The analysis of the National Police has concluded that the remains of DNA that were extracted both from the jersey of Helena Jubanythe young librarian murdered on December 2, 2001, as her body does not belong to santi laiglesia, whom the family of the victim and the National Police have always considered the main suspect in this unsolved crime. This has been notified in a letter by the judge Juan Diaz Villar, in charge of the Sabadell 2 investigative court that has reopened a case that has been closed for more than 15 years and that, with the biological results known this Tuesday, loses its main asset to accuse Laiglesia.
Two months ago the results arrived that compared the genetic profile of Laiglesia with samples obtained from Jubany’s body during the autopsy that was performed on his corpse in 2001. They were negative. After that first result, the judge Villar ordered the National Police to compare Laiglesia’s genetic profile with the DNA sample obtained from the sweater Jubany was wearing on the day of his death. It is an order that the judge had already given to the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences but this body only compared Laiglesia’s profile with the samples obtained from Jubany’s genitalia. The National Police have finally completed the test now and the result has been negative.
The DNA samples collected from both Jubany’s body and his sweater belong to an unknown man who is also not Xavi Jiménez, the other person investigated and who is credited with authoring the two anonymous letters that the victim received before the murder. For the Jubany family, it is a foreseeable result that does not alter the suspects they harbor towards the two investigated.
biological signs
The clothes that Jubany wore on the day of his murder remained for two decades in a courthouse. He recovered from the victim’s brown sweater a badly deteriorated biological sample that belonged to an unidentified male. The National Police, after reopening the case against Jiménez, thanks above all to the aforementioned anonymous, has compared that DNA with that of Jiménez, and now with that of Laiglesia, but the result has been negative.
At the same time, the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences, upon being urged by the Sabadell court to recover the samples obtained during the autopsy performed on Jubany hours after the crime, reported that kept swabs –cotton-tipped canes– and also samples obtained from a fingernail of the victim. When analyzing these samples on their own with current technology, genetic remains of an unknown third person have appeared both in the material that was extracted from the nail and in that of the swabs: again a man. The Institute has compared that DNA with that of Jiménez and Laisglesia and the result has again been negative in both cases.
I check with the church
The comparison was made first with Jiménez. After that first analysis was negative, the judge ordered that will be compared with the DNA of Laiglesa and He ordered a saliva sample from this man. He reasoned that order remembering that both samples belong to an unknown male who could be Laiglesia for various reasons. input, Church lived intermittently in the block from which Jubany’s body was thrown.
On the floor of Montse Careta –partner of Laiglesia in 2001 and who committed suicide after being provisionally imprisoned for the crime of Jubany– boxes of the drug Noctamid were found – which contains benzodiazepines, a psychotropic substance that remains were found in the victim’s body. In that same address there were also matches like the ones found on the roof and that they would have been used to burn parts of Jubany’s body. Laiglesia fell into contradictions with Montse when both were questioned by the National Police after the crime. In addition, there are the telephone calls that Jubany received from the landline of Montse’s home in the days before the crime and that Laiglesia himself could have made.
Related news
With this negative DNA test, the shortest way to place this suspect at the center of a judicial investigation that — except for Laiglesia and Jiménez himself — has already expired.
The judge has asked the private prosecution and the prosecution if they want to request new evidence against Laiglesia. A request that they must formulate “respecting the limits of the investigation and the effects of the provisional dismissal,” he remarks. Laiglesia was formally investigated until 2005, when the case was closed. For this reason, for Laiglesia the crime has not prescribed until 2025. However, Laiglesia has been returned to the investigation “provisionally”, as the judge recalls, to carry out these DNA tests that have been negative.