Downloaded from YTS.MX
Official YIFY movies site: YTS.MX
Hello. I'm Rosa, and, well, you know I'm calling you from prison.
I would like people to have the chance to get to know the real me,
not the person who the media has made me out to be.
Of course, it may not be very easy
to explain and understand my side of the story.
What I've been through, for example.
All of this… this… I really don't know how to explain it.
The character assassination I suffered
before, during, and after the trial continues.
I am still being attacked like this six years later.
If this had happened to a man instead of a woman,
they would not be talking about
who he did or did not have intimate relationships with.
Maybe they would've really tried to find real evidence to make their case.
Because that evidence is needed to find out what happened to Pedro
and how it happened.
THIS IS THE FIRST INTERVIEW ROSA PERAL HAS GRANTED
SINCE BEING SENTENCED TO 25 YEARS IN PRISON
Hey! Say, "Action!"
- C'mon. - Hi.
Hey. Say hi. You're all on camera.
Hey.
THIS FOOTAGE WAS RECORDED BY PEDRO RODRÍGUEZ
TWO MONTHS BEFORE HIS MURDER
I remember that year we went on a skiing trip.
We went with Pedro that year.
And I remember that my youngest was very attached to me, you know?
She'd say, "I wanna be with Mommy."
And the oldest would say, "Okay, well, then, I'll go with Pedro."
And I thought, "Oh my gosh. This is what I'm lookin' for."
- Hi. - Pretty.
ROSA PERAL'S TAPES
And now for an update on the Barcelona Police Department murder case.
The jury has turned in the verdict.
Defendants Rosa Peral and Albert López were found guilty of premeditated murder.
It all goes back to 2017,
when police officers and lovers, Rosa and Albert,
planned the murder of Pedro Rodríguez, who was also a police officer
and Rosa's partner at the time of the crime.
Apparently, the event was triggered
when the victim discovered the infidelity and he became an obstacle.
That's when Rosa and Albert planned to take his life.
According to the verdict, he was drugged, murdered,
and put in the trunk of a car that was later set on fire
next to the Foix Reservoir.
The two Barcelona police officers, arrested for the murder of a colleague…
They have accused each other.
Both have admitted that they participated in the crime, but only as accessories.
There are three theories here.
Ms. Rosa's defense theory, that the architect of this crime is Mr. Albert.
Mr. Albert's defense theory, that the mastermind is Ms. Rosa.
And the prosecution's theory, that they colluded in this crime.
Rosa's story falls apart when you see how she acted in the days after the crime.
She says she had an insurmountable fear of Albert,
so she didn't dare go to the police.
But Rosa was a police officer.
Rosa Peral might not be a saint,
but what I can tell you for sure is that Rosa Peral is not a murderer.
For her, flirting, seducing, and owning was a kind of… life cycle.
She was always seducing.
Mr. Pedro wanted to leave the relationship.
And his partner, who was Ms. Rosa Peral,
did not accept this and planned to kill him.
I don't know if she did it.
I'm just a journalist.
But I know that Rosa Peral was not given a fair trial.
Do you swear by everything that you just told me?
Or do you want to confess that this crime
is nothing more than a devilish and perverse proof of love
that would bind you and Albert forever?
I did not plan anything with Albert, and I did not kill Pedro.
I stand by everything that I have said here.
MAY 2, 2017 DAY AFTER THE MURDER
From the beginning,
one of the things which really bothered me a great deal,
and which I thought a lot about
and wondered how it could be,
because it seemed unfair to me,
was that those who were responsible for this crime
had burned the body and erased the evidence of the manner of death.
It's better for them if it's ruled a homicide rather than a murder.
And since I can't prove how they killed him specifically…
PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE
…I can't prove it was premeditated, or else it would be a murder.
And this really bothered me as a prosecutor.
It… It tormented me.
They knew a homicide conviction would get a shorter sentence.
But given the serious nature of the crime, they wanted a murder verdict,
so the penalty would be higher.
ROSA'S LAWYER
From that point on, they tried to build a case
with a murder conviction already in mind,
searching for evidence that wasn't evidence,
but rather conjecture and suspicion, at best.
We didn't have prints. We didn't have a weapon.
The victim's body told us nothing.
So then, what did we really have?
We needed to expand our perspective.
To see if we could find circumstantial evidence
that would allow us to reach a conclusion.
What happened?
Since the evidence is circumstantial, it would have to be more compelling.
And I always visualize the evidence as breadcrumbs
or a yellow brick road that you build.
And this road will lead you in only one direction,
toward the guilt of the defendants.
Saturday, I went to the police station,
and I said, "Look, I'm gonna tell you everything I know to put an end to this."
MAY 13 12 DAYS AFTER THE CRIME
The first shock came while I was explaining things.
They told me, "We're going to arrest you."
And I said, "But this is a mistake."
"I came here to tell you what I know."
"I've been quiet, but I came to share what I know."
I said, "This can't be happening. No, no. This can't be happening to me."
And I was worried about my daughters.
"How do I tell them we won't see each other tonight?"
When they brought me to the jail, I don't even remember when that happened,
it had already been four days without eating or having a shower,
talking to anyone, not even my daughters.
Not knowing anything about the outside world.
Stuck in a hole for 24 hours a day, for four days.
They took me to some sort of basement.
They called it the punishment area, you know?
Where they punished women.
It wasn't the cell they usually use for holding
because they didn't know what to do with me.
I didn't know that I was in the media.
I hadn't seen the news or the TV at all during that time.
I was disconnected from everything.
Let's go now to our colleague, Miquel Valls,
for an exclusive report
on the so-called "black widow of the Barcelona police department."
The prosecutor has characterized Rosa as unfaithful,
lying, manipulative, and cold.
She's sick.
She's very disturbed. And regardless of the presumption of innocence,
Rosa Peral is a very dangerous character.
Honestly, Spain's history is filled with many sensational cases.
JOURNALIST
This is just another one.
A beautiful young woman.
JOURNALIST
Sexually promiscuous in Judeo-Christian terms.
Who is also a police officer.
Accused of the murder of her partner.
We love crimes of passion.
All the juicy ingredients were there.
Everything we needed to go in for the kill with this story.
The situation is becoming more complicated for Rosa Peral.
While in prison, she tried to hire a hit man
to kill her daughters' father.
It has been revealed that Rosa drugged her boyfriend Pedro before killing him.
She's very manipulative.
She's a charming person, very seductive.
During the heart of the investigation,
how many relationships did she have at once?
She may have had three to four relationships at the same time.
It seemed strange that after her partner disappeared,
she didn't try to find him for four days.
Why did Rosa wait 15 days to file a complaint?
She doesn't act like a threatened woman.
Police have considered her the main suspect since the beginning.
…all pointing to her as the murderer.
Our commentator's first conclusions.
This was a premeditated crime,
where she seemed to be the one who manipulated and masterminded the plan.
Awful things were said about me on TV.
So awful, I couldn't believe it.
I was shocked that people would even say such things.
And that they would talk to me about the right to information.
The right to information?
But what kind of information?
And before the start of the trial, I was already…
Everyone already knew me.
They already knew my name. They already knew my face.
They already knew the case, how it had been reported.
And, obviously, it was very difficult.
It was very hard to be able to clear your mind
and to objectively take in the evidence that was really there.
It was very difficult.
Jury trial number 25/2019 begins for the alleged crime
of murder with malice, against defendants Mr. Albert López Ferrer
and Ms. Rosa María Peral Viñuela.
It was the most high-profile trial in recent years.
It wasn't just about seeing Albert López and Rosa Peral on the defendants' bench.
JOURNALIST
But also about what they were saying, how they defended themselves.
The first day of the trial, I thought,
"I don't know how I'm going to make it through six weeks at trial because…"
But that's how it is. It's a lot of responsibility.
When a prosecutor signs an indictment, asking for a 25-year sentence…
You must take it very seriously
because you're going to… "destroy the life" of a citizen, you know?
Jury trials always have a tense atmosphere, you know?
A really important aspect is that there are nine jury members,
nine citizens, and you're looking at their anxious faces.
PRIVATE PROSECUTOR
The jury was especially anxious during this trial,
which had a lot of media coverage.
They look at you like they're saying, "What am I doing here?"
I would like to pass on, or share with you,
one of the questions Rosa frequently asks me, which is,
"Are they judging me for who I've had sexual relations with,
or for whether or not I have killed Pedro?"
I thought that the most important thing to convey to them
was something we were finding to be very characteristic of this trial,
the difference between sin and crime.
The lawyer herself, because it's obvious,
she knows perfectly well that, in any crime of passion,
we have to look into their private lives.
I see it as a good rule of thumb, you know, but…
we only went so far.
Ms. Rosa, a second round of questions
that refer to your relationships with Mr. Rubén, Mr. Albert, and Mr. Pedro.
Okay? Let's see.
When did you begin the intimate relationship with Mr. Rubén?
In 2000.
In 2000?
- In 2000, yes. - When did you get married?
In 2013.
When were your daughters born?
- In 2010 and 2012. - Mm-hmm.
While you were with Mr. Rubén,
did you start a relationship with Mr. Albert?
When… I mean, the thing with Rubén…
my relationship with Rubén was a rather toxic relationship.
I met Rubén when I was 16 years old.
We met when he was working at a nightclub.
I requested some songs.
I don't think he played them, but when I was about to leave,
well, he came up behind me to ask me if we could see each other again.
If we could hang out.
And from that point on, we started dating.
I remember that he came to the high school many times to see me,
to pick me up, because he already had a driver's license.
He would pick me up and take me home.
Or we would meet on the weekend and go for a walk.
We would go to the movies.
Back then, I was super in love, and I thought he was the man of my dreams.
But, over time, all of that faded away.
We had the girls, but after that, we only grew further apart.
Basically, our relationship was already broken.
And I started working with Albert.
And we started going on 12-hour patrols together,
and, little by little, our affection for one another grew stronger,
and we became closer.
Was your relationship sexual?
We had an emotional relationship.
What does that mean?
And then, with Albert, I found someone who listened to me,
who heard me, you know?
I felt he was there for me.
And after a while, things got more serious,
but I didn't want it to continue.
But during that time, I thought,
"Well, for now, we can be friends with… let's say with benefits."
I don't know how to say it.
His expectations of a relationship were not the same as mine.
He didn't want a family.
He wanted nothing to do with children,
and for me, obviously, my daughters come first.
If he was never going to accept that,
then realistically, the relationship wasn't going anywhere.
That's when I started riding motorcycles.
That kind of thing, you know? And then Pedro showed up.
He was a colleague at work.
Uh, we started to go out. We started to ride motorcycles together.
We started to find more and more in common.
Maybe they were similar in a way.
Probably. Like with, uh…
Well, for example, people sometimes said,
"Have you noticed that Albert and Pedro look alike?"
Look what happened with Pedro in La Rabassada.
AUGUST 15, 2016 RABASSADA ROAD
ASSAULTED DRIVER SWERVED DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO OFFICERS
I wrote that article.
I went to a gas station on La Rabassada Road.
That's an area where the bikers like to go to ride the curves.
The gas station employee showed me some footage of a biker
skipping a police checkpoint.
In this case, Pedro Rodríguez's checkpoint.
After that, Pedro Rodríguez quickly jumped on his own motorcycle
and chased down the biker.
Pedro pushed the biker, knocking him off the bike,
and then raised his fist.
But just as he was about to punch him, he stopped and let the biker go.
It's true that, off the record,
some officers said that, at the time, Pedro was…
that Rosa had driven him crazy.
At that time, Pedro was trying to decide whether to leave his wife
in order to pursue his relationship with Rosa Peral.
So, I truly believe that this became a kind of explosive cocktail,
which exploded in La Rabassada
because Pedro did not know how to manage his feelings.
I saw Pedro differently
because, even with that, that particular event in La Rabassada,
I didn't consider him a violent person.
He helped me. He took care of me. He was very attentive.
Uh, when there was the so-called "revenge porn trial,"
I told him, "Look, what I want is to forget this and to move on."
And Pedro said, "No, no. You're going to get a lawyer."
"This can't be allowed."
- PROSECUTION ASKS FOR 3-YEAR SENTENCE - REVENGE PORN
The revenge porn email event took place in 2008.
Back then, Rosa was a 23-year-old officer
who had just started at the Ciutat Vella police precinct,
and who, well, after a few months, ended up having an affair
with Sub-Inspector Óscar, unbeknownst to her official partner, Rubén.
It seems that Rosa wanted to end the relationship with… with Óscar,
and supposedly, he got angry.
He didn't take it very well.
And he decided to send out a mass email
with a photograph of himself and Rosa having sex.
He ended up hacking Rosa Peral's email account
and sent the picture to everyone, to all of Rosa Peral's contacts.
FEBRUARY 28, 2008, 9:42 P.M. FROM: ROSA PERAL
TO: ALL CONTACTS SUBJECT: SEE ATTACHED FILE
HI, IT'S ROSA. SINCE I LEFT SCHOOL,
I'VE MISSED SUCKING COPS' DICKS,
SO NOW THAT I'M IN THE FORCE, I'VE SUCKED OFF A CORPORAL
AND A COUPLE OFFICERS.
I FUCK WITH NO CONDOM. MORE PLEASURE FOR ALL.
CALL ME AT…
She received unanimous support from her commanding officers.
And the theory was that the email had been…
that she had been the one who had sent it.
When I filed the complaint about the revenge porn,
first, I received calls from the police and even from higher-ups telling me,
"Withdraw the complaint. You're going to ruin his life."
"Sure, I ruined his life, but he sent the photo."
"That's absurd," they told me. "It's already in the past."
"It's in the past, but the photo's being shared."
CITY OF JUSTICE
The revenge porn investigation continued
after Rosa had been arrested for Pedro's murder.
At the trial, she was no longer seen as a female victim,
but as a woman accused of murder.
So her credibility had really diminished.
The revenge porn investigation was mishandled.
There was more evidence that they could have included.
Rosa recorded the accused admitting culpability.
I understand you're calling to ask me to withdraw the complaint,
but you haven't told me yet where the photo came from.
Okay, Rosa. I sent the email.
- You sent it? - Yes.
I sent the email.
But that investigation amounted to nothing.
The sub-inspector was acquitted because it couldn't be definitively proven
that it was actually he who had sent the email with the sexual photo.
Is Rosa Peral capable of sending that picture to all of her colleagues?
I don't know.
But she was capable of killing… um… Pedro.
MAY 1, 2017 9:37 P.M.
When you got back home,
what did you do?
When we got back home, I put the girls to bed.
And we started to gather the clothes we had downstairs,
the laundry we had washed. We had, um…
MAY 16, 2017 FIRST DEPOSITION
…clothes to fold.
What happened next? What did you do?
Albert kept sending me messages, saying that he wanted to come over.
That he wanted to talk.
He was still texting me from outside the house.
I opened the door, and he was approaching.
JUNE 20, 2017 CRIME REENACTMENT
When I stepped outside, I saw him jumping over the lower part of the fence.
Then he approached me.
He was wearing a neck gaiter, gloves,
and a backpack, and there was a hatchet handle sticking out.
You don't usually see a person coming toward you and lifting up their shirt
to show you a gun.
He didn't take out the gun and point it at me, but he was still armed.
That had the same effect as if he had pointed the gun at my head.
He told me, "Give me your phone."
"I told you to give me your phone."
I gave him my cell phone, I threw it down, then I ran upstairs.
When I got upstairs, I locked the door,
and at that moment, I started to hear a lot of banging.
Rosa, was the banging you heard like this?
- Not as hard. - Not as hard.
I went to see if the girls were okay,
if the noise from Albert had woken them up.
With the fence and the door and so on.
I saw that they were both still asleep,
so I came back to the dining room and sat down.
I was nervous, so I went to the kitchen and drank some water.
I paced back and forth.
And I thought, "How can I stop him from coming after me?"
"What should I do?"
"Should I jump out the window with a four-year-old and a six-year-old?"
When did you unlock the door? When did--
When he told me to come out. And if I didn't, he would come in.
I went downstairs, and he told me to clean up.
I said, "What do you want me to clean up?"
And he told me, "Here."
I said, "What should I use to clean?"
"Water and bleach?"
"Why do I need to clean with water and bleach?"
I start cleaning up and looking around, looking for Pedro,
trying to see what had happened to him, where the banging had come from.
But I could find absolutely nothing. There were no stains.
Pedro wasn't there. There was nothing.
She said that Albert terrified her, and that's why she didn't react.
She didn't know how.
She'd say, "Well, if I hadn't been a cop,
no one would be shocked that I acted the way I did."
But, of course, you were a police officer.
All she had to do was call a friend and say, "This has happened."
And they would come to rescue her or help her, right?
But that's not what she did.
The argument is that paralyzing fear
contributed to her behavior after the events.
But Ms. Rosa wasn't in close proximity to Mr. Albert for several days.
So, of course, it's very difficult to believe her, right?
To justify why she did not report Albert during those following several days.
Uh, if an intruder had been in my house,
and I had been able to talk to other people after,
the fact that I did not divulge anything is…
It's very suspicious because the fear constraining me
would need to be present at all times.
You'd have to have been in a similar situation.
If you haven't been, I guess it's hard to understand.
Anyone who's been in a scary, traumatizing situation like that…
Who has been threatened, coerced, or made to feel unsafe by another person
who is armed and dangerous…
Well, understandably, your reaction may not be that rational.
In hindsight, I think that I…
I made a bad… the wrong decision.
And that choice has led to people doubting me afterwards.
Or not believing me.
"Why did she act like that? Why didn't she confront him?"
"Why didn't I stand up to him?"
"Why didn't she go to the police? Why didn't she trust them?"
I understand that I have a history, so to speak, with the police
and that… that it caused… well,
it caused me to have some distrust in them over the years.
Like what happened with the so-called revenge porn incident.
So, based on an experience like that,
I reached a point where I felt like,
"Can I really trust all these people?"
"People who have betrayed my trust and let me down time and time again?"
Especially when I needed them the most.
When I felt completely alone.
Oh!
APRIL 23, 2023 ROSA PERAL'S HOUSE
Rosa has been in jail for almost six years now.
She hasn't lost her mind at all.
She hasn't lost herself.
She continues to assert her innocence and the truth.
She's lucky I'm here to support her. I'm always present.
ROSA'S FATHER
Every month, I take the girls to see her, and that brings a lot of joy to her life.
Well, my father helps me as much as he can.
And I try not to be too much of a burden,
but… but of course, many times, it's unavoidable.
Because… well, that's normal, isn't it?
It's been six years.
And he helps me a lot, especially with my daughters.
My mother also helped with them, but not now.
I didn't mention that she's not with us anymore.
If it hadn't been for my parents,
I wouldn't have been able to see my daughters.
It's complicated.
It's really complicated every time they come to visit me.
I end up feeling like I'm an outsider.
But what I want is to take advantage of all the time that we get.
I really have to go above and beyond to make sure they have fun.
And I want to make sure that they will always want to come back.
I worry they won't want to.
Maybe they won't be excited to return
because the environment is so hostile, so ugly, right?
They're just little kids, entering a prison.
They're told, "You have to take off your watch."
"You have to take it off."
But what if one day they visit
and one of them wants to bring me some candy because she's tried it before.
She might say, "I want to take some to Mommy because I want her to try it."
And she says, "Mommy, I've tried it, and I want to bring you some."
And then one day, she brings the candy, and they tell her,
"No, you have to throw it away."
FEBRUARY 4, 2020 WITNESS TESTIMONY
Witness testimony has started today.
The testimony will include more than 50 witnesses in the upcoming weeks
and has just kicked off.
Multiple witnesses appeared in the trial
who characterized Rosa as a woman with many very complicated relationships
with the various men in her life.
Experts concluded that she suffers from,
and I don't know if this is the correct term,
but a type of anti-monogamous pathology.
She cannot be with just one person.
However, it has not been established that her behavior is sexually promiscuous,
which would, of course, be within her rights.
Rosa was a very attractive woman,
and some journalists even confessed this to me.
The story of two jealous men fighting over an attractive woman was not that appealing
or that original.
But the story of a black widow…
Now, that would sell many more newspapers and draw a much larger audience.
And there were, um, new affairs popping up almost every week.
Almost every week.
Those, combined with her prior relationships, fed the story.
I'm sure of that.
The media didn't have any vested interest in revealing her love affairs.
But the men involved in the crime
had actually had romantic relationships with her.
I respect and appreciate my colleagues, but in this case,
I believe they have not acted impartially and professionally.
I'm guilty of it myself.
I remember at the beginning of everything, when she was arrested, and so on,
I published an article.
I reread it the other day and was ashamed.
GO-GO DANCER, ALLEGED MURDERER
I wrote, "Rosa Peral, this stripper woman…"
She never worked as a stripper. She was never a go-go dancer.
She didn't dance topless.
She didn't do any of the stupid things that were reported.
They invented a character because there was no evidence against me.
The evidence is against him.
So the only way they could build a case against me was to say we colluded
and to present me as a black widow.
And they built on that character during the trial.
For example, they asked each witness if they had been intimate with me,
whether they were a man or a woman.
Did you have some kind of romantic attachment to Ms. Rosa?
No.
You still state that you only had a sexual encounter with Ms. Rosa?
I only had one sexual encounter.
Did you know whether Ms. Rosa was married to another person at the time?
No.
Did you have a romantic relationship?
Romantic in what sense?
Did you feel in love or attracted to her?
- Oh no. No. - No.
At that time, was Ms. Rosa herself in another romantic relationship?
No.
Did you know that later, Ms. Rosa began a relationship with Mr. Pedro?
Yes.
Did you know Ms. Rosa's relationship status?
Who she was with? Who her partner was?
At that time, her partner was Pedro.
Was there some romantic relationship
between Ms. Tania and Ms. Rosa?
A love relationship?
- No. No. - No.
We're not lesbians.
That gave her the reputation of a femme fatale.
Of a sexual woman, of a kinky woman.
And that image really helped the prosecution
make their winning argument.
- Manuel, I have to ask. - Okay.
Isn't it true that you and Ms. Rosa saw each other often?
What do you mean by "often"?
That you had frequent sexual encounters.
No. Just the one time.
The court should never have allowed these things to come out.
If she had a relationship or not with the neighbor?
They shouldn't have allowed that.
When the justice system taps into a suspect's phone,
anything recorded by the police that does not have relevance
to the investigation does not have to be made public.
It does not have to be included.
Forgive me for this question, Isaam, but I have to ask it.
At that moment, did you have any kind of romantic interest
or affection toward Ms. Rosa?
- No. None. I-- - Uh-huh.
And Ms. Rosa towards you?
No, I didn't see it that way.
- Okay. - Not at the time. Or, well, never.
Um…
Could the same verdict… have been reached
without detailing all of her romantic relationships?
But the triangle, the main love triangle, was the primary focus.
Let's be clear.
To me, as a representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office,
the private life of a man or a woman does not matter.
I don't care how they live their lives.
But… but if there are elements of that private life
that allow us to understand the psychology that leads a person to kill,
and there are elements that allow us to understand
the reason why someone would commit murder,
in that case, I do care.
But not to judge, not to prosecute, not to lecture anyone.
But to present the evidence of a murder.
Saying, "We only exposed the characteristics of Rosa's personality
that show motive and explain the crime…"
CRIMINAL LAWYER
…establishes a link between sin and crime.
To prove that someone is a murderer, has committed a homicide,
you don't have to explain their personality.
You have to show me evidence that that person murdered someone.
This case… can only be understood by the details found in the police reports
and heard during the trial that show her emotional trajectory
and how she conducts… her personal and romantic relationships.
Otherwise, there is no case.
MAY 1, 2017 DAY OF THE CRIME
On May 1st,
Rosa and Pedro spent a family day out at Pedro's house.
They went with Rosa's parents and Rosa's daughters.
First, they went to Calafell to ride some slides.
They made me ride the slide.
I thought I was a little old for that,
but in the end, they made me ride with the kids.
They rode two or three times.
Pedro, with one daughter, and Rosa, with the other.
And after having lunch there, we went to Pedro's house.
After that, they spent the afternoon at Pedro's house.
Rosa's father and Pedro worked in the yard.
I told my father and my mother,
"Hey, we're gonna clean. Can you lend us a hand?"
They always agreed to everything.
They always lent us a hand. They always helped us out.
My mother had back problems.
She wasn't feeling very well, so she would say, "Okay, we'll go."
"We can have lunch somewhere."
"I'll be sitting, so I can take care of the girls,
and you three can clean up."
We worked hard, cleaning up half the yard.
Then taking all the trash out, throwing it away and all that.
And we continued working there until around eight o'clock.
So, it was an idyllic family day,
during which Rosa Peral also took many photos.
More photos than usual.
To us, although it was hard to argue this, many of those photos
seemed deliberately taken to create an alibi for Ms. Rosa.
Based on our thesis.
While investigating, I realized that we didn't have any hard evidence.
That was the biggest challenge of this trial.
All the evidence we had was circumstantial.
And my colleagues and I came to the conclusion
that it was going to be very important to prove premeditation in this case.
Why?
If premeditation can be proven,
it is irrelevant who has physically carried out the act.
JANUARY 12, 2017 3 MONTHS BEFORE THE CRIME
To understand a bit how things developed
and why Pedro's murder took place, we have to go back, let's say,
to January 2017.
When Albert López went to Rosa Peral's house
because he still believed he had a romantic relationship with her.
He saw that Pedro Rodríguez was living there.
It is true that Mr. Albert discovered, on January 12, 2017,
that you and Pedro had a relationship, and that provoked a confrontation
between you and Mr. Albert?
They didn't come to blows that day
because I told Pedro not to come outside and that he should stay out of it.
I made a scene, but just with her.
Because of what I had just discovered.
The exchange never went beyond words.
I told her to go to hell, so to speak.
Excuse my French. I got on my motorcycle and left.
January 29, 2017 - From: Albert To: Rosa
You have no idea what you're putting me through, you slut!
I hate you!
I loved you and was gonna give up everything for you and the girls.
Now I've cried over the worst betrayal of my life.
Don't talk to me again!
Everyone at the precinct knows what you and that pig did.
I'm not ashamed because I'm worth more than you both.
You disgust me.
I'm writing in tears of helplessness, but I'll never forgive you.
If I ever quit the force and no longer care about my life,
mark my words, you'll hear from me again.
Don't you dare reply, you whore!
Those emails were preceded by 77 emails from her,
telling me to come back.
That it wasn't what it looked like and so on.
But it obviously was what it looked like.
After that incident, when Albert showed up at my house, shouting insults,
and they almost came to blows,
I became really scared of Albert.
Okay, you're saying that you were afraid of him,
but I want you to hear your following email.
Mr. Pedro's email is at 10:05 p.m.
And four minutes later, you write
to Mr. Albert, who you are afraid of,
and who has threatened to kill your partner.
You tell him, "He hasn't had me and never will."
And 24 minutes later,
"You're the only person who's really had me,
and I want you to continue having me."
What's surprising, from the outside,
although I think it is also consistent with psychology…
The defendants' psychology is very important for us in this case.
Is that Ms. Rosa always denies having anything to do with Mr. Pedro.
I was afraid to tell him that I had started a relationship with Pedro.
I thought that he might try and talk to Pedro and start an argument
or create bigger problems.
I planned to let him know at a more appropriate time,
after the dust had settled.
Once he had calmed down and gotten over his obsession with me.
Did you take your time saying,
"You're the only person who's really had me, continue having me"?
Is that taking your time with Mr. Albert? Is this what you're saying?
Regrettably, that was my way of doing it at that time.
Common behaviors for women in relationships
are never taken into account
and are not given appropriate consideration by the courts.
What coping and survival strategies are commonly used
by women in relationships?
Avoidance.
The public prosecutor asks,
"Why didn't you tell Albert that you were with Pedro?"
"Because you were already hatching an evil plan?"
"No, because I didn't want any problems."
"I didn't want to give Albert any kind of explanation. Period."
This is never taken at face value.
The woman's strategy of conflict avoidance,
her survival in a controlling relationship is discredited with…
with the prosecution's questions.
JANUARY 30, 2017
MARCH 27, 2017
ALBERT LÓPEZ: HEY. BECAUSE YOU'RE AT THE PRECINCT TODAY,
EVERYBODY'S WAITING TO SEE IF WE BUMP INTO EACH OTHER.
TYPICAL GOSSIPS TRYING TO STIR UP MORE SHIT ABOUT YOU.
At the end of March, Mr. Albert restarts,
or tries to restart contact, with Ms. Rosa.
I think it was through Facebook.
But with a totally different tone.
HOW ABOUT WHEN WE BUMP INTO EACH OTHER, WE PRETEND LIKE NOTHING HAPPENED?
ALBERT LÓPEZ COPY THAT. YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED.
WHY WON'T YOU UNBLOCK ME ON WHATSAPP? IS THE COUCH POTATO THAT JEALOUS?
DON'T BE LIKE THAT, DUMMY. YOU KNOW I HAVE A HEART OF GOLD.
I WON'T GIVE YOU ANY MORE TROUBLE.
TRUST ME. I NEVER LIED TO YOU.
But his messages, at that point, were not threatening.
They were not filled with hatred.
His messages did not rise to the level they had previously, back in January.
I got the impression that his tone had shifted.
His language was more friendly.
We were unable to determine whether Rosa, in that moment,
wanted to resume a romantic or sexual relationship
with Mr. Albert or not.
But we did notice a change in her tone in April.
From the day she received the ring.
Total shift. Very noticeable.
We noticed a significant change in both of them.
Let's move on to April 8th, the famous day of the ring.
Did you deliberately plan
to see each other when you were with your friends?
I thought that it would be better not to meet.
To avoid misunderstandings.
To avoid everything that had happened before.
I wanted to be clear.
But on that day, I said, "Look, I'm not going to meet you alone."
"But if you want to come by right now, I am with my friends,
so it might be more comfortable
and allow us to avoid any misunderstandings."
"If you want to, come by and say hello since you're working."
Wearing his uniform, Albert walks over
and throws a ring at Rosa and says, "Just in case you reconsider."
I did that so she'd consider working together again.
I had suggested this to her before, in those conversations you've mentioned,
but she was skeptical.
So I thought, "Damn. Maybe I can convince her this way."
You used a ring so she'd work with you again?
Yes, to work together again.
But if something more arose, I wouldn't say no.
Giving her that ring was a symbol.
It means, "I'm willing to do anything. This time, it will be different."
"Look, I'll show you in front of your friends."
And this time, there was a ring,
which is the symbol of a strong commitment.
A commitment which involves family, which involves her children.
And she was fooling around with both of them.
In fact, one of the most shocking moments of the trial
was when a friend stated that there was a moment over coffee
when Rosa was wearing a ring on each hand.
Pedro's ring and Albert's ring.
Did she tell you what she decided?
"I'm going to say yes"? "I'm going to leave Pedro"?
"I'm going to return the ring to Albert"?
Well, no. Not at that time.
Did she say, "I think Pedro is better,"
or something like that?
At the end of the day, yes, she chose Pedro.
Explain it to us. What did she say? What did she tell you?
How exactly did she say she was going to stay with Pedro?
Hmm… Exactly?
As exact as you can.
"He dresses and fucks better."
- Sorry, I didn't hear you. - "He dresses and fucks better."
No, that was not true. That's not what happened.
Sure, my friend asked, "What are you gonna do?"
Of course, that question did come up.
And I told her. I said, "I'm staying with Pedro."
That was never in question.
I never had any doubts.
None at all.
And if I'm not with Pedro, I'll be alone.
Definitely not with Albert.
So it's funny that she took the stand and made that joke.
But, of course, they're talking about sex.
They're talking about… about what Pedro likes.
There was never any question about which one of them I would choose.
No, no. My decision was final.
First, because Pedro accepted my daughters.
Second, because he put his heart into the relationship.
He wanted to get to know me, to get to know the kids.
He was so attentive with my daughters.
But he said, "I don't want… I don't want to replace Rubén."
"I'm just going to be your partner, and I want to be someone special to them."
And he told me,
"And since I'm not their uncle, because they already have uncles,
well, I want to be their titi."
"I want them to feel like I'm someone special."
"That they can count on me, to teach them, to help them."
"With whatever they need."
Pedro began to awaken a part of me that had fallen asleep, you know?
The feminine part of me, and…
Wait, the call's going to drop.
New evidence doesn't normally appear before the trial.
Even during the trial.
But, in this case, a very strange thing happened.
All the material that they had taken
or that they had recovered from Rosa Peral's mobile phone
was brought to the trial.
A lot of files, thousands and thousands of files.
And, well, they found a message.
From April 19th, an audio message from Rosa Peral to Albert López.
In this message, she uses the nickname usually reserved for Albert.
Listening to that audio message is chilling.
Hey, dummy. Your phone is turned off. No big deal.
I went shopping in Caprabo, and I got a discount coupon for Port Aventura.
So I was thinking that if we all went back to Caprabo next weekend,
we could go to Port Aventura and stay overnight with the kids.
What do you think?
Ms. Rosa, tell me about this audio message.
That audio has nothing to do with Albert.
I mean, I don't know why you're saying that it does.
I'm talking to Pedro.
I use a lot of terms like that so I don't swear in front of my daughters.
I say "dummy," "idiot," "silly." I use many words like that.
Ms. Rosa, we have thousands of pages of messages. Thousands.
I'm asking you, can you point us to a single… a single conversation,
a single email where you call someone other than Mr. Albert "dummy"?
I'm telling you that I say it. I always say it.
I talk like that so my daughters don't hear me swear.
On both of their phones, there were thousands of conversations.
And hundreds of WhatsApps and emails.
If she could have proven that she also called others "dummy,"
I could've believed that the text was to someone else.
It wasn't proven.
The experts explained two or three things about this audio message.
They can demonstrate for us how they did this, if needed.
First, your phone's GPS on April 19, 2017, placed it in Caprabo.
And you say, "I went shopping in Caprabo."
Second, at 3:24 p.m., just prior, you make two attempts to call Mr. Albert.
Not Mr. Manuel, but Mr. Albert.
And then, right after this audio message,
immediately following, the first person you talk to is Mr. Albert.
That audio file was on Rosa's phone,
but it was not connected to any conversation.
It was a single piece of audio on the phone.
And it didn't even have what the experts call "metadata,"
which could have provided us with a time stamp,
day, time, place, and everything.
But there was only a modification date.
The defense argued that this audio message could be from three years earlier.
But the thing is, on April 19th,
the modification date of the audio message,
Rosa is geopositioned next to a Caprabo supermarket.
Do you go to Caprabo sometimes?
I wouldn't say every day, but pretty often.
Because not only is Caprabo close to our home,
it's also really close to the girls' school.
So I usually pass by there on my way back and forth,
between home and the school.
The defense was aware that this audio message,
without context, had no value.
But looking at the big picture,
which was part of the argument the prosecution put forward,
the audio message is pivotal.
And logically and understandably, the defense shout their voices raw,
trying to prove that the audio is not from that date.
A final question on this topic. What did you mean by, "if we did it"?
I don't know what I was referring to.
Considering the plans we had with Manuel, that I told you about,
it was probably some motorcycle trip we had planned, or--
What was "it"? For the prosecution, that was very clear.
"It" was killing Pedro.
Yes, that was really significant.
Why significant?
Well, I debated the topic with my colleagues endlessly.
I analyzed every word endlessly.
And the message is really significant because she says,
"If we," first person plural, "did it."
But if you had killed Pedro,
would you have gone to Port Aventura the following weekend?
Wouldn't you have been more discreet?
Instead, you go to Port Aventura with your lover,
who was your partner in crime?
To me, it seems illogical and completely out of character, right?
Only a true psychopath would do something like that.
And none of Rosa's psych reports showed those tendencies.
I mean, that would be really heartless, wouldn't it?
But we do not know what she means in the audio recording.
It could refer to anything. It could be a barbecue.
I watched the trial every day. I was there.
And the truth is that everything the prosecutor talked about,
everything that he said…
none of it made any sense at all.
They had no evidence.
Nothing that said, "Here, we have this."
That's why… we thought that… At least, I thought…
that nothing would come of it.
And at that time, my wife was no longer well.
She was already in decline.
It hurt my mother a lot, seeing me stuck like this,
imprisoned and restricted,
witnessing what was happening to me.
All the media commentary and attention.
FEBRUARY 3, 2020 FIRST DAY OF THE TRIAL
My wife could only say, "But why?"
"Why does my daughter have to be in prison if she hasn't done anything? Why?"
And of course, how could I have explained it to her
when she didn't have her faculties anymore?
No matter how hard I tried.
The truth is that… it's very hard, very hard. I'm telling you.
I called one morning, and I asked, "How is she doing?"
And he said, "Well, her vital signs aren't good."
And I said, "But she's been hanging in there."
"She survived the surgery. Don't worry. She'll be okay."
"With everything she's been through, how could she not be?"
And my father said, "Yeah."
"But this time, I'm not so sure."
I called and called and checked to see if she had recovered,
to see if she was better, and…
"Maybe she's about to turn a corner. Just wait. You'll see."
But… she didn't.
I hadn't considered that this could happen, you know?
It happened so suddenly.
And with me being so far away, when I usually saw her all the time.
Look!
Honestly, it hasn't fully sunken in.
I can't process it because I'm in here, and I can't go.
I'm not at home. I can't tell that she's not there anymore.
Moving on, Ms. Rosa.
Let me recap.
The ring is on April 8th.
Next, the audio message from the 19th.
And now, we move on to the following day.
One day after the audio message from April 19th.
The purchase… Sorry, the purchase of the phone.
By Mr. Albert, the Lyca phone. Do you know which phone I mean?
- Yes, I know. - Okay.
That phone was bought by Albert López on April 20th.
The day after he received a message from Rosa, saying,
"Let's go to Port Aventura with our daughters."
A few days earlier, he had given the ring to Rosa, right?
Therefore, it looks like April 20th is when they made the choice
to embark on the plan to end Pedro's life.
APRIL 2017 MONDAY 27, FACEBOOK MESSAGE
SATURDAY 8, RING WEDNESDAY 19, MESSAGE
This Lyca phone is also more significant
than it may seem at first.
Obviously, this phone isn't very relevant at all without context.
But it is relevant because the phone is only used on two very significant
and very important occasions.
First, the phone is purchased on April 20th.
And, just after buying it, a few hours later,
Mr. Albert goes to an area which is in the vicinity of Ms. Rosa's home.
The very same day, Ms. Rosa places a missed call to that phone.
But this phone was not actually activated until the night of May 1st.
And on the night of May 2nd, he makes two missed calls with this phone.
For one thing, the relationship was clearly back on again.
And there are a series of incidents.
Circumstances that do indicate
that they were, let's say… plotting something.
Already suspicious of Rosa and Albert,
when investigators looked closely at their relationship,
they realized that Rosa and Albert
had had a frenzied exchange of phone calls.
Telephones tell us many things.
They can tell us, to start with, the number of calls,
the duration of the calls,
the fluctuations in communications between people.
But in addition, a telephone positions people.
The sender and the receiver. Where they are at any given time.
Therefore, we can place Rosa and Albert together.
We can also place Rosa and Albert in the vicinity of Rosa's home
on several occasions when Mr. Pedro is not there.
I just left the kids, and I'm headed home.
Let's see if he leaves soon.
I'll let you know.
When I get back home, I'll start the laundry.
I'll do the dishes.
And I'll let you know when he leaves.
What catches our attention about the 25th is not only that they see each other,
but also the audio messages that she sends him.
The shocking thing about these audio messages is the contempt
that Rosa shows toward Pedro.
I'll ignore him a little, so he'll leave sooner.
I'm asking you, do you think that it is respectful
to talk about your partner like that with someone else?
Does that seem like an appropriate conversation
to have with someone who you want nothing to do with,
but yet are still inviting to your home?
It did not seem inappropriate to me
because I wanted to get the ring back to him.
I'd had it since April 8th,
and I still hadn't been able to see him to give it back.
That does not matter. Let's be clear.
I'm asking you, does that seem like an appropriate way
to talk about your partner?
I already told you that I was in a hurry to return the ring. Not--
To speed up Mr. Pedro leaving the house, you mean.
I was in a hurry then because I wanted to return the ring to Albert.
I wanted to give it back to him as soon as possible.
I didn't think there would be another chance to meet him to return it.
APRIL 25
APRIL 15
ROSA PERAL - 5:22 P.M. I USED TO BE SO HAPPY
BECAUSE HE GAVE ME ALL I WANTED, MOVED TO CUBELLAS,
WANTED TO GET MARRIED, EVERYTHING…
ROSA PERAL - 5:22 P.M. BUT NOW EVERY DAY IS A FIGHT
JUDIT - 5:27 P.M. SHIT
It doesn't sound like you had a good relationship with Mr. Pedro.
You said, "Every day is a fight."
That day we had… um, an argument or, um…
Well, I don't know if I would call it "an argument."
We were just two people who had left their previous relationships,
with children from different partners.
Pardon me for interrupting. Were there fights every day? Yes or no?
- No. - So then, you were lying to Judit?
It's not that I was lying.
I might have exaggerated because I was angry.
That specific time frame is like an emotional rollercoaster.
In other words, we can see that a day or two before the events,
Pedro went and declared his undying love for Rosa,
but four days before that, he had a serious crisis, you know?
So, it's like this.
Let me continue reading.
"Albert wasn't that nice to all my friends."
Then you say, "I was very taken with Albert."
Your friend says,
"Things between you went south,
and now each of you should follow your own path."
And you respond, and pay attention to your answer,
"You never know."
"If he changed his attitude
and gave his all, and I wasn't with this other guy…"
You said that.
Yes, yes.
And you go on, "Impossible things are just a little more challenging."
That didn't mean that I wanted to kill him or leave him.
I've had thousands of arguments with everyone,
with everyone I've been with.
But that doesn't mean that…
In any relationship, there will be many arguments
and also many times when there aren't any.
Anyone who tells me that they've never argued with their partner
or that they've never said,
"Look, I just need some space."
"I'm gonna take a walk, and I'll be back later."
Anyone who denies that is lying.
APRIL 15, 2017 JUDIT'S WHATSAPP MESSAGE
We concluded that, from April 8th on, they are thinking about
what it might be like to get back together.
We're convinced of that.
We also believe that… that Rosa somehow indicates to Albert
that Pedro is going to be an obstacle
in the rekindling of their romantic relationship.
This is what we believe.
And, from the 8th, until the end of April,
there are about 50 calls between Rosa and Albert.
Reciprocal calls. This is very important.
ROSA - ALBERT (APRIL 2017)
TUESDAY 4 ROSA 2 CALLS, ALBERT 2 CALLS
SATURDAY 8 ROSA 2 CALLS, ALBERT 6 CALLS
THURSDAY 20 ROSA 3 CALLS, ALBERT 3 CALLS
That is not entirely true.
Because although 50 calls were made, only 31 were completed.
The others were all missed calls.
Therefore, they did not speak.
And on top of that,
if the prosecution intended to show the planning of the murder,
between delivery of the ring on April 8th and the audio recording on April 19th,
it then turns out that there were only four calls during that time.
And those four calls only lasted 30 minutes in total.
Even less, 28 minutes.
Therefore, they would've had to have planned the entire murder
in those 28 minutes.
Let's see. I believe that…
The fact that there are four calls
can be interpreted to mean,
"We're going to do it," but not, "How we're going to do it."
I don't know if I'm making myself clear.
In other words, the main takeaway is that the decision was made.
But how to execute it…
We'll never know if that was decided over one or two calls,
or at their meeting on the 25th.
Or if they met another time in person without their phones.
They also could've communicated over Telegram,
which would make accessing the messages impossible.
So, that might offer an explanation as to why they did not talk again.
Why there are no other records.
But the truth is that we can't make assumptions here.
In reality, we need to have proof.
And therefore, the hypothesis of whether they communicated via Telegram
or by smoke signals or by any other means,
or if they met more or less times, is not valid.
What counts is the evidence we have, not the evidence we don't have.
The last night Pedro and I spent together was a really tough night for me.
APRIL 30, 2017 ONE DAY BEFORE THE CRIME
I was… I was having a hard time
because my daughters were switching over to their father's house.
So Pedro decided to try to cheer me up.
We went out to dinner.
Then we went for a walk on the beach.
It doesn't make sense when they talk about the crime being premeditated.
Everything the prosecution claimed about planning a murder and so on
just doesn't make sense.
The night before, we're walking on the beach.
We're having dinner, and I am disconnected from the world.
It just wouldn't make any sense.
You know? What happened the following day.
MAY 1, 2017 9:37 P.M.
We verified that at 9:37 p.m.,
Rosa, her children, and Pedro arrived home.
How did we know?
Thanks to their phones.
At this point, it is very important for us to pay close attention
to each and every minute that follows
because they're all crucial.
At 9:51 p.m., you call Mr. Albert, but it's a missed call.
- Yes. - Mr. Albert doesn't answer.
- Yes. - Why'd you call?
I had an insane amount of messages from Albert,
and I wasn't going to read all of them.
It was just easier to call him and say, "Hey, stop texting me."
At 9:53 p.m., she makes a second call to Mr. Albert,
which goes through.
That is, Mr. Albert answers.
And they talk for four minutes.
I really wish we knew what they had talked about
during that call.
We would, without a doubt,
have a better understanding of what really happened.
Keep in mind, I just said 9:53 p.m.
Coincidentally, ten minutes later, 11 minutes to be exact,
Mr. Albert activates the famous Lyca phone
for the first time and calls you, but you don't answer.
The police and the prosecutor
have always contended that that phone call was the signal for "let's start the plan."
The jury took for granted the premise that Rosa and Albert
took the opportunity to kill Pedro while he was asleep or resting.
Pedro was a very strong person.
He was a very large person.
He would not be easy to knock down physically.
And I think that Rosa tried to cover all the bases, you know?
They gave him a drug to slow him down, right?
Half asleep, half conscious.
As a result, he does not have the capacity to react
and to defend himself when Albert arrives.
And I believe Albert is the person
who actively participated in Pedro's death.
This argument is presented
based primarily on the testimony of Antonia.
Antonia is Rosa's ex-husband, Rubén's, new partner.
Is it true that in your contacts, Ms. Antonia, Mr. Rubén's partner,
is listed under the name "Antonia bitch"?
Yes, I've had a very bad relationship with her. Very bad.
And Antonia is the one who explains that Rosa's eldest daughter
made a series of statements
that supported Rosa's active role in the crime.
Since Rosa's eldest daughter was a minor during the investigation,
she was assigned a guardian by the court, who decided that,
since the girl had the right not to testify against her mother,
she would not have to testify during the trial.
There's another thing that I would also like to clarify.
Because it's been said on TV shows and publications,
and there's been a lot of confusion.
Many people say, "Even her daughters said they saw her."
Or, "Her daughters said…"
No, my daughters have not said anything
because my daughters have not seen anything.
And I really want to make that very clear.
Make no mistake, my daughters have not seen anything.
But my ex-husband's wife, Antonia…
Well, Antonia appeared to testify.
When… and how? Also, I need you to say it word for word.
Not your interpretation, but the exact words that the minor used
when she told you about the incident that she witnessed.
- Wait. Please, stop. No. Stop. - Look.
At that moment, the judge interrupted.
Because if it had already been decided
that Rosa's daughter would not be testifying,
then her indirect testimony
through the person to whom she innocently confessed
would not be allowed either.
Because, really, it's a way of circumventing
her choice not to testify.
We cannot allow a proxy witness
to circumvent the right of a minor not to testify.
I'm very sorry.
Then I asked if they would allow Antonia to describe how Rosa's daughter moved
when she was imitating Pedro.
Okay. Emma's mom…
was carrying Titi down the stairs.
- Your Honor, I object. - No, no. You cannot speak.
- Don't talk. - Act it out.
- Show us. - Okay.
While she was miming, which was actually more of a performance,
she was also talking.
Of course, if she had only mimed without talking,
it wouldn't have added anything to the trial.
He was like a robot.
Arms hanging like this.
Like a robot.
What? Sorry. We can't hear you well.
Can you… You're too far from the microphone.
- Get closer to the mic. - I'll sit down, okay?
By allowing Antonia to mime the behavior, but without the, uh…
with… without a commentary.
Without the actions being described verbally…
Well, it looked like a silent movie, you know?
And the truth is that, even though it was a very serious and tragic topic,
it was a little funny.
That was an impersonation of Titi.
So we understand, by Titi, you mean Mr. Pedro.
Was the girl referring to a particular day?
To the day of the events.
- Okay. No more questions. - Thank you. Defense counsel?
With all due respect,
how do you know it was the day of the events?
What events?
Because she told me…
Because I know--
- Your Honor, with all due respect-- - Enough. Enough.
I must point out a contradiction
with what the witness said in her previous statements.
Enough. I cannot allow it. That's why it cannot be admitted.
Of course. But that is why the witness's spoken testimony
cannot be allowed.
The jury will ignore the statements just made by the witness.
"Don't pay attention to her words, just to her actions."
As a result, the jury should've only interpreted her gestures
and should have ignored what was said, but they heard it.
It was true that the jury heeded the judge's warning
and did not make the slightest reference to words uttered by the witness.
It's true.
In the verdict, the jury said
she lowered him like a robot.
And that was the proof that Rosa drugged Pedro.
That was what put me in prison.
I repeat, my daughters have never said anything,
nor will they ever say anything because they saw absolutely nothing.
Okay?
So then, don't treat Antonia's statement as if it's the truth,
as if it is an established fact.
Because she is a woman who I never got along with.
So, logically, she exploited the situation and thought,
"Now it's my chance to screw her over."
You understand?
I don't really know if she ever considered the consequences
of making those statements.
She won't change her testimony now because she's been told,
"If you do that, you'll perjure yourself, and you'll go to prison."
PEDRO'S MURDER
18 HOURS LATER MAY 2
Ms. Rosa's big mistake was keeping Mr. Pedro's cell phone with her.
In her house.
PEDRO RODRÍGUEZ - 9:26 P.M. BAAAAABE
The strategy used by the defendants was
to fake periods of activity by Mr. Pedro, okay?
How did they do that?
Well, for example, messages were sent between Rosa and, supposedly, Pedro.
They admitted to this.
That they took Pedro's cell phone.
They parked Pedro's car near the house where Rubén lived at the time,
then pretended that Pedro had approached Rubén's house,
thus implying that Rubén had killed him.
PEDRO RODRÍGUEZ - 9:50 P.M. TURNING OFF PHONE, DON'T WANT IT VIBRATING
At 9:50 p.m., when "Pedro" says he's turning off his phone,
the cell GPS locates him in the vicinity of Rubén's house.
- Is that correct? - Yes. That's right.
As soon as we arrived at Rubén's house, Albert told me to send those messages.
That was when I began to wonder what he might have done to Pedro,
or if they had argued.
If he had hit him or threatened him or whatever.
And now he was trying to involve Rubén.
Ms. Rosa, after turning off Pedro's phone near Rubén's house, what did you do?
After that, he drove me back to my house.
And that's when he gave me Pedro's car keys.
So, you drove Pedro's car, and Albert drove his. Is that right?
That's right. I followed him.
Albert drove his car, and I followed behind with Pedro's car.
You were alone.
You could've gone to a police station, called someone.
But for some reason,
you decided against that and followed Albert.
If I had taken off,
I would've had to have driven like I was in a race,
managed to get to a police station, and been immediately believed.
That is what I would've had to have done--
- You're a police officer, right? - Yes, exactly.
That's why I thought that way.
All those thoughts raced through my mind, of course.
By the time I would've reached a police station,
he would have driven back to my house.
- So you followed Albert. - Uh-huh.
How long did it take to arrive? Did you go straight to the reservoir?
Yes. He knew perfectly well where he was going.
He knew the exact destination, where he was headed.
He used his turn signal. He seemed sure.
I was thinking, "What should I do now?"
I stayed very still, waiting, motionless.
Just like the day before. I didn't know how to react.
I didn't know what to do.
I couldn't just take the car and leave.
I couldn't do that.
All I could do was just stay there, frozen,
and watch as he approached me with gas cans.
I have it etched in my memory.
He opened the car door and took out two cans.
I remember they were big and red.
And I thought, "Oh my gosh. That looks like gasoline."
As he approached me, I wondered if he was going to pour the gas over me.
"If that happens, I can run as fast as I want,
but if he throws one match at me, then I'm done for."
I ran for it, hoping to escape being splashed with the gasoline.
I dropped things as I was running, but I never stopped to pick them up.
I didn't even look back once.
Because all I could think about was just running away from him,
and that he might shoot me in the back while I was running.
And then, she began to walk along the road,
but Albert approached with his car and told her, "Get in."
"If you don't, I'll get to your daughters before you do."
For Rosa's defense, it was a crucial argument
that her keys were so close to the road
because that placed them very far from the car.
And therefore, that supported her version of the events.
That she ran up to the road and the keys fell out of her pocket,
or she still had them in her hand when she ran away.
From the prosecution's point of view, it just was not relevant that the…
that the keys of the vehicle were on the road near the scene of the crime.
Because we believed that the two suspects had gone voluntarily to the reservoir.
It's an established fact that they needed to use two cars to drive to the reservoir.
Let's move on, Ms. Rosa.
So, you get in the car, and where do you go?
That was when he drove me back home.
He told me to say absolutely nothing to anyone.
I said, "I'm not gonna report you for the car."
"I don't care. A car's a car."
"It doesn't matter."
"I don't care. Just leave me alone."
"All I want is for you to leave me alone."
In order for Rosa's version of events to be plausible,
you have to believe the insurmountable fear she suffered.
If you believe that Rosa was so terrified of Albert,
then everything else fits.
"I'm scared."
"The next day, I didn't dare say anything."
"I was quiet for two days."
"I was in shock, completely overwhelmed."
But day three, day four, day five, day six, day seven, day eight,
when you've had time to react, when many people are helping you,
when you already know that the homicide task force
is investigating the case and that they will certainly protect you…
She has been judged for her behavior after the fact.
But there's no proof of what happened that day, right?
Like I said before,
whether she cries or doesn't cry, whether she didn't report it or does,
if you understand that she was terrified that Albert might do something to her,
or, even worse, to her daughters, who are the ones she loves the most,
then you understand her resulting behavior.
Where is it written how and what is fear?
What is fear?
If she says that she had an insurmountable fear,
can anyone, based on objective data,
question that Rosa Peral has no right to be afraid or to feel that fear?
Rosa's biggest fear wasn't what would happen to her or her parents.
Her biggest fear was for her daughters.
In my opinion, everything she did was to protect her daughters.
Which no one appreciates.
You know something?
Back then, what concerned me most,
more than anything else, was keeping my children safe.
Keeping them out of harm's way.
Keeping them alive because…
…the real danger was Albert.
I weighed the sentence I would receive for staying silent
against the knowledge that my family would be protected from harm.
You know?
Um, but this has led to confusion.
With everyone offering their opinions.
And, of course, they're intrigued.
Because the initial investigation started with me.
I was the first person of interest. After that, everything snowballed.
A few years have passed.
There have been books written.
TV series shot. Etcetera, etcetera.
But there are still many unanswered questions.
And each of us has an interpretation of what happened in this case.
Although not always successful,
justice helped to clarify and to explain this case.
But in the end, who are the guilty parties,
and who are the victims?
Where is the plan?
When was the plan formalized?
What was the plan?
Whose idea was the plan?
If it's proven irrefutably,
Rosa Peral and Albert López can say whatever they want. They're guilty.
But when it can't be proven,
when it's only suspected that something happened,
and there's no proof, none of this makes sense.
Come on.
Most people interpret crime through a narrative lens.
And fiction, at its core, tells a story.
It's a narrative retelling of what has happened.
The events that took place.
Why the characters did what they did, what motivated them.
Reality, though, is very different.
I'm convinced of the truth when a person has such consistent
and thorough answers and remembers so many particular details.
And that's what made me believe her story.
Because if a person is really lying to you,
there are parts where there are gaps without an explanation.
The whole story characterizing Rosa
as that evil, bloodthirsty woman was built, from my point of view,
based on questions from the public prosecutor.
And also, because of the constant coverage,
week after week, in the media.
We probably overdid it.
Because Rosa's character, Rosa's persona…
Uh… could manipulate your perception of her,
and it was very easy to be seduced.
Honestly, I don't lose any sleep over how I did my job.
Yes, it's true that when there's a lot of media attention,
it can influence a trial's outcome to a certain extent.
All the garbage they said, all of it… is horrendous.
They didn't know her at all.
All she ever wanted was to be beautiful, to have a good body,
and, if she felt like it, to sleep with whoever she wanted.
Rosa lives in an alternate reality.
Different rules apply to her than to the rest of us.
PROSECUTION'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS
To me, that is, she can be very persuasive and charming.
That is, she's like a con artist,
trying to sell you a remedy for hair growth
which is only made of soap and water.
I'll tell you one thing.
If you spent two or three hours with Rosa,
she would be capable of convincing you that you are the one who killed Pedro.
That is Ms. Rosa Peral.
It's been a long, long time, and
I wish I could have a real conversation with my daughters.
Really spend time with them.
I'd really like to know if they have any doubts.
When I talk to them, I'll tell them,
"Look, if you really have any doubts about anything,
it might be good for you to hear all sides."
"To gather as much information as possible."
Maybe they don't feel like they need to find out more.
Maybe tomorrow they'll just say,
"My mother has always said that she is innocent."
Maybe they don't even need to hear an explanation.
I can only hope that they keep me in their thoughts.
And that they share their plans for the future with me, you know?
I feel very present in their lives. More than I would've imagined.
I'm gonna be cut off. Wait, wait. The call is gonna drop.
Rosa Peral appealed her 25-year sentence.
In September 2021, the Supreme Court
ratified the aggravating circumstance of premeditation.
Antonia's testimony was nullified.
It was found the defendants had taken measures
to ensure Pedro could not defend himself,
since he was attacked at home "while he slept or rested."
Rosa is currently serving her sixth year at the Mas Enric prison in Tarragona.
Subtitle translation by: Soledad Etchemendy