Carlos P. murder sentence:

The judge considered the death of Carlos P. as a murder with perfidy (an intent wilfully to act in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to human life) by this reasons:


The accused argues that Carlos P. asked him for the sweater and the money, saying immediately to this "bastard, I'll show you what's good" / ("bastard, You're going to be in a lot of trouble!"), but this is denied by all the witnesses, that were all protected witness as they were friends of Carlos P. or where in the same group of antifascists, that testified that Carlos P. only asked about the sweater as it had the legend "Three-Stroke”, a brand that is identified also by this antifascists witness as a brand used exclusively by neonazis. Also the chief of the XXI group of the National police, when he saw the photos of Josué with the shaved head, the Three-stroke sweater, the sport trouser of the army and white shoes said, without any doubt, that this was the aesthetic of neonazi skin, that could be perfectly recognized by opponent groups, and a prove of this is that the antifascists entered in the underground wagon looking fiercely to the accused. With this criteria, any Spanish soldier with the sport trouser of the army, that has the Spanish flags in the sides, could look like a "neonazi skin" as the shaved-short hair is compulsory. About the brand the police "expert" also said in his declaration that "the sweater, by it self, did not need to be considered as peculiar of neonazis. This garment could be worn by any person.” but this has not been considered. This brand sponsors black and mestizo jiu-jitsu fighters and there are photos of black fighters wearing Three Stroke t-shirts, so this seems a not very "neonazi" brand.



So with this arguments, the judge considers that Carlos P. knew that the accused was a person with an opposite ideology, and had no fear of a possible aggression due to the typical impulsivity of this adolescence and for the confidence that provided him to be surrounded by a big group of friends and antifascists like him. A proof of this is that he asked the accused about the sweater, being completely surprised by the suddenly stabbing, without any possibility of a defensive reaction, that was what the accused wanted when he hide the knife an moved next to the door, waiting to attack with any excuse to any of the persons he considered "antifascist" by his aesthetic. This is why it has been considered as a murder "with perfidy".

About this the accused declared that he wanted to go out of the wagon, so he went next to the door, but he was surrounded by the group of antifascists and the exit was blocked so he was not able to go out. He felt that they were going to attack him and that he would not escape alive from there. He stabbed him because he was frightened, not because it was an antifascist or by hate. Then he tried to move away the attackers and escape as soon as he had an opportunity



Attempt of homicide of a friend of Carlos p. sentence, and the fact of the weapons:


The court in the sentence says that there were weapons carried by the antifascists, but they do not considered that is proved that were carried by the people in the same wagon as the accused. It is also said that this group had a violent attitude, as they attacked the legal demonstration with baseball beats, flares, and even molotov cocktails but this it is considered as subsequent events.

The accused says that a hooded person throw CS gas in the wagon, what blind him, and for this reason he had to go to the opposite side of the train. In this moment entered two person that said "we are going to kill you" for this reason he showed the knife to avoid them go get near him.
One of the protected witness said that he tried to disarm the accused with a plastic piece that it is used to cover the fire extinguishers, remembering only that when he entered in the wagon was a hard smell to pepper spray, but his eyes were adapted sooner to this, and he went to the end of the wagon, where the accused was, and had a struggle with him, without noticing he had been stabbed till he left the wagon and saw his blood.

This is confirmed by a woman that was a security guard, that saw the accused grabbing the a guy by the neck, and she pulled the guy to free him and get him out of the wagon. Just at that moment a girl in the platform sprinkled the security guard face with a CS gas spray, whose objective was the accused, but as she was in the middle she received the gas.

According to the court, the fact that one of the antifascist showed a knife in a later moment, specifically when a security guard tried to help Carlos P., as related by this security guard: ("one of the antifascist hit me with the elbow in the jaw. I saw a sharp weapon different from the one Josué was carrying. It was a metallic blade, I saw the shine of a sharp weapon and they tried to stab me". I could not identify the aggressor and 30 seconds after this they make space so that I could help the victim") dose not implies that this knife was showed when the accused says: ("They entered in the wagon and I was cornered by these persons that were carrying weapons. They said to me "you are not going out of here, fucking fascist". They had a knife and a brass knuckle, and they threatened again to kill me several times. One of them pointed at me and other pulled out a brass knuckle")

Therefore, in spite that it has been proved that there was a group of around 100 antifascists in the underground with the purpose of disrupting violently a legal demonstration and that the antifascists had, at least, a CS gas spray, a knife, a brass knuckle that could be see in the video, and later they used baseball bats, flares and molotov cocktails the judges have believed the declarations of the antifascists ("we did not have weapons, we were only carrying whistles") and not the declaration of Josué, that says that he saw weapons and he was verbally threatened, and for this reason they have denied to apply the excuse of self-defence, state of necessity to avoid an evil/worst harm (his own death) and insuperable fear asked by the defence.



The aggravating circumstance of ideological hate:

The judge had considered that is proved that the accused was going to a demonstration of the far right party Democracia Nacional, as the next station of the underground was near the place where started the demonstration, and as it was around 12:00 when all this happened, the same hour when the demonstration was expected to start. Other "proof" of this is that Josué was carrying a knife as there was a possibility of clashes with antifascist demonstrators, and that he had a aesthetic of neonazi skin. Josué says that he we was going to have a lunch in the house of two friends, whose names he does not want to say to avoid problems for them. The judges have not believed this. Josué said also that the knife he carried was a official knife of the army he have bought, and that he took it out of the base because he had to go to manoeuvre next day


The judges said that the extreme right ideology of the accused is fully proved by this facts:

a) His aesthetic of neonazi skin.

b) The motto 'Sieg Heil', of german origin that could be traduced as : Heil victory, that was frequently used in the political meetings in Germany during the III Reich, and was shouted by the accused after stabbing Carlos P. (part of this phrase was litearally copied from Wikipedia, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieg_Heil . It seems that is the new source for laws for the Spanish judges...) Josue said that he doesn’t know the meaning of the expression 'Sieg heil' and that he never shouted that.

c) The salute of the forces of that time, known as SS, that consisted in extending the arm and the hand to till the level of the shoulder, with the arm and the hand to the front. This was only declared by the antifascists, that said that heard this from inside the train, even with a glass behind and with all the noise from the rest of the travellers in the platform. A security guard said that she did not saw any salute neither heard any shout of this kind while she was inside the train. A video recording saw a gesture partially compatible with this salute, and Josué in his declaration denied making a nazi salute inside the wagon when he was alone inside. ("I rise my arm to told him to leave") Apart from this, this supposed salute could be considered as the fascist salute or the national socialist salute, but in no case the "salute of the SS".


d) The word "guarros" (filthy pig) used in different moments to make reference to the antifascists. According to the antifascists witness and the police "expert" that is how the right-wingers call the left-wingers.


e) The comments and actions defending or trying to mitigate the behaviour of the accused made after the incidents by far right groups, as reflected in the documents showed by the private accusation. About this, Josué had no possibility of controlling what happened outside the prison, and he can not avoid that some people expressed his sympathies for him.

In the sentence it is said that this conclusion about the ideology of the accused it is not distorted by the good relation and without racist attitudes that he had with his south American working mates in the army, as related by the Ecuadorian witness that was a soldier in the same base as the accused, because they only talked about thing related to the job and not about political ideas. Josué declared that he was not a neonazi. He also said that he doesn’t hate the antifascist neither is against the immigrants "How can I hate an immigrant if I have immigrant friends and I shared my room in the army base with an immigrant?" The judges have not believed this.

The extreme ideological differences in the way of thinking was the motive of the aggression of the accused against Carlos P. as it is reflected in the attitude of the accused of hiding the knife and moving next to the door. According to the judges Josué wanted to attack any of the antifascist at the first opportunity and without any excuse as he hated them. This is denied by the accused in his declaration “I saw punks and skinheads in the platform. The pointed at me saying 'go and catch them' and shouted kill threats. I felt scared, so I pulled out the official knife of the army I was carrying in my trousers. They entered in the wagon and I was cornered by these persons that were carrying weapons. They said to me "you are not going out of here, fucking fascist". They had a knife and a brass knuckle, and they threatened again to kill me several times. One of them pointed at me and other pulled out a brass knuckle. Other entered in the wagon making his way among the rest. He blocked my way and asked for my sweater and my money. My instinct went out. I felt that they were going to attack me and that I would not escape alive from there. I stab him because I was frightened. Then I tried to move away the attackers and escape as soon as I have an opportunity. "

About the regrets expressed by the accused when he made use of his right to give his last words before the end of the trial, the judges had not considered this as a extenuating circumstance, as: it was said in the last moment, during all the trial he have had an impassive attitude, and for his despise to the persons of opposite ideology that was the triggering factor leading up to the murder.


The sentence:

19 years of prison for the murder of Carlos Palomino

7 years of prison for the attempted murder of one of the friends of Carlos P. that attacked Josué.

500 € penalty to pay to one of the antifascists stabbed

92.257,01 € penalty for the mother of Carlos P, and 67.096,00 € for the father

The court has approved the insolvency declaration of the accused as actually he has no patrimony or income.


Josue lawyer declaration:

How has received the sentence Josué?
We have talked before knowing the sentence and he was very calm. He was waiting for the sentence without nerves. It is the first time in Spain that the aggravating circumstance of ideological hate has been considered.
The judges have made a partial interpretation of the facts. They have only considered the declarations of the friends of Carlos P. which we consider tendentious.

Had Josue the aim of killing?
We do not think that the murder was with perfidy. Josué get loose of Carlos P. and do not want to have anything more to do with him, he did not make certain of the death. The video images that benefit my client have not been shown.