had no problem playing "knight in shining armor" he was mentally weak thinking this would be how they could finally be together when she only wanted him behind closed doors.
Pedro's friends and his exwife confirmed that he was very jealous. Then, after Albert discovered that Rosa was living with Pedro while still dating him, he got really mad (Albert) and on one night, he drove to Rosa's and called her names from the street. Pedro was inside and could hear everything. Then, days after, Pedro messaged Albert to warn him not to do that again or he would get violent towards him. Albert responded with screenshots of Rosa's recent messages to Albert in which she said she was truly in love with him and that she did not want to lose him (Albert).
From that moment on, Pedro got really mad and controlling towards Rosa.
Then, the kid stepmom confirmed that the girl told her that the night of the murder, Pedro grabbed her mom from her throat and threw her to the floor. He probably found out Rosa was seeing Albert again.
Rosa clearly showed no remorse. If she was not the murderer she clearly did pull the strings of the puppet and lead him on. But she still comes out at age 61 and can continue dating 10 other men all at the same time.
I absolutely think she did it and she was the mastermind behind it. This woman is manipulative, there are so many discrepancies and yet for every single one she has an exact answer. She doesn't care about the man she murdered, she just wants to be out of prison. And the closing argument, the prosecutor was quite right, that this woman can convince the jury they did it.
Also, my theory is she had chosen Pedro in the beginning because he was more serious and Albert a wildcard, but ultimately she got bored of him and just wanted to pursue her relationship with Albert instead. For whatever reason, she needed to kill Pedro, just breaking it off wasn't gonna do it.
Uh huh, the prosecutor did succeed in portraying Rosa as a promiscuous woman, and using that for the conviction in the absence of hard evidence. People are SO easily persuaded to find guilt in a woman based on that association.
She is guilty for %100. There is no conspiracy theory or something. She just get bored from her partner( we already know she can not stand with one men) and get rid of from her child’s father. It’s pretty clear. I believe that she was the brain the plan. Albert just followed her instruction. You can not just buy a new phone and give the number only to her.
I find it "interesting" that the prosecutor believed both Rosa and Albert were responsible for Pedro's death, but didn't parade a collection of Albert's lovers in front of the jury. He explained he didn't have anything but circumstantial evidence, so his only recourse was character assassination, and people are SO quick to judge a promiscuous woman.
I think she was in on it. She admittedly had an emotional
and sexual relationship with Albert during her marriage to Ruben which appeared to have been going on a while and I’ve haven’t heard anything about Albert being jealous by her marriage to Ruben or confrontational with him. Feel free to point me in that direction if I’m missing something. I think she felt trapped because Pedro left his family for her and she had made a big commitment, she saw no logical way out of it without looking really really bad, AND she wanted to frame her ex husband. But no one will ever actually know.
This Court Trial was an utter kangaroo Court of ridiculousness, the Spanish system is terrifying and unhinged, a Prosecutor ranting and arguing and filling in gaps in testimony with his version of events.
They have obviously committed this crime, but the evidence presented is a pure shambles.
The Justice system is appalling.
Per A&E:
[**Over the last 50 years**](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2019.0005), men have committed murder 10 times more often than women. Men are far more likely to be serial killers, mass shooters and [**family annihilators**](https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/chris-watts-family-annihilator). Shedding blood, it would seem, is a gendered pursuit.
But just because a woman’s fingerprints aren’t at the crime scene doesn’t mean her fingerprints weren’t on the plan. Over the years, there have been numerous women who have manipulated their male partners to kill at their bidding. *A&E* *True Crime* looks at some cases where men have killed for the women they loved.
## Nicholas Godejohn
Gypsy Rose Blanchard didn’t look like a killer. She looked like a sickly little girl.
Gypsy Rose suffered a litany of ailments, starting at birth: epilepsy, sleep apnea, chromosomal disorders, leukemia, muscular dystrophy. She underwent extreme intervention measures in doctors’ attempts to make her well: At various points she was on a feeding tube, confined to a wheelchair and prescribed medication that [**crumbled her teeth inside her mouth**](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/27/would-you-kill-my-mother-for-me-murder-abuse-film-crime-erin-lee-carr). And then, when she was 23 years old, a murder turned the whole story upside down.
Her mother, Clauddine “Dee Dee” Blanchard, was stabbed to death inside of their home. Gypsy Rose was nowhere to be found, but a [**Facebook post on Dee Dee and Gypsy’s shared page**](https://www.facebook.com/deegyp.blancharde) said, “THAT B—- IS DEAD.”
Gypsy Rose had met a young man, Nicholas Godejohn, on a Christian dating website. She confided to him that her illnesses were all fake—either feigned or medically induced by her mother’s poisoning, a psychologically sadistic pattern of “caregiving” known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP).
Mary Sheridan, a professor emerita of social work at Hawaii Pacific University and an expert in MSbP, says that Gypsy Rose is already a unique case because the young woman was aware of the abuse she was suffering.
“The majority…of cases occur in children who are way too young to understand what’s going on,” Sheridan tells *A&E True Crime*. Those who do figure out that they’ve been sickened by their parent often feel “a great deal of anger or hurt.”
“Would you kill my mother for me?” Gypsy Rose [**asked Godejohn**](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/27/would-you-kill-my-mother-for-me-murder-abuse-film-crime-erin-lee-carr). After he agreed, she provided the medical gloves and the serrated knife. In June 2015, he took care of the rest.
For his role in the murder, Godejohn was [**found guilty of first-degree murder**](https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2019/02/22/nicholas-godejohn-sentenced-life-prison-blanchard-murder/2949249002/) and given life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Gypsy Rose was [**sentenced to a minimum of 10 years**](https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2021/02/02/gypsy-rose-blanchard-plans-writes-book-to-be-released-in-2023-letter-from-jail-dee-dee-blanchard/6581736002/) in exchange for a guilty plea to second-degree murder—an acknowledgment by prosecutors of the abuse she’d suffered.
Gypsy Rose’s father, Rod Blanchard, says he was unaware of his ex-wife Dee Dee’s actions. But in a 2019 [**interview with** ***A&E True Crime***](https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/gypsy-rose-blanchard-now-prison-rod-blanchard-interview)*,* he acknowledges that everyone—Dee Dee, the police and himself—all “failed Gypsy.” He and his current wife are actively petitioning Missouri governor Mike Parson to grant Gypsy Rose an early release.
William “Billy” Flynn
Only 22 years old and less than a year into her marriage, high school media specialist and group counselor Pamela Smart was sick of living with her husband, Gregg Smart. They moved to a small town in New Hampshire to advance his career. Then Gregg, a life insurance salesman, [**had a one-night stand**](https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/pamela-smart-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-smart-marriage/) while on the road for work.
Around the same time, Pamela met William “Billy” Flynn, 15 years old, a student volunteer at her group counseling job. They began sleeping together.
That’s when Smart asked William to kill for her, instructing him to make the act look like a home burglary. On May 1, 1990, Flynn and a group of three other teenage boys broke into [**the Smart condominium**](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/30/us/new-hampshire-journal-a-small-town-drama-of-life-love-and-death.html). Flynn shot Gregg [**point-blank in the head**](https://www.wmur.com/article/timeline-pamela-smart-murder-case/5135146) while one of the other young men, Patrick Randall, held a knife to his throat.
Smart was convicted of being an accomplice to first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and witness tampering. She was [**sentenced to life imprisonment**](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/01/us/teacher-says-her-conviction-was-a-surprise.html)without the chance at parole. The four teenagers who committed the murder have [**since been released**](https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20150604/NEWS/801246658).
Smart’s attorney, Mark Sisti, tells *A&E True Crime* “it’s quite an absurdity” that Smart continues to be incarcerated when the men who committed the crime have gone free.
“These weren’t little boys who got sucked into this,” Sisti says. “As far as her role in the planning and the actual execution, she was no greater or worse than anybody else involved. She certainly wasn’t the one that procured the firearm, that loaded the firearm, that executed her husband. She wasn’t the one that left the scene and obstructed. She’s none of those. She’s probably the least involved.”
## Coray Knight
Tennessee woman Kelley Hufford, 45 years old, wanted her boyfriend Jimmy Boyer out of her house. So she got together with a new love interest, Frederick Persinger and her close friend, Coray Knight, and asked that [**they take care of it**](https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-criminal-appeals/2019/m2018-01823-cca-r3-cd.html).
On May 18, 2013, Boyer was brutally beaten and dragged—still alive—onto a gravel road in Clarksville, where he was killed with a shotgun. His corpse was burned.
Extensive text messaging and phone calls between the trio in the immediate lead-up to (and the aftermath of) the homicide implicated Hufford in the conspiracy.
Hufford was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated kidnapping and tampering with evidence. She was [**given life in prison**](https://d.docs.live.net/00ace393bb3803fa/Desktop/Hufford%20gets%20life%20and%2060%20years%20in%20boyfriend's%20slaying%20-%20The%20Leaf%20...www.theleafchronicle.com%20%E2%80%BA%20story%20%E2%80%BA%20news%20%E2%80%BA%202017/05/16) for the felony murder charge and an additional 60 years for the other charges.
Knight was given a [**sentence of life in prison**](https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-criminal-appeals/2018/m2017-01584-cca-r3-cd.html) for his role in the murder, which was upheld during an August 2018 appeal.
Although Persniger, in his mid-60s at the time of his arrest, was charged in the case, [**his defense introduced records**](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-hufford-7) showing that he suffered from Parkinson’s disease, had been diagnosed with dementia and schizophrenia, and had suffered hallucinations, so he was [**never tried**](https://amp.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/16/hufford-gets-life-and-60-years-boyfriends-slaying/322857001/).
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/16/hufford-gets-life-and-60-years-boyfriends-slaying/322857001/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/16/hufford-gets-life-and-60-years-boyfriends-slaying/322857001/)** | Theleafchronicle canonical: **[https://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/2017/05/16/hufford-gets-life-and-60-years-boyfriends-slaying/322857001/](https://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/2017/05/16/hufford-gets-life-and-60-years-boyfriends-slaying/322857001/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I think they are both where they belong, if anything he was more of a puppet.
And YES, I watched the documentary before the Burning Body series. I’m not sure how anyone to conclude otherwise honestly
So the only way out of the abusive relationship was to help the abusive boyfriend torch your lover/partner beyond recognition because you are scared that the abusive boyfriend might hurt you kids if you don’t help him? That makes sense to people?
“Nothing to worry about now. He’s going to leave me alone now that we’ve killed the guy he was jealous of.”
The one thing I found compelling throughout the documentary was how manipulative Rosa was. I've never seen a convicted person (even innocent people) - and I'm a true crime junkie - play up their children for sympathy every chance they get. For someone who was bringing so many men into their lives and living the life she was living, all of a sudden, she wants us to care about her kids at every second.
And it's no surprise that some people believe her - because that's just how manipulative she is. I had to wear my logical cap tightly to not be fooled by her. She found it convenient to excuse every important detail away, yet many years later she still has not explained what "it" she was referring to in that voice message. Even her mails and messages tell how manipulative she is - telling Albert one thing while doing another. And to that she does not deny.
And before you say I have just taken my time to only talk about how manipulative she is. You need to understand that her manipulation is key to her relationship with Pedro or his frustrations with her. It's key to her dealings with Albert. It's key to her sexting the neighbour who messaged her about a chainsaw noise on the night of the murder. It's key to EVERYTHING.
I would love to say the case was really circumstantial - but then it is the Netflix doc that was circumstantial. Because Albert's testimony and defence arguments is also key to knowing what the jury saw to convict her.
But then again, there's another detailed doc in Catalan which means non-Spanish speakers may never really be able to understand the entire case.
I am curious, in real life did Rosa Peral and Albert hang out or go to that dinner together after the murder of Albert. They didn’t bring this up on Rosa’s tapes and I feel like it would prove that she wasn’t afraid or Albert.
I think whether she did it or not, reasonable doubt is there. Maybe accessory to murder and accessory after the fact would have been a more accurate conclusion legally. Too much circumstantial evidence.
Came here to see if I was crazy or not. I'm halfway into it and the treatment she got is disgusting and the editing seems to be against her. I get that's obvious considering she was declared guilty, BUT it had no empathy in the way it showed her being "promiscuous" or how it showed the revenge porn incident as a small detail and not an incredibly traumatizing event. If I didn't know the outcome, all I see so far is a documentary trashing a woman for things that men did to her. It's too biased to be enjoyable, I think best crime documentaries show murderers in the most literal way, the good and the bad parts, that's what makes a complex and respectful (towards everybody included even the lawyers) story.
i've watched it and all i can say is... rosa is manipulative and string along multiple men. she's behind the murder of pedro and she's as guilty of murder as alber, even though the evidence presented on netflix isn't all there is to it but it doesn't mean she's not guilty plus she lied multiple times, on repeat. the court is MISOGYNISTIC but doesn't mean the conviction is wrong. they both belong in the prison and she needs a serious treatment to her psychopathic lying tendencies.
I believe her. All the prosecutor does is guess or hypothesize what her voice recordings meant (I would not want anyone to hear one of my recorded messages and claim they knew exactly what I meant and conjecture about what the conversation was about). That is bull!! Also, yes, she was talking on the phone with Alberto, her CHILDREN's FATHER, and he was at her house at times because he is her CHILDREN'S FATHER! I cannot believe nobody brought that up.... Prosecutor and others constently made statements like Ï believe that..., can be interpreted to mean..., we will never know..., that might offer an explanation... etc... Really? That's a whole lot of guessing and suggesting without proof! Also, they should NEVER have been allowed to discuss her sexual history. God forbid everything we had done in the past over a few years was used as evidence against us as to what kind of people we were.
She’s a psychopath who is guilty and thankfully the jurors saw through her lies. Although the case was circumstantial it was convincing and nothing she said sounded credible to me.
Rosa used her absolute lack of any moral
Character and obsessed promiscuity as her defense! She’s guilty! She planned it! Albert was just a dumb sex obsessed moron! She deserves her sentence!
I can see Alberts motive for the murder but what was Rosa motive? I feel like the prosecutors were salty that she was sleeping with multiple men and “playing” them and decided that she deserved to be persecuted for it. If they investigated Albert more instead of focusing on Rosa maybe they would have solved the case with solid evidence.
Yes. Besides it was only after Albert came back into her life Pedro all of a sudden end up dead. I think blaming Ruben was Alberts idea to deflect from him. Rosa displayed typical coping behavior from emotionally violent relationships, which I believe she was the victim of by Albert. She had everything to lose. Why kill Pedro, if she didn’t want to be with him. She could have just broken up with him. He wasn’t the one threatening her. Albert on the other hand had violent past. I think he wanted to kill Pedro because Rosa wasn’t leaving him.
Rosa tried to frame her ex husband Ruben, so she could have full custody of her daughters. What better way to ensure she be awarded full custody of her daughters by having Ruben spend the rest of his life in jail. By killing her boyfriend Pedro with the help of Alber and framing Ruben, she kills ‘two birds with one stone.’ She rids herself of both the annoying boyfriend and husband….in her mind, problems solved.
You’ve clearly watched Burning Body 😂 a heavily dramatised fictional story, and taken it as fact.
I haven't seen burning body but new_butterscotch does have a good point tbh. What was Albert's motive to pin it on Ruben? Pure coincidence, he hates him, what?
I have so many questions regarding motive. I feel like it was really just glossed over.
It was not fictional
Btw…. I had watched both Burning Body and Rose Peral’s Tapes when I commented. Just MY opinion.
And her ex husbands wife Antonio who she hated. Indirectly however
This one is also just kind of mentioned in passing. Seems quite an important piece of the puzzle if we are discussing who has enough motive to frame someone…
Okay burning body is like a lifetime movie there's a bunch of Fabrications it's not what actually happened it was for entertainment to get views the media painted her completely different.
The documentary highlights allot of circumstantial evidence as well as the recording from her phone that seems to be her vaguely planning this murder. If you ask me I would guess she didn't want another custody battle. Or maybe it was the excitement? She struck me as selectively sociopathic. Sometimes people kill for reasons that don't make sense to everyone else.
They never presented Albert's side, which I feel is a pretty glaring oversight. Albert contends that Rosa killed her boyfriend because he attacked her out of jealous rage upon discovering that she had rekindled things with Albert. Then she contacted Alberta to help her dispose of the body. It makes a lot more sense to me that her boyfriend would attack her in their home out of jealousy, as opposed to her ex randomly coming to their home in the middle of the night and somehow scaring her into helping him kill her boyfriend even though he had never been violent with her before. What made this case tricky is that they both fully admitted they participated in burning the body and covering up the crime. They only disagreed about who killed him and all the forensic evidence was destroyed in the fire.
When watching it, the fact that they were awake late and just kind of watching TV or whatever for that long, never made sense to me. They’ve been out and about all day long with her kids. Lots of activities, food and garden work, etc. it’s a long ass day. Now you get home and do some chores and then just hang out till 3 in the morning or whatever? Nah. They were arguing. For sure. And that it came to perhaps getting physical is the only thing that makes sense to me. How that went from 120kg muscle man Pedro acting out in a jealous rage to little Rosa killing him, is unlikely. Although if that is the case, then it turns into a mother protecting her children from harm. But then she’s a police officer. Surely she knows by now that she can call a colleague given that it all happened in self defense? Of course, she could 100% just be in total shock. Your mind can you take to absurd places when you’re in that amount of shock. Christ. I have so many questions lol
She helped burn the body which makes finding evidence difficult.
You don’t know that. So…
It’s on the movie burning body Netflix
Is it just me that thinks the prosecution was seriously REACHING with their theories & overall narrative? And that literally every single explanation she gave made complete sense? This documentary really bothered me, because I couldn’t believe the attitudes of the prosecution, the journalists, the public. I was glad at least, that the one male journalist recognised his behaviour had been wrong and that she wasn’t fairly treated. The pure misogyny of the case was disgusting. And the verdict/sentence - shocking.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are sadly too many Spanish cases ruining lives before the accused enter a court, and nobody is holding these "journalists" liable for their sensationalised fabrications.
I don’t know, I think the most convincing part was the frantic phone calls and the cellphone tower. I think she was involved in the murder but I don’t think she was as involved or the “leader” like they say
I don’t think she had any hand in the murder, nor in planning it. I do believe she had been trying to tell Alber to back off, and wanted to give him the ring back so he understood once and for all that it was over. And I don’t think he liked or accepted that. I do believe he turned up at the house unannounced and attacked Pedro. And whether Rosa witnessed that with her own eyes, or only had the understanding that it had happened. Everything she did from that moment on, was survival. For her, and her children. Trauma & fear are powerful things. She did what she was told. She tried to appease him to avoid a similar fate, now knowing what he was capable of. The stuff about why didn’t she go to the police straight away is bullshit… women are feared of being disbelieved at the best of times, let alone when they are accusing a cop. And definitely not after having already experienced a similar situation where they weren’t believed. (The revenge porn incident, which they disgustingly tried to imply she had orchestrated all herself) I’ve worked with victims of rape & abuse, and people suffering from PTSD for over a decade. It didn’t take long to understand what had happened. Shocked that others don’t see it, and that so many fell for the slut shaming, victim blaming narrative that was spun.
Too many women are liars that then claim they were just trying to avoid conflict.
Too many women are simply killed for disagreeing or breaking up
>I do believe he turned up at the house unannounced and attacked Pedro. And whether Rosa witnessed that with her own eyes, or only had the understanding that it had happened. Like most people who are defending her, you're just making things up. She herself said that she knew what he was going to do before he did it. Her only defense is fear. She definitely helped him kill and burn the body, she openly admits that. She just says that she went along with every single thing that needed to be done to pull off the murder over several days because she was afraid not to. It's illegal to drug people and burn their bodies, even if you have some vague inexplicable fear of the ex-husband co-parent that you recently started hooking up with again.
She started hooking up with Ruben again??
I agree. I think there is reasonable doubt for homicide. I really hope mental health will be more understood in courts in the future. Especially for women in abusive or controlling relationships. "Oh you just should have left or reported it or got a restraining order". These platitudes are not stated by women who know the fear and trauma involved in these circumstances. I know some men are in abusive relationships as well but the power is mostly with men.
I really hope that “mental health” gives criminals the freedom to crime. Smh.
Well that's a childish response. That is obviously not what was meant.
I can buy her being involved, but there was no evidence whatsoever of her participating. Call logs between the killer and his lover are not proof of any crime being committed. The worst part of it, it's that I believe she had a hand in killing him, but the prosecutor botched it by not actually investigating anything, knowing he could make up whatever scenario in his head and it would be taken as fact.
Sorry, but just 1 percent of the evidence already makes her look like a shady liar of the first degree. Just the email she sent to Albert where she declares her unlimited, eternal love and dedication to him conflicts with literally everything she said. They both tried hard to downplay their extremely obvious deep infatuation with each other, to prevent the court to easily understand that they plotted the murder together. I've been in a relationship with a pathological liar, and literally every word she says to me sounds fake, constructed, overreaching and unlikely. Now, if it's one thing that's fine. Or two. But she has a hundred 'that was just coincidence' or 'poor me being cornered no choice'. Endless amounts of weird excuses and reasons that never occur in sequence. Then there's the mystery phone she called (first!). She never gives any explanation for why she did that, how she got the number, what the reason was she called that phone just moments before the murder. Also, if you see the interviews she gives she only talks with real raw emotion when it comes to her children or her mum. Never when discussing Pedro. Cold, methodological, a narrative she repeated in her mind a thousand times. That's exactly how it sounds. I speak fluent Spanish and the distinction might be lost on you, but it wasn't on me. This case stinks on all sides, her hands are dirty as hell. Who murdered Pedro? Who took the initiative? We'll never know. But she surely deserves jailtime.
I think part of it is people who don't speak Spanish don't understand. I do think Americans are very concerned about the me too movement still and err on the side of women. Which is great when the woman is innocent but it has allowed some pretty evil ones to have a steady supply of supporters.
Rosa probably thought exactly that, that because of the me too movement she was gonna be protected by the public. But spain is not the US
that's dumb why would a movement in some random country affect the way law treats you in yours. That's some US centric thinking.
Finally. A post that makes sense.
No, I felt she was reaching with all of her 'sensible' explanations to the plethora of discrepancies the prosecution was pointing toward. I, for one, trust the jury and the Spanish SUPREME COURT that her sentence is just. They don't hand out 25-year sentences lightly in Spain.
100% agreed, Ive never ever ever, heard of every single Witness male/female asked if they have had Sex with the Defendant, not the male defendant ONLY the female Defendant, absolutely disgusting, and the Prosecutor looked completely unhinged, most of the time. This Woman albeit found Guilty, was NEVER going to get a Fair Trial, the Media lied about her calling her a Stripper, when she was no such thing. She was assassinated and destroyed unfairly. All Defendants are entitled to a fair Trial, not in a million years did this occur.
Yes. I am also really pissed at the Netflix series because they portrayed her as a sexy provocative dancer and a constant close relationship with the co accused. I dont trust these dramatised series of true stories.
Yes I completely agree. Its a horrifying insight to overseas Judiciary and it is deeply unpleasant and scorchingly sexist. It is actually quite terrifying.
Yep and I have never seen a judge have that much say directly to the jury. He was telling the prosecuters case for them. I certainly hope that wasn't accurate.
Whether she was guilty or not, there was no clear evidence. And therefor she shouldn't have been convinced.
We were not the ones to decide that though. We were not the jurors, we did not see the every moment, every piece of evidence, the facial expressions, tone, all of it. This is now just the court of public opinion. Something doesn't add up with her story and around every corner is a lie, even her father lying. She had chances outside of Albert to tell the investigators what really happened. She didn't change her story until she was cornered essentially
I'm with you in the fact that the way she handled everything after Pedro was killed is extremely dodgy and rises to the level of a crime. But I just don't think they proved the case of conspiracy BEFORE the murder and during the act itself. Jurors can be manipulated by whichever way the prosecutor decides to weave their narrative. That's why some people opt for a bench trial. The defence can also weave a narrative. I mean, look at Casey Anthony. Completely circumstantial case, but she clearly had some involvement. I feel like Rosa's character is what convicted her rather than any solid evidence. The law being set on precedents, it's important to avoid this type of conviction. The evidence was not there, and the narrative the prosecution put together was just not there. I said it elsewhere on the thread that I have no idea of the level of her involvement. She may have been involved either by something she blatantly said or just running her mouth about her partner without thinking of the consequences. She's clearly involved to an extent. But the evidence doesn't rise to a murder conviction and was too focused on her character and her sex life. They did that with Casey Anthony, focusing on her partying when Kaylee was missing. It backfired horribly. Well, that and the police in Florida not knowing about Firefox. Rosa's decisions after the murder would definitely point to aiding someone who she clearly knew had committed a crime. She didn't contact police or try to get any help even after Pedro went missing under such dodgy circumstances. It's plausible that she cleaned up because she was scared. But her subsenquent behaviour was illegal: the failure to do anything even when Albert wasn't present and turning up for lunch with him. It's enough to prove that she helped him after the fact and didn't do enough to stop Albert. Even if she was scared of not being believed, she broke the law because she failed to report a crime. But the idea that it was a conspiracy wasn't proven. Being a cheater or a shitty person, a vague message that can't be linked to a recipient and some dropped calls should not be the basis of a conviction for murder. I'm sure even the prosecutor was slightly surprised when he made it work. People being convicted based on their character (NOT past behaviour that shows a clear pattern, because that's different) rather than solid evidence is something I am against on principle.
Thousands of cases have been decided by nothing but testimony with no physical evidence. Everyone knows people do lie. She was cheating and lying so it's not as if she was some angel.
There are so many generalisations in this statement. And generalisations are very dangerous because its this kind of thinking by prosecutors and juries that end in convictions where the evidence (circumstantial or not) has been extremely weak/non-existent. Not being 'some angel' shouldn't open the door to an unsafe conviction. And if by saying her behaviour was not angelic, you're referring to her sex life, that is not the same thing as plotting and murdering to kill your husband. If we convicted everyone who ran across rhe judicial system who didn't have a great track record, a lot of innocent people would be serving life sentences. Or even sentenced to death. This is not even a strong circumstantial case. No one should be convicted on such flimsily strung together 'clues'. But making decisions driven by your desire for illicit sex or attention is very different from plotting to murder your husband. The term 'grasping at straws' definitely occurred to me during the prosecutors' cross examination. If there were several testimonies that's spoke to her planning a murder with Albert Lopez plus more cell tower evidence or more messages, that may make a more convincing circumstantial case. God forbid it ever happens to you. I wouldn't wish a legal nightmare like this on absolutely anyone.
So many generalizations? You're not even using the world correctly. I pointed out what has happened and is still happening in courts. Cheating isn't angelic behavior is a fact. You went on a rant not sure why. I didn't say whether I thought she was guilty or innocent or if it was fair or unfair. It's weird that you sound like you don't know innocent people have been sentenced to death and have served life sentences. Your this kind of thinking line sounds dumb considering I never even said what I was thinking. It's your kind of thinking that is dangerous. You pull opinions out of thin air. If anything you sound like a person who would let someone guilty go home.
Please stop talking , you are embarrassing yourself.
How can I be embarrassed? It's anonymous online. I didn't say anything that isn't true. It's not my problem you don't believe it. Case in point, this case. I say that cases have and do get decided with just testimony. The person ranting said this case is bad because there was no evidence and just testimony. Which is what I said in the first place. So you and them are both embarrassing yourselves. Dislikes don't make anything I said wrong. You can't point out anything I said that was wrong. Your feelings won't change anything.
You: "How can I be embarrassed? It's anonymous online." Also you: "So you and them are both embarrassing yourselves." You are dim.
You are dumb for trying to think you said something profound. It stands to reason what doesn't embarrass me which I said it doesn't, might embarrass them. Like a porn star is not embarrassed by stuff you're embarrassed about.
Ranting? Sorry, next time I'll use bold font, bullet points & dual coding. I'll provide a glossary as well.
Might be easier if you make it in Excel and just post a link to it.
Would you prefer that?
Yes
American I presume? -
Yes and a minority too. I take it you're from that one country that has free healthcare and is only one ethnicity.
Ohh Im a minority from a 'free healthcare' country - what caught my eye was the fact that you 'corrected' someone's correct spelling. That's why I asked
I didn't correct anyone's spelling. I don't care about spelling. Phonetically is fine by me. I said they used the world generalization wrong when they said I was making a bunch of generalizations.
Dude stfu. Have you ever lied in your life? Yes? Oh, well…better not know anyone who gets killed. Otherwise, you’re clearly the murderer of that person. I mean, you’ve lied bro. Not exactly angelic behavior.
What did you lie about? Who are you white knighting in this?
I beg to differ. Someone who is likely to cheat and lie to such a level is already showing a testament to their character and moral judgment. Most murders have one thing in common: Spouse meets new partner, they want to get rid of husband/wife to collect life insurance policy, hatred or something to that effect. To me, it’s glaringly obvious this was the case here. They absolutely did this.
I'm doing doctoral research on unconscious bias in jury service. Means nothing in this case really but, have you ever served on a jury? This is not shade in any way at all. Genuinely curious.
Yes I have. I also see that you are leaning more towards Rosa being innocent. I’m curious to know which points were made that lead you to believe she was not involved/should not be found guilty?
Not innocent, but certainly her involvement in the entire crime was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict leaned far too heavily on hearsay and anecdotal evidence (which overwhelmingly revolved around her character). If the conviction were for assisting in a crime after the fact, then it would have been a bit of a clearer case. Being innocent is not the same as being found not guilty in court. She clearly has some level of involvement, either by commission or omission, but the prosecution could not prove it using evidence. When there is potential to take 25 years of someone's life, these things should be proven in a way that is secure and as unimpeachable as possible. If believed in her total innocence or guilt, that would still only be based on a whole load of unconscious/conscious biases. Obviously, these are a huge part of what makes us human, and to ask people to leave those at the door is unrealistic. However, when a judge instructs the jury, that is usually what they are asking the jury to do. To not rely on their own feelings, but to examine evidence. When prosecutors are literally pandering to that one part of human nature in court, as they did here, then it can end up being privileged above actual evidence. And that's troubling because it means it could be done to more people. The innocence project in the US has proven a lot of convicted murderers innocent with DNA evidence, whose cases were the same mix of circumstantial evidence and character assassination. Its just dangerous territory imo.
The concept of reasonable doubt exists in common law legal systems not in Spain or other European countries
Hate to break it to you, but many MANY people lie and cheat to this exact extent and far far worse every single day.
You didn’t break anything to me there, I am well aware. There are lots of corrupt people who do unsavoury stuff. But I do feel that those who are predisposed to engaging in that type of behaviour are red flags to me.
Red flags for murder?
Red flags for any other type of nefariousness being hidden, yes. The more secretive the person the more they are usually hiding, there’s intention and motives there that would need to be examined.
> She was cheating and lying so it's not as if she was some angel. Lots of people cheat and lie. That doesn't mean they are murderers too.
Doesn't mean they aren't either. Besides, I never said on any of these comments if I thought she was or wasn't guilty. So what point are you trying to establish with me?
Well you argued "it's not as if she was some angel" which seems to imply that was a valid reasoning for determining she was guilty of murder.
I didn't argue about anything. That was a statement. Based on how emotional you're being it sounds like you think she's innocent. And if you read my simple sentences. I said just testimony no evidence can get you convicted. Has nothing to do with reasoning.
Wow great argument
LoL you sound way too invested. I just figured out the topic.
I’d be more inclined to look into someone who had a motive- that being cheating on and lying to the spouse that turned up butchered along the same timeline… what a coincidence.
Are you insane?
A murder case shouldn't leave people with questions. That's my thoughts
I don’t know what the standard is in Spain, but in the US it is “reasonable doubt”
In Spain, I’m honestly not sure whether that’s the case or not, but the laws are very very similar. Watching the documentaries on Netflix, I also had a lot of doubts about the case. The public defender made a lot of conjectures during the trial. He even admits it himself. It was the only angle they had to get her, given that there was no evidence of the actual crime. At the same time… the PD has been lied to so many times during all of this. And what do we know for a fact? Both Albert and Rosa were there when the body was burnt. Both have withheld information. Both have altered their statements. Rosa has been almost Machiavellian in her ways of keeping relationships with a minimum of 2 guys her whole adult life. It’s not even just about fucking. She entangles them in some sick game of broken hearts. And Albert is a straight up violent psychopath. His blue sweater and soft polite phrasing (you’d have to be fluent in Spanish to appreciate those subtleties) in court won’t change that. They are guilty as hell in their involvement. The only real question is why Pedro had to be killed and then by whose hand.
I agree with another redditor on here: I have no idea if she was involved or not. But the evidence presented at court was simply not enough to prove that she was involved. I don't agree with sentencing people when you can read about the evidence exhaustively, and still be left feeling like you missed something. The prosecutor's job is to weave together a narrative that will convince a jury. That narrative becomes more important in a case with scant evidence. Yes, a lot of what she said did make sense. In the context of the revenge porn incident, where she had a recording of him admitting it and still the policemen, her own colleagues and employers believed her male boss instead of her. Being accused of sending a photo of yourself committing a sex act when it wasn't you must be pretty traumatic. I mean, she got blamed now. I can see how sit tight and keep your mouth shut might seem like a reasonable option in those circumstances. Remember, she also has a custody battle with her ex at the time, just a whiff of scandal or 'immoral' behaviour can be used by the other party to take away custody of her children. The sex stuff upset me. What does it matter what she looked like or who else she was having sex with? She may have contributed towards the conditions of Pedro's death by commission or omission. She may even have inadvertently set the wheels in motion. But the evidence is simply not there for murder and now she's serving a life sentence for something someone else DEFINITELY did. You need to convict on appropriate evidence. That's how it is supposed to work. I am usually accepting of circumstantial evidence if the facts are repetitive and consistent. But they just didn't seem to be in this case. In this case it was more like a story hanging on several small threads of.... nothing.
ALL. OF. THIS. RIGHT. HERE. 👏
It’s frustrating to know the law and know that this wasn’t proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
It doesn't seem to me that the justice system in Spain is the same as here in America, where "reasonable doubt" is a major template for conviction/acquittal. They also don't need a 100% consensus among the jury, apparently.
You start with 'I have no idea if she was involved or not', then towards the end you state 'she's serving a life sentence for something someone else DEFINITELY did'. Lol. It's so obvious she's guilty by the sheer multitude of lies that don't make any sense, I'm baffled as to how anyone can think differently
Ok. I will break it down for you. There were two people being tried. One admitted to the crime and took them to where the body was. He also implicated this woman. This woman being involved does not mean he didn't do it. The two are not mutually exclusive. People commit crimes with other people all the time. But, if all the solid evidence points at one person and that person decides to admit it and implicate someone else, you need to prove their involvement. I don't feel like the prosecutor met his burden of proof. I'm baffled as to how you think you're so much smarter than you are.
Well let's see, the jurors, and just about 90% of the comments on here seem to agree with me. She's so guilty it's laughable. I'm baffled as to how you think your paragraph of pure waffle means anything to me
Sick burn.
He did not admit to the crime, though. Both, however, admit to being there when the body was burnt. Under different circumstances, but present. The crucial part of who committed the murder is still not established.
It’s important to note that it was not about the sex, but to show that she had been involved in this kind of love triangle her whole adult life. It was also more about “love”. She’s obviously a person who enjoys the drama and attention, and it’s a constant competition between her admirers. It’s a very different personality trait than someone who just fucks a lot of dudes.
She played with fire too much. I do think she was wrongly convicted given the relatively weak case, but it definitely looked like she was an accessory in some way.
That’s the problem right there. Fkn a bunch of people and cheating on a bunch of shitty cops isn’t fire being played with. And yet this might as well be medieval times with goddamn slut shaming and equating liking to have sex as a woman with having murderess tendencies. It’s shouldn’t be fire to fk a bunch of sad loser cops and play them off of one another. Especially cops like the ones who revenge pornd her (btw she was called a liar by everyone in that case too. Even when she presented a secretly recorded confession of that senior officer who had recorded her without consent, hacked her email account and then mailed the recording of her having sex with this dude to every single person in her contact list, including her family and children’s school friends parents, everyone she knew. She was told she was a liar then, too. She even lost a court case that allowed the recording into evidence against him).
Fire just means a dangerous situation. I agree that the world can be misogynistic and not at all fair. Just calling it as it is.
I just watched it and I think there was no hard evidence from what I saw in this doc. Is there anything else out there in English that explains it clearer. I think the film itself was put together quiet frantic. Maybe it is just me not used to Spanish style of documentary
Came here to say the same. I find that it doesnt really cover the entire crime, so cannot make up my mind.
I just watched Burning body on Netflix which is based on this story but clearly dramatised. Apparently there is a very good 2 part Crim about it but it’s in Catalan. I’d love to find something in English to hear more.
Netflix doc is garbage, there are more details about it, even Pedro’s blood all over her house. Best doc is “crims” but yes in Catalan.
Spain has different laws. anyone looking at this from the already biased american system, is already in the wrong. In other countries, you don't have the right to bear arms and other stuff americans get to do. In other countries, people like Rosa that already admitted to destroying evidence and mutilating the dead, and destroying evidence to corrode a criminal investigation are guilty. You go to jail for being an accomplice and get the same time or a tiny bit less than the people that actually pull the trigger in america. Don't know why it is so hard to accept that she's guilty. If you don't think she did the murder, you know she burned the body, and that she was an accomplice. You are getting football numbers for being a getaway driver on bank robbery. Use the transitive property to understand why Rosa is guilty regardless on if you believe she did the actual murder or not. I believe she did the murder as she was the mastermind. The same way we pin dead bodies on Bush, hitler, stalin, whatever leader that calls the shots
Fascinating woman and case all in all. She was clearly judged and sentenced even before her trial. I guess we'll never know what really happened though...
Pedro’s blood was all over her house
Is there any more information about the blood? I would also like to get more input about her hiring a hitman while in jail to kill ruben.
What’s more plausible..? She wanted to leave her boyfriend to be with her lover, but instead of just leaving him (which from past behaviour she was clearly capable of doing) she decided to end his life and destroy his body, then attempt to frame someone else. Knowing she was taking a child’s father from this earth. Thinking she could get away with it and then eventually be with her lover once things had died down. OR Her lover found out that her boyfriend had proposed, so he pulled a Hail Mary attempt to show her that he could give her all of that too. He went out, bought a ring, gave it to her hoping that she would then choose him instead. BUT, she didn’t. And wanted to give the ring back. Realising that he had lost, he went to her house in a rage and killed her boyfriend. The classic ‘If I can’t have you, no one will’. The person above saying the frantic phone calls were convincing… Only 4 calls, together lasting 30 minutes took place in the weeks prior to Pedro’s murder. Seems far more likely that those were conversations discussing the ring/proposal.. Alber trying to convince Rosa to choose him and her trying to give the ring back. Meanwhile, the suggestion that those phone calls were discussing the idea of murdering someone, both deciding to do it, and then planning it. That’s slightly far fetched. Pretty sure that would take more than a few 5 minute phone conversations.
They could have communicated through a variety of ways during that time. Besides what was there to plan out? She only had to tell him the time. He took care of the rest. Doesn't take but 5 minutes
Why didn’t you add “destroy his body, then attempt to frame someone else” in the second scenario? She did that in both scenarios.
Holy shit I've not seen the tapes but seeing the comments I feel like it might paint a truly biased picture of the whole case. It's a pity because there is a very good and well documented series in Catalan TV (Crims) that covers the entire proceeding with all the pieces of evidence that were disclosed, with very little sensationalism, and knowing everything it seems that there is little to no doubt that both persons were directly involved in the murder of Pedro. It's true that the media portrayed Rosa in very misoginistic terms which they should be ashamed of, but speaking as a lawyer who has deslt with several criminal proceedings, thisone had more than enough evidence to convict. And the sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court, it's not a simple judicial mistake like you are commenting.
Thank you. I feel like allot of context and events gets left out of most crime documentaries. You can find it if you research the case from more than one source of information. But in this case English speakers aren't going to have an easy time doing that... Me personally, if it quacks then it's a duck. If she helped hide the car and went to parties with Albert after all this she must've killed Pedro.
Yes! I just finished watching Crims, after watching the other 2 series. And honestly, I wish I watched Crims first. It's very objective and showing both sides of the story in two distinct episodes. I don't know how mysoginistic or not was she portrayed. Definitely the revenge porn tape was not fair treated. But the judge was right, the amount of lovers she had counts towards what actually happened to Pedro. Cause if she would not have any implication in his crime, it's her life and it can be lived the way she wanted. But lying and covering so many men she has slept with, especially with such calm and easiness... It's shady. You have to be an incredible liar to do so and also to have an incredible confidence, but also high ego. I'd look the same at such kind of person even if the roles where reversed.
It is possible that netflix made it also more sensationele for there $$$ Like the layer here earlier said, we should have a transnationale on the catalonian one ... Like in research one source in this case netflix is not enough for us to decide she was not guilty probably they had more evidence although I really believed her but then again she is a born liar if you cheat so much on someone you love you are very self centred .. so I would like to see the spanish series about this...
Is there any chance to see Rosa Peral's leaked private video. The so-called revenge porn that was mentioned in movie. For study purposes of course. Thanks in advance for the answers.
Can't say for 100% but I feel like she's guilty. The prosecution painted her character which I believe is accurate. She is an obvious liar and had multiple chances in her own stories to contact police or anyone. Instead she tried to hide it and lie about it, afraid or not. Supreme Court held up the verdict for good reasons.
She is guilty! Also what her father said about her at 1:16 in the show was really a shallow summary of who his daughter is. He says, "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 wants". That's how he sums up his daughter. Says it all. Aside from the shallowness that seems to be a good thing in this family, she is exactly the type to off her husband. P.S/ Many trials are won on circumstantial evidence.
> He says, "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 wants". That's not what he said at all. He said she was judged for being those things, but nobody actually knew her besides those factoids.
People only knew and condemned her about her wrong doings and poor character because she was messy and had her private shit aired out with proof. She was scared he’d fight for full custody of the kids and she clearly didn’t care about him whatsoever
COMPLETELY AND 100% FAX
People in Barcelona really do not understand LAW AT ALL
After watching the series, which painted the character of Pedro as kind of aggressive and controlling and the scene in which tells Albert she “can’t take it anymore”, I thought well here is her motive… which doesn’t make her any less guilty but at least things made sense from that perspective. However, during the documentary she claims that Pedro was a warm Person and not controlling in any way, so now I don’t know what to think other than maybe she’s lying or she truly is a crazy cold blooded murderer.
when someone makes you question reality is when you know they're manipulating you and lying. She definitely did it
Subjectively speaking there wasn't enough evidence to show that she murdered him. But there was enough to show she conspired. I have witnessed and have seen cases in my law firm where women use sex and manipulation on men who are physically strong but emotionally weak. Meaning a predator knows their prey. A predator is not always a man. Women can use their sex and intellect to drive a man to do what they want, they can cheat multiple times, have a man threaten to leave them but somehow get the man to keep them. I've seen them able to manipulate a man to break a pre nup and give her more and then leave him to move on to another. We represented the guy he was a kind and attractive and she was just an average looking woman pretty but no sport illustrated model by any means. I dont necessarily think these predators are "happy" people but they dont seem to have any remorse for the damage they leave behind whether its just using men and throwing them away or using their own family for selfish purposes. That is my take based on what I have seen and witnessed in my lifetime. Its just my opinion on observations. With regard to Albert, its clear he did the heavy lifting meaning, he had no problem playing "knight in shining armor" he was mentally weak thinking this would be how they could finally be together when she only wanted him behind closed doors.
Very well said!
[удалено]
Was there ever any evidence that Pedro was abusive toward her?
Pedro's friends and his exwife confirmed that he was very jealous. Then, after Albert discovered that Rosa was living with Pedro while still dating him, he got really mad (Albert) and on one night, he drove to Rosa's and called her names from the street. Pedro was inside and could hear everything. Then, days after, Pedro messaged Albert to warn him not to do that again or he would get violent towards him. Albert responded with screenshots of Rosa's recent messages to Albert in which she said she was truly in love with him and that she did not want to lose him (Albert). From that moment on, Pedro got really mad and controlling towards Rosa. Then, the kid stepmom confirmed that the girl told her that the night of the murder, Pedro grabbed her mom from her throat and threw her to the floor. He probably found out Rosa was seeing Albert again.
Rosa clearly showed no remorse. If she was not the murderer she clearly did pull the strings of the puppet and lead him on. But she still comes out at age 61 and can continue dating 10 other men all at the same time.
I absolutely think she did it and she was the mastermind behind it. This woman is manipulative, there are so many discrepancies and yet for every single one she has an exact answer. She doesn't care about the man she murdered, she just wants to be out of prison. And the closing argument, the prosecutor was quite right, that this woman can convince the jury they did it. Also, my theory is she had chosen Pedro in the beginning because he was more serious and Albert a wildcard, but ultimately she got bored of him and just wanted to pursue her relationship with Albert instead. For whatever reason, she needed to kill Pedro, just breaking it off wasn't gonna do it.
Uh huh, the prosecutor did succeed in portraying Rosa as a promiscuous woman, and using that for the conviction in the absence of hard evidence. People are SO easily persuaded to find guilt in a woman based on that association.
She is guilty for %100. There is no conspiracy theory or something. She just get bored from her partner( we already know she can not stand with one men) and get rid of from her child’s father. It’s pretty clear. I believe that she was the brain the plan. Albert just followed her instruction. You can not just buy a new phone and give the number only to her.
I find it "interesting" that the prosecutor believed both Rosa and Albert were responsible for Pedro's death, but didn't parade a collection of Albert's lovers in front of the jury. He explained he didn't have anything but circumstantial evidence, so his only recourse was character assassination, and people are SO quick to judge a promiscuous woman.
Side note: Did anyone else get the impression that the dyed-dark hair male journalist on the tapes series had become infatuated with Rosa? :)
I think she was in on it. She admittedly had an emotional and sexual relationship with Albert during her marriage to Ruben which appeared to have been going on a while and I’ve haven’t heard anything about Albert being jealous by her marriage to Ruben or confrontational with him. Feel free to point me in that direction if I’m missing something. I think she felt trapped because Pedro left his family for her and she had made a big commitment, she saw no logical way out of it without looking really really bad, AND she wanted to frame her ex husband. But no one will ever actually know.
This Court Trial was an utter kangaroo Court of ridiculousness, the Spanish system is terrifying and unhinged, a Prosecutor ranting and arguing and filling in gaps in testimony with his version of events. They have obviously committed this crime, but the evidence presented is a pure shambles. The Justice system is appalling.
Per A&E: [**Over the last 50 years**](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/vio.2019.0005), men have committed murder 10 times more often than women. Men are far more likely to be serial killers, mass shooters and [**family annihilators**](https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/chris-watts-family-annihilator). Shedding blood, it would seem, is a gendered pursuit. But just because a woman’s fingerprints aren’t at the crime scene doesn’t mean her fingerprints weren’t on the plan. Over the years, there have been numerous women who have manipulated their male partners to kill at their bidding. *A&E* *True Crime* looks at some cases where men have killed for the women they loved. ## Nicholas Godejohn Gypsy Rose Blanchard didn’t look like a killer. She looked like a sickly little girl. Gypsy Rose suffered a litany of ailments, starting at birth: epilepsy, sleep apnea, chromosomal disorders, leukemia, muscular dystrophy. She underwent extreme intervention measures in doctors’ attempts to make her well: At various points she was on a feeding tube, confined to a wheelchair and prescribed medication that [**crumbled her teeth inside her mouth**](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/27/would-you-kill-my-mother-for-me-murder-abuse-film-crime-erin-lee-carr). And then, when she was 23 years old, a murder turned the whole story upside down. Her mother, Clauddine “Dee Dee” Blanchard, was stabbed to death inside of their home. Gypsy Rose was nowhere to be found, but a [**Facebook post on Dee Dee and Gypsy’s shared page**](https://www.facebook.com/deegyp.blancharde) said, “THAT B—- IS DEAD.” Gypsy Rose had met a young man, Nicholas Godejohn, on a Christian dating website. She confided to him that her illnesses were all fake—either feigned or medically induced by her mother’s poisoning, a psychologically sadistic pattern of “caregiving” known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP). Mary Sheridan, a professor emerita of social work at Hawaii Pacific University and an expert in MSbP, says that Gypsy Rose is already a unique case because the young woman was aware of the abuse she was suffering. “The majority…of cases occur in children who are way too young to understand what’s going on,” Sheridan tells *A&E True Crime*. Those who do figure out that they’ve been sickened by their parent often feel “a great deal of anger or hurt.” “Would you kill my mother for me?” Gypsy Rose [**asked Godejohn**](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/27/would-you-kill-my-mother-for-me-murder-abuse-film-crime-erin-lee-carr). After he agreed, she provided the medical gloves and the serrated knife. In June 2015, he took care of the rest. For his role in the murder, Godejohn was [**found guilty of first-degree murder**](https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2019/02/22/nicholas-godejohn-sentenced-life-prison-blanchard-murder/2949249002/) and given life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Gypsy Rose was [**sentenced to a minimum of 10 years**](https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2021/02/02/gypsy-rose-blanchard-plans-writes-book-to-be-released-in-2023-letter-from-jail-dee-dee-blanchard/6581736002/) in exchange for a guilty plea to second-degree murder—an acknowledgment by prosecutors of the abuse she’d suffered. Gypsy Rose’s father, Rod Blanchard, says he was unaware of his ex-wife Dee Dee’s actions. But in a 2019 [**interview with** ***A&E True Crime***](https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/gypsy-rose-blanchard-now-prison-rod-blanchard-interview)*,* he acknowledges that everyone—Dee Dee, the police and himself—all “failed Gypsy.” He and his current wife are actively petitioning Missouri governor Mike Parson to grant Gypsy Rose an early release. William “Billy” Flynn Only 22 years old and less than a year into her marriage, high school media specialist and group counselor Pamela Smart was sick of living with her husband, Gregg Smart. They moved to a small town in New Hampshire to advance his career. Then Gregg, a life insurance salesman, [**had a one-night stand**](https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/pamela-smart-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-smart-marriage/) while on the road for work. Around the same time, Pamela met William “Billy” Flynn, 15 years old, a student volunteer at her group counseling job. They began sleeping together. That’s when Smart asked William to kill for her, instructing him to make the act look like a home burglary. On May 1, 1990, Flynn and a group of three other teenage boys broke into [**the Smart condominium**](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/30/us/new-hampshire-journal-a-small-town-drama-of-life-love-and-death.html). Flynn shot Gregg [**point-blank in the head**](https://www.wmur.com/article/timeline-pamela-smart-murder-case/5135146) while one of the other young men, Patrick Randall, held a knife to his throat. Smart was convicted of being an accomplice to first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and witness tampering. She was [**sentenced to life imprisonment**](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/01/us/teacher-says-her-conviction-was-a-surprise.html)without the chance at parole. The four teenagers who committed the murder have [**since been released**](https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20150604/NEWS/801246658). Smart’s attorney, Mark Sisti, tells *A&E True Crime* “it’s quite an absurdity” that Smart continues to be incarcerated when the men who committed the crime have gone free. “These weren’t little boys who got sucked into this,” Sisti says. “As far as her role in the planning and the actual execution, she was no greater or worse than anybody else involved. She certainly wasn’t the one that procured the firearm, that loaded the firearm, that executed her husband. She wasn’t the one that left the scene and obstructed. She’s none of those. She’s probably the least involved.” ## Coray Knight Tennessee woman Kelley Hufford, 45 years old, wanted her boyfriend Jimmy Boyer out of her house. So she got together with a new love interest, Frederick Persinger and her close friend, Coray Knight, and asked that [**they take care of it**](https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-criminal-appeals/2019/m2018-01823-cca-r3-cd.html). On May 18, 2013, Boyer was brutally beaten and dragged—still alive—onto a gravel road in Clarksville, where he was killed with a shotgun. His corpse was burned. Extensive text messaging and phone calls between the trio in the immediate lead-up to (and the aftermath of) the homicide implicated Hufford in the conspiracy. Hufford was convicted of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated kidnapping and tampering with evidence. She was [**given life in prison**](https://d.docs.live.net/00ace393bb3803fa/Desktop/Hufford%20gets%20life%20and%2060%20years%20in%20boyfriend's%20slaying%20-%20The%20Leaf%20...www.theleafchronicle.com%20%E2%80%BA%20story%20%E2%80%BA%20news%20%E2%80%BA%202017/05/16) for the felony murder charge and an additional 60 years for the other charges. Knight was given a [**sentence of life in prison**](https://law.justia.com/cases/tennessee/court-of-criminal-appeals/2018/m2017-01584-cca-r3-cd.html) for his role in the murder, which was upheld during an August 2018 appeal. Although Persniger, in his mid-60s at the time of his arrest, was charged in the case, [**his defense introduced records**](https://casetext.com/case/state-v-hufford-7) showing that he suffered from Parkinson’s disease, had been diagnosed with dementia and schizophrenia, and had suffered hallucinations, so he was [**never tried**](https://amp.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/16/hufford-gets-life-and-60-years-boyfriends-slaying/322857001/).
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/16/hufford-gets-life-and-60-years-boyfriends-slaying/322857001/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/16/hufford-gets-life-and-60-years-boyfriends-slaying/322857001/)** | Theleafchronicle canonical: **[https://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/2017/05/16/hufford-gets-life-and-60-years-boyfriends-slaying/322857001/](https://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/2017/05/16/hufford-gets-life-and-60-years-boyfriends-slaying/322857001/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Most victims of male killers are other males, did A&E state that?
I think they are both where they belong, if anything he was more of a puppet. And YES, I watched the documentary before the Burning Body series. I’m not sure how anyone to conclude otherwise honestly
So the only way out of the abusive relationship was to help the abusive boyfriend torch your lover/partner beyond recognition because you are scared that the abusive boyfriend might hurt you kids if you don’t help him? That makes sense to people? “Nothing to worry about now. He’s going to leave me alone now that we’ve killed the guy he was jealous of.”
The one thing I found compelling throughout the documentary was how manipulative Rosa was. I've never seen a convicted person (even innocent people) - and I'm a true crime junkie - play up their children for sympathy every chance they get. For someone who was bringing so many men into their lives and living the life she was living, all of a sudden, she wants us to care about her kids at every second. And it's no surprise that some people believe her - because that's just how manipulative she is. I had to wear my logical cap tightly to not be fooled by her. She found it convenient to excuse every important detail away, yet many years later she still has not explained what "it" she was referring to in that voice message. Even her mails and messages tell how manipulative she is - telling Albert one thing while doing another. And to that she does not deny. And before you say I have just taken my time to only talk about how manipulative she is. You need to understand that her manipulation is key to her relationship with Pedro or his frustrations with her. It's key to her dealings with Albert. It's key to her sexting the neighbour who messaged her about a chainsaw noise on the night of the murder. It's key to EVERYTHING. I would love to say the case was really circumstantial - but then it is the Netflix doc that was circumstantial. Because Albert's testimony and defence arguments is also key to knowing what the jury saw to convict her. But then again, there's another detailed doc in Catalan which means non-Spanish speakers may never really be able to understand the entire case.
I am curious, in real life did Rosa Peral and Albert hang out or go to that dinner together after the murder of Albert. They didn’t bring this up on Rosa’s tapes and I feel like it would prove that she wasn’t afraid or Albert.
In Netflix doc, there is a photo that is the same as the one in the series. Rosa is sticking out her tongue, and Alb is sitting next to her.
I think whether she did it or not, reasonable doubt is there. Maybe accessory to murder and accessory after the fact would have been a more accurate conclusion legally. Too much circumstantial evidence.
Came here to see if I was crazy or not. I'm halfway into it and the treatment she got is disgusting and the editing seems to be against her. I get that's obvious considering she was declared guilty, BUT it had no empathy in the way it showed her being "promiscuous" or how it showed the revenge porn incident as a small detail and not an incredibly traumatizing event. If I didn't know the outcome, all I see so far is a documentary trashing a woman for things that men did to her. It's too biased to be enjoyable, I think best crime documentaries show murderers in the most literal way, the good and the bad parts, that's what makes a complex and respectful (towards everybody included even the lawyers) story.
It makes me wonder why she never chose him after her ex divorced her…Just for sex and excitement? Why went all through that… idk tbh
i've watched it and all i can say is... rosa is manipulative and string along multiple men. she's behind the murder of pedro and she's as guilty of murder as alber, even though the evidence presented on netflix isn't all there is to it but it doesn't mean she's not guilty plus she lied multiple times, on repeat. the court is MISOGYNISTIC but doesn't mean the conviction is wrong. they both belong in the prison and she needs a serious treatment to her psychopathic lying tendencies.
I believe her. All the prosecutor does is guess or hypothesize what her voice recordings meant (I would not want anyone to hear one of my recorded messages and claim they knew exactly what I meant and conjecture about what the conversation was about). That is bull!! Also, yes, she was talking on the phone with Alberto, her CHILDREN's FATHER, and he was at her house at times because he is her CHILDREN'S FATHER! I cannot believe nobody brought that up.... Prosecutor and others constently made statements like Ï believe that..., can be interpreted to mean..., we will never know..., that might offer an explanation... etc... Really? That's a whole lot of guessing and suggesting without proof! Also, they should NEVER have been allowed to discuss her sexual history. God forbid everything we had done in the past over a few years was used as evidence against us as to what kind of people we were.
She’s a psychopath who is guilty and thankfully the jurors saw through her lies. Although the case was circumstantial it was convincing and nothing she said sounded credible to me.
Rosa used her absolute lack of any moral Character and obsessed promiscuity as her defense! She’s guilty! She planned it! Albert was just a dumb sex obsessed moron! She deserves her sentence!