In their report, the forensic experts emphasized that Marta CH retained full capacity for self-control and showed no mental changes, and they also identified characteristics of hostility, coldness, egocentrism and intransigence in her profile. This report played a pivotal role in allowing the court to determine criminal responsibility without mitigating circumstances related to mental health. As Europa Press reports, this assessment by specialists was crucial in consolidating the maximum sentence after the assassination and concealment of the body of the president of their neighborhood municipality in February 2023.
The Supreme Court of Madrid (TSJM) decided to uphold the sentence of 22 years in prison for the defendant after rejecting all appeals and confirming that she was the real author of the events. According to Europa Press, this decision is in line with the position previously taken by the Madrid Provincial Court, which sentenced Marta CH to one year and nine months for forgery, twenty years for murder and an additional four months for desecration of corpses.
The court’s decision, which was also published by Europa Press, is based on psychiatric reports and the judicial reconstruction of the events, which proves the presence of premeditation and a methodical approach after the crime. The investigation revealed that on February 27, 2023, after an encounter in a private house, the convicted woman murdered the president of the municipality and carried out a series of actions to cover all traces of the crime. These include placing the body in a suitcase, purchasing products such as bleach to clean the crime scene, and then burning the body in the same suitcase before leaving the remains at a landfill in Toledo.
During the trial, Marta CH addressed the court to give her version of what happened. According to Europa Press, he stated that the victim accidentally fell, resulting in a fatal blow to the head, and that his attempts to help her were unsuccessful. She stated that she did not seek medical attention because she could not find an explanation for the events and that, motivated by the inability to face the body, she decided to cremate it. The testimony did not convince the judges, for whom material evidence and the experts’ conclusions took precedence over the defendant’s testimony.
Europa Press explained that the trial was marked by a conflict of opinion between the public ministry and the victim’s family. While the public prosecutor’s office requested a prison sentence of thirteen years for murder and desecration of corpses, the private prosecution, representing the family, demanded twenty-eight years in prison because they assumed that the crime met the premeditated requirements typical for murder. Ultimately, the court agreed to the most serious classification and the sentence proposed by the regional court.
The TSJM ruling underlines that Marta CH’s actions after the murder, including the purchase and use of cleaning products and active manipulation of the body, constitute an aggravating circumstance in the context of the case. According to Europa Press, the forensic experts emphasized that there was no symptom consistent with mental retardation in the convicted person’s behavior and that he demonstrated impulse control both in the commission of the crime and in the subsequent maneuvers to avoid its detection.
The judgment consolidates all the penalties imposed in the previous instance, without modifying any of the sanctions or accepting the proposals of the parties involved to reduce or tighten them. The court decision confirms the characterization of the intent and premeditation of the crime as well as the seriousness of the events and behavior after the death of the victim, as reflected by the events described in the judgment and disseminated by Europa Press.
Europa Press reported that the TSJM’s decision ends the criminal proceedings at the regional level, granting Marta CH the full 22 years in prison and rejecting any argument about mitigation based on personal, mental or contextual circumstances. The defendant is therefore deprived of the opportunity to have her sentence reconsidered on the basis of pleas relating to her mental state or her particular situation.
About The Author
