Trial for murder of speech therapist Vicent in Valencia: contradictions from accused and no signs of abuse
The case of speech therapist Vicent, murdered in Valencia, advances towards a jury trial without evidence supporting the version of the accused, David G. S.
The Valencia speech therapist case goes to jury trial without evidence supporting the accused
According to telecinco.es, the case of speech therapist Vicent, murdered at his clinic in Valencia, is advancing towards trial before a jury court without any of the evidence known so far corroborating the version of the confessed accused, David G. S. The detainee claims he killed the professional after believing he was sexually abusing his son during a session, but this hypothesis remains unsupported by the investigation.
The hearing held one month after the crime at the City of Justice in Valencia—where the accused was transferred from prison—served to specify the crimes attributed to him and the outstanding proceedings. 15 July was set as the date when a jury will have to determine whether the facts constitute murder or manslaughter, and whether any mitigating circumstance applies.
Contradictions in the detainee's account
David G. S. claims that he returned to the Diálogo Clinic after dropping off his son and that, upon returning, he heard the child screaming. According to his statement, he found the boy with his trousers lowered and nappy removed, which led him to interpret that he was a victim of sexual assault.
However, the investigation has detected differences between the detainee's account and the testimony of his partner, who was also questioned as a witness by officers. Although both agree on the general aspects, there are contradictions in certain details that investigators are trying to clarify in order to accurately reconstruct what happened on the afternoon of 15 June.
To these discrepancies are added other elements that also do not support, for now, the accused's version. The most notable: the clinic had no security cameras, despite David claiming to have attacked the speech therapist after he refused to show him some supposed recordings. The absence of these devices makes it impossible to verify through images a key part of his account.
Investigators also point out that the detainee went to the clinic already carrying a knife of approximately 14 centimetres, which he kept hidden and used against the speech therapist in the presence of his own son. Furthermore, after the crime he did not leave the premises immediately: he remained there for a time, later returned to his home and presented himself voluntarily at Burjassot police station hours later. That period of time could have served him to prepare a defensive strategy, an aspect that also forms part of the matters being assessed in the investigation.
The biological sample ruled out as seminal remains
One of the lines of inquiry opened during the first weeks of the investigation pointed to a biological sample found by Scientific Police on Vicent's underwear. Initially the possibility was considered that it could be seminal residue, a hypothesis that could have provided relevant information to verify the detainee's version.
The analysis of the sample has ruled out it being seminal residue. The result diminishes the relevance of one of the pieces of evidence collected during the inspection of the clinic, which investigators had incorporated into the proceedings to try to determine what happened inside the office. The investigation has also found no other elements that would make it possible to corroborate that Vicent had committed the abuses that the accused claimed to have witnessed, according to sources cited by Las Provincias.
Debate over the analysis of electronic devices
During the initial proceedings, investigators seized several electronic devices belonging to Vicent: two mobile phones, a tablet and a computer. Their contents are pending analysis, although access to these devices cannot be carried out indiscriminately.
The Public Prosecutor's Office has expressed its reluctance to allow the data extraction to open a general investigation into the speech therapist's private life or into possible crimes unrelated directly to the homicide or murder being investigated. The Public Ministry does not oppose the analysis but considers that the proceedings should be limited to aspects that bear relation to the facts that are the subject of the case.
The objective is to avoid what is considered prospective investigation: the search for possible crimes distinct from those that gave rise to the proceeding without there being concrete indicators to support them. The Public Prosecutor's Office also understands that such an exploration could damage Vicent's reputation, who is deceased and without the possibility of defending himself against possible accusations. In a written submission presented at court number 11 of the Criminal Section of the Valencia Court of Instruction, it has characterised the National Police's request to thoroughly review the contents of all the devices as "far-fetched".
The defence of David G. S. and the private prosecution have expressed their agreement with the analysis. The defence intends to find elements that could give credibility to their client's version and support the possibility that he acted in a fit of rage, whilst the private prosecution pursues the opposite objective.
The case thus advances towards a future jury trial without, so far, the known evidence having provided objective support to the accusation that David G. S. made against the speech therapist.
Source: Google News ES — Crime (es)