The trail against José Bretón, who is accused of killing
his children, Ruth and José in October 2011, has got
underway with seven women and four men on the jury.
The prosecutor is calling for a 40 year prison sentence
for the assassination of the two children, and the lawyer
of his ex-wife also thinks that he wanted to kill the
children and knew where to do it.
Bretón appeared calm in the court in the first day of
proceedings yesterday. He wasn’t wearing handcuffs.
The case is complicated by a lack of DNA.
The children, 6 year old Ruth and 2 year old José,
disappeared on October 8 2011, the father claims after
he got distracted a Córdoba park where the children
were playing. José Breton reported the disappearance of
his children to the police on the same day.
At the time the father was immersed in a divorce from
Ruth Ortiz, a vet who lives in Huelva. He was detained
and accused of illegal detention and the simulation of a
Earlier on the day the children disappeared, José Breton
had picked them up from his sister’s house and took
them at 1pm to the family Finca de las Quemadillas.
There the children ate pizza, while Bretón burned some
memories of his ex wife.
According to his statement to the police the children had
a siesta and afterwards they went to the park.
At 6,40pm José Breton was denouncing their
During the first day of the court case on Monday, the
lawyer for an individual accusation, María del Reposo
Carrero, described the death of the two children as an
‘atrocity’, and it was difficult for her to understand how
a person is capable of killing his children.
‘This is not a case of a crazy man in prison. This is not
the act of a lunatic, not of an impulse, not of fury, not of
behaviour humanly understandable, as we are in the
presence of a monster, an evil person’.
For the defence, lawyer José María Sánchez de
Puerta, said that the indicted had been ‘crucified’ from
the first moment and ‘condemned’ by public opinion in
what was a parallel case which has marked his life’.
He said that people had called the defendant ‘a demon
and Satan’ but, said the lawyer, he is not like that. He
continued that the defendant cries and had consistently
asked if I knew anything about the children. He ‘never’
spoke of them in the past, always in the present’.
The case continues