TrueCrime: Alcàsser

Introduction

The Alcàsser crime refers to the kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of Míriam García, Toñi Gómez, and Desirée Hernández, three teenage girls aged 14–15 from the town of Alcàsser in Valencia. This crime took place in November 1992 and is one of the most infamous cases in Spain’s criminal history—not only because of its shocking brutality but also due to the unprecedented media coverage it received and the many conspiracy theories that emerged in its aftermath. What follows is a comprehensive investigation into the case, starting with the official version of events presented in chronological order, along with the forensic and judicial findings, and then moving on to the most widespread unofficial theories—as well as lesser-known ones—that have surrounded this case for decades.

Editor's Note

Ever since I was a kid, the Alcàsser case has been an obsession of mine. I've read and watched everything that's been published about it. I don't think there's any other crime I've spent so much time on... but always as a mere observer. So this is my contribution to the community that follows and has followed this case over the years. My only goal is to analyze everything we know so far, covering both the official and unofficial accounts. It’s simply an essay aimed at people who might not have heard anything about it until now… Above all, I want to express my deepest respect for the victims and their families.

Official Case Timeline

Below is a summary of the chronological sequence of events according to the official version and the police and judicial investigations: • November 13, 1992: Míriam, Toñi, and Desirée leave Alcàsser to go to the Coolor nightclub in Picassent, hitchhiking because they have no transportation. An Opel Corsa occupied by Antonio Anglés (26) and Miguel Ricart (23) stops to pick them up, but the men take them off course. Later that night, the girls don’t return home, prompting their parents to search and report them missing. • November–December 1992: The disappearance of the three girls (nicknamed “the Alcàsser girls” in the press) sparks an intense search that receives widespread national media coverage. Their photos are circulated everywhere, and volunteer search parties are organized, keeping the public on edge for weeks. • January 27, 1993: Two beekeepers discover the semi-buried bodies of Míriam, Toñi, and Desirée in a shallow grave in the remote area of La Romana (in the municipality of Tous, Valencia), near the Tous reservoir. The bodies were found together, wrapped in a rug, showing clear signs of extreme violence. The discovery, after 75 days of searching, shocks Spanish society. • January 28, 1993: The Civil Guard inspects the area and finds a medical slip nearby bearing the name Enrique Anglés (Antonio’s brother). This clue leads investigators to the Anglés family home in Catarroja. Antonio Anglés manages to escape at the last second by jumping out of a window and fleeing across rooftops. That same day, Miguel Ricart is arrested and initially confesses to taking part in the crime during a Civil Guard interrogation. Enrique Anglés (a first suspect) is also detained but is released two days later after being cleared of involvement.

• February–March 1993: While in pretrial detention, Miguel Ricart gives expanded self-incriminating statements on January 30 and March 2, describing in detail how he and Anglés kidnapped, raped, and murdered the girls. However, weeks later he begins to retract these confessions (claiming he was coerced), creating confusion during the investigation. • March 1993 – March 1994: The flight of Antonio Anglés. After escaping the raid at his home, Anglés becomes an international fugitive. He is reportedly seen in several towns and confirmed to have fled to Portugal. On March 15, 1993, the crew of the merchant ship City of Plymouth (which departed Lisbon for Dublin) discovers a stowaway who, when cornered, jumps overboard with a life preserver. That person is believed to have been Anglés, whose trail is lost at sea. Despite later searches—including analysis of skeletal remains found in Ireland and leads in Uruguay—Anglés has never been found. He remains missing to this day and is on Interpol’s most-wanted list. • 1994–1996 (case investigation): The official investigation, overseen by the Court of Instruction No. 6 in Alzira, gathers extensive forensic evidence and witness testimony. In September 1994, Ricart again changes his story before the judge: he denies involvement, claims the Civil Guard tortured him to force a confession, and accuses two other people of the triple murder—dropping Anglés as a co-perpetrator. For the first time, he mentions someone called “Nano” (never identified) and also names Mauricio Anglés (Antonio’s younger brother). This leads investigators to pursue new lines of inquiry: Mauricio (who was a minor in 1992) is investigated, and the mysterious “Nano” is sought. Meanwhile, bar owners in Catadau testify they saw Ricart the night of the crime buying sandwiches for three people, noting that someone shorter than Antonio was waiting in the car—suggesting Mauricio Anglés might have been an accomplice. However, DNA testing ultimately rules out Mauricio’s involvement: no biological evidence of his is found at the crime scene. The identity of “Nano” is never established. • May–July 1997 (trial): The highly publicized trial takes place at the Provincial Court of Valencia, with Miguel Ricart as the sole defendant since Anglés remains at large. Ricart faces charges of kidnapping, rape, homicide, and unlawful burial of the three victims. During the trial, he denies guilt, claiming his initial confession was extracted under duress, and again suggests the involvement of unknown third parties. Dozens of witnesses testify, including members of the Anglés family (who share controversial details about the investigation) and forensic experts. There are tense moments, particularly during clashes between forensic pathologist Luis Frontela (who conducted a second autopsy) and the official Valencia medical examiners, who disagreed over the interpretation of the injuries and the condition of the bodies.

• September 5, 1997: Sentencing is handed down. Miguel Ricart is sentenced to 170 years in prison (the maximum cumulative penalty) for three murders, three kidnappings, and four rapes. The ruling names Antonio Anglés as the principal co-perpetrator (untried due to his flight) and suggests that other individuals may also have been involved. However, under the criminal code in force at the time, Ricart’s effective sentence was capped at a maximum of 30 years. • 2005–2013: After exhausting appeals, Ricart’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court. Years later, in November 2013, Miguel Ricart was released after serving 21 years in prison, benefiting from the repeal of the Parot Doctrine (which had previously extended time served). His release caused public controversy, and he has kept a low profile since. Meanwhile, the official investigation into Antonio Anglés remained open: despite the time elapsed, the court never closed the search for the fugitive, considering him one of Europe’s most wanted criminals. • Subsequent findings: In June 2019, a couple visiting the La Romana burial site accidentally found a small human bone in the area that had gone unnoticed. This discovery prompted a re-examination of the site nearly 26 years later. In fact, in 2021–2022, the Laxshmi association (acting as a people’s prosecution in the case) pushed for new investigative steps: modern forensic analyses were ordered on several preserved physical samples (hair remains, cuttings from the carpet used to wrap the bodies, fragments of clothing, etc.) in search of DNA that could belong to Antonio Anglés or other potential perpetrators. The court also issued requests for legal assistance to the United Kingdom and Ireland to check their databases of unidentified human remains, aiming to determine whether Anglés died while fleeing. These efforts show that, nearly three decades later, there are still unresolved leads in the case and new avenues being explored to clarify them. In summary, the official version attributes the triple murder mainly to Antonio Anglés and Miguel Ricart, two local career criminals. Anglés successfully evaded capture and remains missing, while Ricart served his sentence and was released. Legally, the Alcàsser case is closed with respect to the trial, but it remains open in terms of locating Anglés (and any other unidentified accomplices). This situation, along with certain doubts that arose during the investigation, has fueled numerous alternative theories that challenge the official account.

Forensic Investigation

The technical and scientific investigation of the Alcàsser case was complicated by the advanced state of decomposition of the bodies and certain procedural errors that were later criticized. Even so, the autopsies and forensic analyses allowed investigators to reconstruct much of what had happened and identify key clues, though they also raised new questions. Autopsies: After the discovery on January 27, 1993, the bodies of the three teenagers were transported that same night to the Forensic Institute in Valencia. The following day, a team of six forensic doctors led by Professor Fernando Verdú conducted the first autopsy on the bodies, a process that lasted about eight hours. The initial forensic report determined that the victims had suffered brutal sexual assaults and torture before dying, showing numerous traumatic injuries (bone fractures, cuts and blunt-force wounds, etc.) and clear signs of extreme violence. The cause of death in all three cases was a gunshot to the head with a 9 mm short-caliber firearm, likely fired at close range, consistent with a Star pistol known to have belonged to Antonio Anglés. It was estimated that the deaths occurred the same night they disappeared or in the early hours of the following day (November 1992). At the families’ request, a second, more thorough autopsy was immediately performed by renowned forensic pathologist Luis Frontela, professor in Seville, to review any evidence that might have been missed. Frontela worked with great care, in the presence of the Valencian forensic team (as observers) and with Civil Guard officers filming the procedure. His findings supplemented and in part corrected the initial report: • Numerous hairs and fibers found on the girls’ clothing and bodies were recovered and analyzed. Frontela identified at least 15 hairs, 12 of which did not match either Ricart or Anglés (based on morphological characteristics). One was even gray, suggesting the possible presence of an older individual. The remaining 3 hairs were too damaged to analyze. Later mitochondrial DNA studies determined that these hairs came from at least 5 to 7 different individuals—a minimum number suggesting the involvement of third parties beyond the two accused. Frontela himself concluded that at least two other people participated in the assaults, and he considered it more likely that there were three or more perpetrators in total. (This detail would become one of the main foundations for the alternative theories that later emerged.) • Entomological anomalies were detected: By studying insect larvae found on the bodies (which Frontela examined using photos from the first autopsy), it was observed that their size and development didn’t match the 75 days the bodies were supposedly buried. This led to suspicions that the teenagers hadn’t been in the La Romana grave the entire time but may have been buried in two different places or at different times. Additionally, Frontela noted the absence of livor mortis (the pooling of blood after death) on the bodies, which could be explained by massive blood loss before death or if they had been submerged in water for some period. However, there was no conclusive evidence to confirm these hypotheses. • Frontela also reported very high levels of acid phosphatase in samples taken from the carpet that wrapped the bodies. This is a marker in bodily fluids that typically indicates the presence of seminal fluid (semen), so its abundance supported evidence of multiple sexual assaults. While acid phosphatase alone doesn’t identify the perpetrators, it did corroborate the sexual nature of the crime. • A striking detail was the discovery of a small Caravaca cross inside one of the girls’ bodies (between the vertebrae) during the second autopsy. This religious metalwork object hadn’t been noted in the first autopsy, and its origin is unclear; it’s unknown whether it belonged to one of the victims or how it ended up there. The local press even reported on this cross before Frontela’s autopsy was conducted, fueling speculation and questions about its meaning.

Frontela’s results were submitted to the investigating judge just days before the start of the oral trial in 1997. Notably, Frontela himself criticized certain aspects of the initial forensic investigation: there were no photographs documenting the removal of the bodies from the grave (a critical step to record their position and condition), and no forensic archaeologists were involved in the exhumation in the field, which would have been advisable given the degradation and scattering of the remains. These omissions made it difficult to reconstruct the primary crime scene accurately. Frontela even revealed that after his second autopsy was authorized, a judge abruptly ordered him to return collected evidence, preventing him from completing some key analyses (for example, he was just a week away from sequencing the DNA of the recovered hairs, which could have identified their owners, but had to stop the study). Despite these obstacles, his work uncovered signs of potential co-perpetrators not considered in the initial version. Crime scene and physical evidence: According to Ricart’s confession, the rapes and torture took place in an abandoned rural shed in the hills, about 700–800 meters from the grave where the bodies were buried. This shed—located in the La Romana area, within the municipality of Llombai—was inspected. Surprisingly, no biological traces or blood belonging to the girls were found inside, despite claims that brutal assaults happened there. Forensic experts found this highly implausible: it was practically impossible not to find any trace (blood, hair, fluids) if three minors had been assaulted there for hours. However, other evidence was found in the shed: hairs, stains, and semen linked to the Anglés brothers. A July 1995 report from the Institute of Toxicology revealed that the hairs found in the shed matched Mauricio Anglés, the blood matched Roberto Anglés, and the semen was attributed to Antonio Anglés (by elimination, as it wasn’t from his brothers). This confirmed the Anglés brothers had been in the shed but did not prove that the victims had been there, since no trace of the girls was found. It’s important to note that the Anglés family knew the area well and admitted to using the shed for other activities, complicating efforts to connect those traces specifically to the crime. Meanwhile, the Opel Corsa used by Ricart to abduct the girls was also examined. Very little evidence was found in the car: only a single hair belonging to Miguel Ricart himself. No traces from the teenagers were detected in the vehicle, which could be explained by the fact that the crime occurred in a rural setting where the bodies were not returned to the car after being buried. In summary, the official forensic evidence supported the involvement of Miguel Ricart and Antonio Anglés in the violent crime (based on their confessions, the presence of bodily fluids and objects linked to them, etc.) but left certain loose ends: there were signs suggesting other people may have been involved (e.g., unidentified hairs, Ricart’s comments about someone called “Nano”), unanswered questions about exactly where the torture took place (since the shed showed no traces of the girls), and when the bodies were buried (due to possible discrepancies in the entomological evidence). These gray areas in the investigation helped fuel unofficial theories that challenged the official account of events.

Trial & Legal Aftermath

The trial for the Alcàsser crime took place in 1997, drawing intense media coverage and public attention. As noted, only Miguel Ricart stood trial, since Antonio Anglés was never captured. During the proceedings, the prosecution built its case on Ricart’s initial confession, the collected forensic evidence, and various witness testimonies, while Ricart’s defense tried to withdraw his self-incriminating statements and cast doubt on police conduct. Ricart testified in court that the Civil Guard had mistreated him to force his confession, alleging both physical and psychological torture after his arrest. However, a forensic doctor who examined him at the time testified that Ricart showed no injuries consistent with abuse, contradicting his claims. Ricart also maintained during the trial that other individuals had participated in the crime, though he offered vague or inconsistent details about them. These generic allegations could not be substantiated with evidence, beyond investigative leads already exhausted (such as the line of inquiry involving Mauricio Anglés, which had been dismissed). The trial’s most dramatic moment was the confrontation between the forensic experts: Luis Frontela versus the official Valencia team. Called to confirm his second report, Frontela stood by his doubts about aspects of the investigation—such as the possibility of additional attackers and potential flaws in the recovery of the bodies—which the Valencia Institute’s forensic team rebutted point by point. This technical dispute caused some media confusion, but ultimately the court weighed most of the evidence in line with the prosecution’s case. The guilty verdict was delivered on September 5, 1997. The Provincial Court of Valencia found it proven that Miguel Ricart, together with Antonio Anglés (a fugitive), kidnapped, raped, and murdered Míriam, Toñi, and Desirée on the night of November 13–14, 1992. Ricart was sentenced to 170 years in prison (40 years per victim plus additional time for other crimes), although under Spanish law at the time his maximum effective sentence was capped at 30 years. The verdict—which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1999—reaffirmed that Antonio Anglés was a co-perpetrator and the principal offender, though untried because of his escape. Interestingly, the judges noted in writing that “possibly some other person” may have participated alongside Anglés and Ricart, reflecting that even the court did not completely rule out the presence of an unidentified third accomplice. As for Antonio Anglés, he has been subject to an international arrest warrant since 1993 for the charged crimes. His case became one of Interpol’s longest-running manhunts. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, there were numerous false leads and failed investigations—from the aforementioned skull found in Ireland (1995) that was tested without success, to supposed sightings in various American countries. Officially, Anglés has never been found alive or dead, and under Spanish law the statute of limitations for murder does not expire until at least 20 years after the fugitive reaches adulthood (in his case, 2029)—a period that could be extended—meaning the case against him remains open in a separate file. In 2020–2021, Spanish authorities renewed efforts to clarify his possible fate, including the request to Irish authorities for documents from the ship where he was last seen.

On the other hand, the early release of Miguel Ricart in 2013 sparked significant public controversy. Ricart was freed after serving 21 years, benefiting from the annulment of the Parot Doctrine by the European Court of Human Rights, which required the shortening of many sentences that had been artificially extended. Upon his release, Ricart—the only person convicted in the case—had to establish residence outside Valencia for his own safety, and he has maintained a low profile ever since. His release reignited debate about whether justice was truly served in this case and, for some, fueled conspiracy theories by creating the perception that such a heinous crime went practically unpunished. In the Valencian community, the impact of the case led to legal changes and improvements in protocols: procedures for searching for missing persons and assisting victims were reviewed and updated. However, the Alcàsser Case remains in the collective memory as a painful file, with one convicted perpetrator but unresolved mysteries. This gap between judicial truth and public doubt has given rise to various alternative theories, which are examined in the next section.

Conspiracy Theories

Almost from the moment the official trial concluded in 1997, alternative versions began to circulate that questioned the explanation offered by the authorities. Initially driven by the father of one of the victims and a crime journalist, these conspiracy theories suggest that the Alcàsser crime was not simply the work of Ricart and Anglés alone, but hid something far darker: the involvement of powerful individuals in a sadistic network, covered up through a police-orchestrated setup. Below are the main unofficial theories—from the most well-known to some lesser-known ones—that have surrounded the case.

The Snuff Film Conspiracy

The main alternative theory was championed by Fernando García, Míriam’s father, along with criminologist and journalist Juan Ignacio Blanco. Both were frustrated with what they saw as serious shortcomings in the official investigation and began publicly arguing that the real story was very different. According to this widely circulated conspiracy theory—especially in the media during 1997—Ricart and Anglés were actually **“pawns” in a macabre scheme orchestrated by a high-level criminal organization. The true perpetrators were said to be individuals with significant political and economic power who kidnapped the girls to produce snuff films (underground recordings of real torture and murder) for their own sadistic enjoyment or for depraved circles. This supposed “plot” would have had the resources to cover up the crime and shift the blame onto two low-level criminals (Anglés and Ricart).

Blanco and García argued that the official version was a deliberate cover-up. They claimed that Miguel Ricart’s role was limited to burying the bodies after the girls had been killed (making him a secondary accomplice), while Antonio Anglés had been eliminated by the true perpetrators to silence him. According to this theory, after being abducted in Alcàsser, the girls were allegedly held alive for weeks in various locations (up to four sites between Madrid and Segovia were mentioned) where they were repeatedly abused before finally being murdered and buried. They even suggested the bodies were initially buried elsewhere and then reburied at La Romana shortly before being discovered to confuse the estimated time of death. To support these extraordinary claims, García and Blanco cited several clues and supposed evidence they believed the official investigation had overlooked or deliberately ignored. Among the central arguments of their theory (summarized by Blanco as his “four pillars”) were: • Hairs from multiple individuals: They emphasized the importance of the hairs found by Frontela in the carpet that covered the bodies. As noted, the independent forensic report detected hairs from up to 7 or 8 different people, none matching Anglés or Ricart. For García and Blanco, this demonstrated the presence of several additional attackers in the crime (they spoke of a "many-tentacled octopus"). They lamented that investigators didn’t pursue identifying these individuals via DNA—remember, Frontela was blocked from completing that analysis—and suggested the Civil Guard deliberately ignored this inconvenient lead. • Possible movement of the bodies and dates of death: Blanco highlighted certain post-mortem injuries and entomological data indicating the girls hadn’t been buried for the entire 75 days they were missing. For example, he pointed out there was no soil in their lungs (which they might have inhaled if buried alive, though this is speculative), or that the larvae found matched a shorter period of decomposition. All this suggested the victims may have been kept alive for a considerable time after their disappearance and only buried in La Romana well after November 1992. They also argued that certain injuries seemed to have been inflicted post-mortem, possibly while moving the bodies. • Strange object found in a body: They cited the discovery of the Caravaca cross inside one of the girls’ bodies. According to the conspiracy narrative, this amulet might have been intentionally placed there by the real killers (as a macabre signature or ritual), since it supposedly didn’t belong to any of the girls. The fact it wasn’t discovered during the first autopsy also raised their suspicions. • Existence of a snuff film: This was perhaps the most lurid claim. Juan Ignacio Blanco publicly stated he possessed a video proving the theory: an alleged tape showing one of the teenage girls still alive, tied to a stretcher, surrounded by several hooded men torturing her. According to Blanco, this tape (and supposedly others) revealed the true horror the girls suffered at the hands of influential individuals. He even claimed to have given a copy to the Ministry of the Interior without getting any response. In his account, the tape arrived anonymously: days after it reached Alcàsser, the local priest supposedly summoned the father to the church at midnight and handed him an envelope with a VHS tape that he, his brother, and Blanco watched in private. In the key scene, according to Blanco, Míriam and Desirée appeared dying on stretchers while several men (some recognizable, allegedly of high social standing) cut them with scalpels. This alleged snuff video—which was never shown to anyone else—became the Holy Grail of the conspiracy theory. Armed with these claims, Fernando García and J.I. Blanco toured TV and radio studios in 1997, spreading their alternative theory. They did so mainly on the national late-night show “Esta noche cruzamos el Mississippi” on Telecinco, hosted by Pepe Navarro, and on the daily special “El Juí d’Alcàsser” on Canal 9 (Valencian television), which aired alongside the trial. Their appearances drew huge audiences but also criticism for the seriousness of their accusations without solid evidence. On January 29, 1997, in a sensational twist, García and Blanco even went so far as to name three people live on air whom they accused of being part of the supposed snuff network and responsible for the crime. They singled out three prominent figures (whom they called the “Clan de la Moraleja”): former civil governor of Alicante Alfonso Calvé, film producer José Luis Bermúdez de Castro, and former Telefónica president Luis Solana. Coincidentally, all three had ties to the ruling party (PSOE) at the time of the crime. Without presenting any concrete evidence, they implicated them in this criminal network. This public, on-air accusation was extremely serious—in fact, it constituted criminal defamation. In the following days, those named flatly denied any involvement; two of them took the matter to court.

Weeks later, it emerged that their explicit accusation had been instigated through deception. In May 1997, the magazine *Interviú* published an investigation revealing that García and Blanco had been manipulated: a former business partner with a grudge against Calvé, Solana, and Bermúdez had fed them false information to incriminate them, motivated by unrelated business rivalries. In other words, the story of the “Clan de la Moraleja” had originally been a fabricated hoax designed to discredit those men, which found a platform thanks to Blanco’s credulity and García’s grief. After this was exposed, Pepe Navarro (host of *Mississippi*) publicly apologized, admitting that his program had made a serious mistake. In fact, in 2001 Navarro reached a million-euro settlement with the three falsely accused men to avoid a defamation trial. Fernando García and Juan Ignacio Blanco, however, were prosecuted and convicted of slander: although they retracted their claims and apologized, in 1999 they were sentenced (a ruling upheld in 2001) to penalties that included prison for Blanco (2 years) and heavy fines and compensation for both. Years later, in 2009, they were convicted again for defamation against investigators and authorities (see below). These legal actions severely damaged the credibility of the conspiracy theory by showing that many of its accusations were unfounded and reckless. As for the infamous “snuff tape,” no proof of its existence has ever been produced. Juan Ignacio Blanco consistently refused to show the alleged video to journalists or courts, citing ethical or safety reasons, which made it impossible to verify its authenticity. The parish priest in Alcàsser who was implicated categorically denied ever handing any tape to García, and Fernando García himself at one point denied ever seeing such a video. (Curiously, after years of denying it, García changed his version following Blanco’s death: in a 2019 interview he hinted that he had indeed held the tape in his hands but “never watched it,” adding even more confusion). Ultimately, the existence of these supposed recordings is highly doubtful—no copy or trace has ever surfaced—and many consider it a fraud by Blanco to sustain his sensationalist narrative.

Media Frenzy

The Alcàsser conspiracy theory received enormous media attention in 1997. The country, still reeling from the crime, witnessed a sort of “second trial” in the media, filled with accusations of cover-ups, mysterious clues, and shocking revelations. This phenomenon set a precedent in Spain for discussions about the limits of sensationalism. Some journalists described it as an episode of “trash journalism,” where morbid fascination and conspiracy took precedence over ethical reporting. There were special TV programs, newspaper front pages with outlandish theories, and radio talk shows feeding suspicions against politicians, police, judges, and others. Among the most incredible stories was a fake interview with Antonio Anglés in Brazil (orchestrated in 1997 by lawyer Emilio Rodríguez Menéndez using a lookalike), which ran on the front page of *Ya* newspaper for days. It was later revealed to be another deceptive hoax, highlighting the climate of gullibility and tabloid sensationalism surrounding the case. The consequences for those who promoted the alternative theory were severe in legal terms. We already mentioned the slander convictions over the “Clan de la Moraleja” accusations. But there was more: during the actual 1997 trial, Canal 9 aired a daily program (*El Juí d’Alcàsser*) where Fernando García and J.I. Blanco commented on the trial proceedings. On that show they made very serious accusations against nearly everyone: they accused the Civil Guard officers who recovered the bodies of “doctoring” (altering) crime-scene photos, insinuating a cover-up; they called the official forensic doctors liars and publicly labeled them “incompetents” and “comic-book characters”; they described the case’s prosecutor, Enrique Beltrán, as doing a poor job and “senile” (insinuating incompetence). These repeated defamatory remarks on television led a judge in 2009 to convict Fernando García and Juan Ignacio Blanco of continuous aggravated defamation with public dissemination: García had to pay €270,000 in damages and a fine, while Blanco received an additional 2-year prison sentence and €260,000 in damages. Radiotelevisión Valenciana itself was declared civilly liable for airing the defamatory content. Moreover, Blanco continued making reckless claims in later years: in 1997 he accused, without evidence, Prosecutor Beltrán and then–Interior Minister José L. Corcuera of ordering flawed autopsies to cover for the real killers—a claim that earned him another defamation conviction in 2000, with a fine of 945,000 pesetas and compensation to the prosecutor. In short, García and Blanco’s media crusade ended discredited, burdened by a series of legal actions against them. Over time, the conspiracy theory lost public traction, especially after 2000. Juan Ignacio Blanco withdrew from public life (he died in 2019), and Fernando García also stopped making frequent appearances. Nonetheless, many people remained convinced that “the whole truth was never told” about the case. In Spain’s collective memory, the idea of a conspiracy in Alcàsser persisted. Even today, references to the “Alcàsser snuff tape” or the “Clan de la Moraleja” periodically pop up in forums and social media, despite having been thoroughly debunked and lacking any real evidence. In 2019, the release of a Netflix documentary series (*El caso Alcàsser*) reignited general interest in the case, offering a historical perspective on both the official version and the conspiracy phenomenon. The documentary revisited how the alternative theory took hold in 1990s society and examined the controversial figure of Juan Ignacio Blanco, his claims, and the absence of proof. Afterward, some media outlets revisited the topic, and even new speculations emerged. For example, in 2020, the program *Cuarto Milenio* featured experts who again questioned whether Ricart and Anglés were solely responsible, noting that their criminal profiles didn’t fit such a sadistic act (they lacked prior violent sexual offenses and would have suddenly committed an unusually cruel crime). It was suggested once more that other perpetrators more accustomed to sexual violence might have been involved. Forensic psychiatrist José Miguel Gaona, on that show, revived the hypothesis that there could have been “different levels of participation in the Alcàsser shed: those who did the acts and those who watched,” alluding again to the snuff-film angle. While Gaona admitted there was no empirical proof and such scenarios are not the norm, he concluded that from a forensic-psychiatric perspective it wasn’t impossible that the official version was incomplete. Comments like these keep the conspiracy narrative alive for some of the public, even though they remain essentially speculative.

Dr. Frontela's "Third Theory"

An alternative viewpoint—distinct from the far-fetched conspiracy theories but still critical of the official version—is the one held by Dr. Luis Frontela, the forensic pathologist who conducted the second autopsy. With his scientific authority, Frontela has proposed what he calls a “third way” to explain the Alcàsser case. In essence, Frontela does not believe in the supposed network of powerful, sadistic politicians—he has explicitly stated he sees no involvement from “high-level circles” in the girls’ murders—but he also does not fully accept the official version that only Anglés and Ricart were responsible and that Antonio simply escaped forever. For Frontela, the irregularities he identified point to the involvement of additional attackers and to the possibility that Antonio Anglés “didn’t really get away” from justice. What does this mean? In statements he made in 2019 (after years of public silence), Frontela suggested that Anglés “knew too much” and therefore never actually left Spain. He implied between the lines that Antonio Anglés may have been physically eliminated by others within Spain rather than being a fugitive abroad as is commonly believed. This hypothesis aligns with the idea of more local accomplices, possibly people from Anglés’s criminal circle, who might have killed him to keep him quiet. In other words, Frontela’s third way envisions a conspiracy, but on a smaller scale (not involving politicians or businessmen, but criminal associates), combined with serious errors in the official investigation. Frontela has supported his stance by pointing to several elements already mentioned: the hairs from up to eight different people found in the carpet (which he considers clear evidence of multiple perpetrators); failures in evidence handling (he reported that when he received the carpet for analysis, pieces had been removed); the lack of photographs during the exhumation (making it impossible to verify body positions); and especially the complete absence of traces in the La Romana shed—something he says is impossible if what was claimed actually happened there. For Frontela, all of this increases doubts about where and how the murders really took place. In September 2019, Frontela publicly declared that as a result of his “advanced investigations,” he was considering this third-way hypothesis and that his conclusion was clear: Antonio Anglés did not leave Spain alive. Without giving explicit details (he mentioned the matter was under judicial review), he hinted that Anglés had been silenced. Nevertheless, Frontela has been careful not to suggest any fantastical high-level conspiracies. He has reiterated that in his view, there were no powerful interests involved in the crime beyond the incompetence or negligence of certain investigators. In other words, his theory does not implicate the so-called “Clan de la Moraleja” or any external figures, but suggests that in addition to Ricart and Anglés, there were other local attackers—and that these same people may have been responsible for making Anglés disappear. Frontela’s statements caused a stir and found some support among those who distrusted the official version but did not buy into the extravagant conspiracy theories. In fact, his hypotheses contributed to a judge in 2020 formally reopening certain investigative steps (such as taking testimony from the City of Plymouth’s captain, reanalyzing bones, etc.) in search of the truth about Anglés. The “third way” can be summarized as follows: Anglés and Ricart participated in the crime, but they didn’t act alone; there were other local accomplices involved, and it’s possible Anglés was killed by them as part of the cover-up. Although there is still no definitive evidence to confirm this, Frontela’s perspective keeps the debate alive.

Current Status