The forensic doctors who have testified in the trial against the woman who "stabbed" her children, ages 5 and 3, in June 2015 in Arrieta, believe that psychotic episodes like the one the accused was suffering at the time of the events "have high relapse rates." Jesús Esparza and María Luisa Fúnez, in charge of carrying out the different expert reports on the state of both the children and the accused, explained on the second day of the trial that this type of pathology includes symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized thoughts, and that they are triggered "by a stressful vital element."
The forensic experts have stated that in these cases, "new psychotic episodes can occur." However, Esparza wanted to make it clear that "a future episode does not have to have this very high content of aggression." Regarding the type of treatment that should be followed in the case of the accused, they have not been able to determine it. Esparza has emphasized on several occasions that "it will be the assistant psychologists and doctors who determine what therapy has to be applied." In this sense, he indicated that the reports they prepared were limited to analyzing the state at a precise moment and that, in any case, they are not "assistant doctors, but forensic experts." Affirmations that his colleague has shared.
The Public Prosecutor's Office, which is requesting a sentence of 15 years of confinement in a psychiatric center, has argued the need for the accused to receive treatment for the pathology she suffers in this regime. He has also pointed out in his conclusions that the defendant has "the circumstance of exemption from criminal responsibility" and at the same time the circumstance of "treachery due to helplessness" due to the special situation of vulnerability of the victims. He has reiterated that the woman committed the acts "having absolutely annulled her volitional and intellectual capacities, being under the influence of a delirium that conditioned her acts" and has indicated that the forensic experts themselves recognize that some of the injuries caused to the minors "were of vital risk" due to the area in which they occurred.
No deep injuries
The defense lawyer, in his conclusions, has rejected this last thesis, pointing out that, despite the area, the "stabbings" did not pose a vital risk, since there were no "deep injuries." He has also pointed out, on the other hand, refuting the arguments of the Prosecutor's Office, that medical literature itself recognizes "that with adequate treatment there are no relapses." The lawyer, who is requesting a family custody measure with outpatient treatment for the pathology suffered by the accused, has wondered how the accused has been in prison since July 2015 when she is considered "unimputable." He has also stated that the defendant can "fully rejoin society because she has an environment that welcomes her." In this case, it is her mother, as was indicated on the first day of the trial.
The psychologist who is treating the accused privately, Andrés García, who has testified as a defense witness, has indicated that he considers it highly unlikely that an event similar to what happened on June 24, 2015, could happen again. "I think the mistake is to think that a similar scenario can be repeated," he stated. The psychologist has explained that, between individual and joint sessions with other family members, he has had about 60 sessions with the defendant since March 2016.
Since he took over the treatment, according to what he has assured, he has observed that the woman has been recovering and the objective is to "integrate that psychological episode into her biography to avoid post-traumatic disorders." This psychologist has defended the need for the accused to "integrate into her support network as soon as possible." Therefore, he shares the request of the defense lawyer for a family custody measure to be applied to her and for her to follow an outpatient treatment.
More "stigmatizing than therapeutic" measure
In his opinion, admitting the woman for 15 years in a psychiatric center would be a measure "more stigmatizing than therapeutic." And it is that, according to what he has said, perhaps at first, instead of entering prison, it would have been positive for her to do so in a psychiatric center, but now he considers that this measure would generate greater tension for her. He has also recalled that work has been done on the relationship with her children, who present a level of "secure attachment," and that if they lose the maternal figure, "it will not be easy to recover it."
When asked by the Court, the psychologist has indicated that "perhaps there was a chain of errors" when on the day of the events the accused was discharged from the Hospital, to which she had gone due to the psychological state in which she was. On the other hand, he has indicated that the antipsychotic medication has been gradually reduced for the woman and has pointed out that, although she could "decompensate" if she abandons the medication and some destabilizing situation occurs, it does not have to happen.
For her part, the psychologist of the penitentiary center, María Pilar Vázquez, has stated that, since she does not present psychotic symptoms, she considers that the mother does not need to undergo treatment in a psychiatric center. "Now she is stable for what she has had," she has indicated, highlighting that she has not observed in the accused, whom she sees biweekly, "any psychotic symptom" nor "any outbreak or beginning of an outbreak." Specifically, in Vázquez's opinion, there has been no "involution" at a psychological level since she began treating her, in November 2015.
