The popular jury has unanimously considered Eugenio Delgado guilty of the crime of murder, with gender aggravation, and another of sexual assault against Manuela Chavero, in the events that occurred on July 5, 2016 in the Badajoz town of Monesterio. . In its verdict, the jury has also established that the crime of murdering Manuela Chavero “involves treachery and cruelty”, since that night, the accused “made sure that Manuela could not defend herself and deliberately increased her pain, with the multiple fractures that it presents.”
A verdict that asserts that “everything that has happened has been programmed, wanted and sought by the accused, without being anything fortuitous,” and concludes that the events “are constitutive of a crime of sexual assault,” since “there is no other possible motive”, as well as another of murder.
The spokesman for the popular jury, Fernando, read this verdict, which was reached unanimously by its nine members, at 11:55 p.m. this Thursday, after the trial for the murder of Manuela Chavero that has been held since this past Monday at the Provincial Court of Badajoz, with Eugenio Delgado as the only accused.
There have been more than nine hours of deliberation by this popular jury, since shortly before 2:00 p.m. this Thursday this trial was heard for sentencing, in which since last Monday more than twenty witnesses and some 60 experts, and which has concluded with the final reports of the prosecutor, the private and popular accusations, and the defense.
In the verdict, the popular jury has unanimously considered Eugenio Delgado “guilty” of having killed Manuela Chavero, since “she entered his house alive. The two of them were alone, and she came out dead,” and also points him out as “guilty of having sexually assaulted Manuela Chavero.”
“The sexual motive is the only one that justifies what happened, ruling out the meaningless economic and sentimental motive,” says the jury, who also points out that “we must take into account the profile that behavior analysts make of him, defined as a sexual sadist”, and also considers “fundamental” the fact that “the accused took off the victim’s clothes without logical explanation, saying that he did it so that the animals would not take the clothes out of the pit, when, contradicting himself himself, having wrapped the corpse with a sheet and a bathrobe.”
In addition, the jury also considers that Eugenio Delgado caused Manuela’s death to prevent the sexual assault from being discovered, since according to him, “when he became aware of what happened, the only way out he saw was to kill her. If he had not done so, everything he had done would have come to light.”
For all these reasons, the verdict establishes that the events described “are constitutive of a crime of murder”, in which “deceitfulness and cruelty also occur”, since the accused “made sure that Manuela could not defend herself and deliberately increased her pain, with the multiple fractures he presents.”
The jury rejects that the facts constitute a crime of homicide, but rather they assure that “it is a murder”, and they did not occur by chance, but rather that Delgado took the victim home “with excuses, knowing that she was alone , so it needed minimal programming” and establishes that “everything that has happened has been sought, programmed and wanted by the accused, without being anything fortuitous.”
For this reason, the jury reiterates in its verdict that the events described “are constitutive of a crime of sexual assault”, since “there is no other motive, and all others that could lead to death are ruled out.”
The verdict states that the nine members of the jury consider that the events of the early morning of July 5, 2016 were carried out by the accused, since “there were only them, the two of them, and the one who was killed was Manuela.”
The jury also maintains in its verdict that the victim’s chances of defending himself were considerably diminished, since Eugenio Delgado “was big. The two of them were alone, in a closed place, with all the windows and doors closed, making it impossible for her to ask for help and for them to hear her”, to which is added that the events occurred in “an interior room, with a window that overlooked her own patio”, and that therefore “made Manuela’s defense impossible”.
Regarding the question of whether the blows to the victim increased his pain, the jury unanimously concluded that yes, “as demonstrated by the multiple fractures he presented and which were not necessary to cause his death, in addition to the possibility that he died from asphyxiation, with the pain that this entails and the probability that he crushed her with his knee,” the verdict states.
Thus, also unanimously, the popular jury asserts that Eugenio also killed Manuela because of her status as a woman, since “if she had not been a woman, and had not felt that contempt for women, as proven by her own WhatsApp conversations with prostitutes, this would not have happened”, which in his opinion “is confirmed by the statements of witnesses and the statements of behavioral analysts.”
According to the jury, the accused “liked to dominate women in his relationship with them. As has been seen in the trial, the accused has distorted the concept of women’s sexual freedom,” states the verdict, which on the other hand considers that Eugenio did not collaborate in clarifying the facts, but on the contrary “he hindered the investigation.” hiding evidence.”
In fact, the accused was “changing his testimonies, giving wrong passwords and email addresses, modifying the exterior appearance of the car, even wanting to cover the bonnet with a concrete plate, as has been demonstrated in the trial,” the verdict establishes.
Regarding whether the accused has compensated for civil consequences derived from the events, the jury unanimously considers that he has not, since “with the money contributed it would only cover 15 percent of what was requested by the Prosecutor’s Office,” he points out.
Finally, and regarding the option of applying criminal benefits to the accused or urging the granting of a pardon to the Government, the popular jury considers that “given the circumstances surrounding the accused and the execution of the act, the court” should not suspend the sentence. of prison due to the nature of the crime.”
Furthermore, in the event of a guilty verdict and a conviction, the popular jury considers that “the convicted person cannot be classified in the third degree of prison until half of the imposed sentence has been served”, because this type of profiles “usually be repeat offenders.”
Finally, the jury adds that “given the circumstances” and if a guilty verdict is established, the Government should not be asked for a total or partial pardon of the sentence to be imposed “due to the seriousness of the facts.”