Spain - Sheila Barrero Fernandez, 22, Degaña, 25 Jan 2004

[Kip]

I woke up this morning realizing that when I was puzzling over the one vs. two cars that the hunters may have seen, that I wasn't taking into account the fact that the hunters were only three minutes behind Sheila. That's a very short amount of time for someone to get Sheila to stop her car, go to Sheila's car and get into the back seat, shoot her, move her body to the passenger seat, and drive off before the hunters passed by - in which case the hunters would see only one car.

To me, it seems more likely that the hunters would have seen two cars. The killer is in the back seat and either still talking to Sheila, or has just shot her and hasn't yet moved the body.

The whole scenario still doesn't make sense to me. If it was Borja or someone else shewould stop her car for and would allow into her car, why wouldn't that person tell her they'd like to talk to her for a few minutes and have her follow them to the rest stop when her car was found? It's a very risky plan to shoot someone on a road where someone might pass by at any time, and risky to leave one's car partially on the road where someone might recognize it or make note of the license number.

 

[Muy Curioso]

Consider the situation. If hunters saw two cars it means that another car passed the Peugot 206 of Sheila and made her stop (as detectives suppose) or that there was a car stopped and made stop Sheila with a trick, perhaps asking for help.

But if they saw two cars it means that the crime was still in its first phase. Perhaps the murderer (or murderers) had killed Sheila, but were still in the middle of the road. So, why take Sheila´s car to the car park?

Doing so means losing time and risk being seen by someone. The only reason is to try to delay someone finds Sheila and call the police. But if hunters saw two cars, the killer had to be in one, and had to watch the car of hunters. We know they did not call the police, but how could the killer know that?

Once the car of the hunter had passed, the killer had to assume that they were making a phone call warning about two cars stopped in the middle of the road. So, why not drop everything and leave in a hurry? Not only he did not, but used a few minutes to bring Sheila´s car to the parking, leaving his own in the road.

And not only that. He lost more time placing the body in driver´s position. At that time, he had to assume that the Guardia Civil would be on the way. So I do not understand. And so I guess, against all evidence, that they only saw one stopped car in the middle of the road.

 

[Kip]

Good point about the killer being worried about the passing car calling the police.

But if the hunters were indeed only 3 minutes behind Sheila, I still find it hard to believe what the killer accomplished in 3 minutes. The killer is presumably parked on the side of the road. Sheila's car passes by and the killer pulls out onto the road, speeds up, passes Sheila's car, and slows down forcing her to stop. He gets out of his car, walks to Sheila's car, gets into her back seat, and shoots her. He then moves her body to the passenger seat and drives off. All this in 3 minutes!!! (If the killer was stopped on the road and was waiting to flag down Sheila, that would give the killer a bit more time but, IMO, would still be hard to do all that in 3 min.)

So much about the presumed killing of Sheila on the road makes no sense to me. It seems like a very poor plan. Even though there isn't much traffic on the road, one never knows when someone might pass by or approach from behind. And once Sheila is shot, why not leave her there? Moving her body might delay the discovery of the crime, but it also increases your risk of being caught: a) someone might see you moving the body; b) someone might pull into the rest stop as you are there; c) you get DNA and fiber evidence from Sheila on your body and clothing as you move her; and d) you leave your car unattended on the road, partially blocking a lane where a passing driver might see it and report it or make note of the license #.

My assessment of the killer: not very intelligent, but very lucky.

 

[Muy Curioso]

That is why one car fits better than two, in my opinion. Assuming a single car, it could mean that the car of the killer was parked, and it would explain why the drove the car of the victim to the parking. But almost everyone is talking about two cars ...

It puzzles me.


Something really surprising in this case is that Guardia Civil is not investigating it, when they have unidentified DNA profiles. Only the DNA of ten people was analyzed ! As suspect's DNA did not match, they decided to look no further.

 

[ZaZara]

On youtube, there is a program about Sheila that aired around the 8th anniversary of her murder. It's in Spanish. I can't understand very much of it, but it's interesting to see where Sheila worked, the road she drove on, and where her car was found. The first part is background on the case; then there's a long interview with (I think) her mother.

[video=youtube;oSDCeIxQAw4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSDCeIxQAw4[/video]

I have been watching part of the video ~ still have to finish it, if and when I manage.

I cannot believe that a woman like Sheila would be interested in a boy like Borja. He is seen in the video at 4.00 minutes.
WHAT was the attraction? If she wanted to make her previous boyfriend jealous, this is NOT how you do that! What was going on between those two? This is so odd. IMHO if there was indeed something between them, it was a deal or something and not about love or attraction.


The other thing that I find strange is the window of opportunity.
Sheila got her car back at 3 o'clock in the morning.
Up to that moment, anyone in her surroundings might have supposed that she would either stay with her brother, or drive home with someone else. The way I understand it, Sheila also would stay with her brother when she was tired even if she had the car. So you cannot really count on Sheila driving at that spot at that time anyway.
For an acquaintance with bad intentions there would be no reason to lay in waiting near the top of the mountain.
However, this changes AFTER 3 o'clock AM, but even then the perp cannot be sure that she will be there.

If they were following her from Villablino, what did they do when Sheila and her friends stopped near the bridge of Caboalles?
If they were waiting for her in some corner and followed her as soon as she passed - Sheila was a fast driver, the morning was not very clear. If she passes by with 70, 80 km / hr and someone wants to overtake her, even if they have the engine running (since how long?) they would have to get away from their spot and drive even faster.

Why wouldn't Sheila drive faster if this was possible on that stretch of the road?

 

[Muy Curioso]

I have seen a few girls reacting the same as Sheila. They spent several years with a boyfriend (I think she started very young with Teo), and suddenly they broken. In this case she found he had cheated on her and left him. And then the girl has a crazy season, and makes some stupid things. It can take months, or a year or two, until she settles down.

It seems that Borja had the gift of the gab, and liked the girls. She took a fancy, but the relationship was quite superficial, and they did not even have sex. Three weekends, maybe an hour or two together every time, some kissing and little else. Then he left her, and she certainly humiliated, tried to change his mind. But that lasted a week. And then, nothing. Each one with his own life.

I agree fully and completely all your thoughts on the window of opportunity.

The other thing that I find strange is the window of opportunity.
Sheila got her car back at 3 o'clock in the morning.
Up to that moment, anyone in her surroundings might have supposed that she would either stay with her brother, or drive home with someone else. The way I understand it, Sheila also would stay with her brother when she was tired even if she had the car. So you cannot really count on Sheila driving at that spot at that time anyway.

It can not be explained better.

For an acquaintance with bad intentions there would be no reason to lay in waiting near the top of the mountain.
However, this changes AFTER 3 o'clock AM, but even then the perp cannot be sure that she will be there.

Right. She could decide at any time to stay at his brother´s house. She had keys and a room. Only depended on her.

If they were following her from Villablino, what did they do when Sheila and her friends stopped near the bridge of Caboalles?


Nowhere to hide. Look at this picture. She turned to the left, while his friends turned to the right.


If they were waiting for her in some corner and followed her as soon as she passed - Sheila was a fast driver, the morning was not very clear. If she passes by with 70, 80 km / hr and someone wants to overtake her, even if they have the engine running (since how long?) they would have to get away from their spot and drive even faster.
Why wouldn't Sheila drive faster if this was possible on that stretch of the road?

A mountain road with many curves, night, rain, no lights on the road and almost no visibility. Forward and force stop someone who drives fast in those circumstances is for a movie specialist. If someone tries it, the most likely is an accident.

Another important thing. When Sheila does not stay at his brother home, or was leaving with her boyfriend or a friend, she was always accompanied by a female friend of Degaña. That weekend she was at home, sick. In other words, very rarely (if ever) returned home alone.

 

[Kip]

I have been watching part of the video ~ still have to finish it, if and when I manage.

I cannot believe that a woman like Sheila would be interested in a boy like Borja. He is seen in the video at 4.00 minutes.
WHAT was the attraction? If she wanted to make her previous boyfriend jealous, this is NOT how you do that! ....

I'm not sure that is the same Borja. The name of the one at the 4 min mark is Borja Arroya; I think Borja Vidal is the name of the POI.

I agree with you about the timing and the difficulty of knowing when Sheila would leave - and even IF she would be driving home.

 

[Muy Curioso]

I'm not sure that is the same Borja. The name of the one at the 4 min mark is Borja Arroya; I think Borja Vidal is the name of the POI.

I agree with you about the timing and the difficulty of knowing when Sheila would leave - and even IF she would be driving home.

My mistake. I had not even looked at the video. Of course, he is not the suspect. This is Borja Arroyo, the DJ of the pub. Tonight I will upload some pictures of Borja Vidal.

 

[Muy Curioso]

http://www.elcomercio.es/gijon/20070914/local/asturias/familia-sheila-confia-prueba-200709141958.html

There are few photos, and with poor quality. This is from 2007, three years after the crime. I will try to upload more.

 

[ebfortin76]

Very interesting case. I've been reading all the writing here. Thanks Muy for bringing it up.

My question is about the way she was shot. You showed pictures, it was determined that the guy must have been left handed. And so on. But my question is this: why shoot her like that? If I was someone with intention from the get go to shoot her, and I was in the back seat, do I find a way to odly position myself to shoot her in the back of the head? Or do I just reach around the head rest and shoot her on the side of the head? The second option, to me, is a lot easier to accomplish and more, let's say, "natural". So why this strange shot position?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[ZaZara]

http://www.elcomercio.es/gijon/20070914/local/asturias/familia-sheila-confia-prueba-200709141958.html

There are few photos, and with poor quality. This is from 2007, three years after the crime. I will try to upload more.

Thank you. That is quite a different person, although he must have looked considerably younger at the time and before the facts.
As for the motive ~ he would have been afraid that Sheila would tell his GF from Barcelona ~ this seems a bit thin IMHO. Killing someone after an alleged relationship of a few hours during 3 weekends because your GF will be coming over is so extreme. Planning that killing and making a 'scene' out of it is even more extreme.
And all because another GF was coming to visit?

It makes one wonder what kind of person this Borja is, and what really happened or did not happen between Sheila and Borja during those 3 weekends.

http://www.diariodeleon.es/noticias...ja-vidal-sospechoso-crimen-sheila_149283.html from 29 / 07 / 2004

The Judicial Police of the Guardia Civíl still considers the young Borja Vidal as the main suspect in the murder of Sheila Barrero. The young woman from the Asturian town of Degaña was killed at dawn on January 25 at the top of La Collada while returning home after working in a pub in Villablino. Despite the order made on Monday by the head of the Magistrate's Court in the Asturian town of Cangas del Narcea, who set free on bail the young man from Villager de Laciana arrested by the Civil Guard on Friday, sources with direct access to the files and the investigation have assured this newspaper that the evidence brought before the judge links the young man on bail directly with the murder weapon, a pistol of 6.35 mm. According to the sources, the test would have been "objective". According to these data, the test of the gunpowder residue would completely rule out that the remains found on the young man correspond to a shotgun, "because a shotgun blast would leave gunpowder residue on parts of the face or shoulders, and on this guy it was located in the thumb and forefinger, as reflected in the summary. " Sources also assured that the chemicals are different from those of a hunting weapon, and also "correspond to the shell that was located in the interior of the vehicle of the young woman." Similarly, the investigation insists that they ruled that the young man has been accompanied by members of his family throughout the weekend, as his own relatives have repeatedly testified, and insists that the boy slept alone at home that night, so in the views of the Civil Guard this would be considered more evidence in favor of the investigations that remain open.

BBM

 

[Muy Curioso]

Very interesting case. I've been reading all the writing here. Thanks Muy for bringing it up.

My question is about the way she was shot. You showed pictures, it was determined that the guy must have been left handed. And so on. But my question is this: why shoot her like that? If I was someone with intention from the get go to shoot her, and I was in the back seat, do I find a way to odly position myself to shoot her in the back of the head? Or do I just reach around the head rest and shoot her on the side of the head? The second option, to me, is a lot easier to accomplish and more, let's say, "natural". So why this strange shot position?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

It was not determined that the guy must have been left handed. Indeed, the two options are possible. But the murderer is always pictured shooting with the right hand, and I'm sure it's because gunshot residues were found in the right hand of Borja. Once in the back seat, there were not so many options to shoot. Anyway, I'll write about it later, because there is something very interesting about the position of the killer.

 

[ebfortin76]

It was not determined that the guy must have been left handed. Indeed, the two options are possible. But the murderer is always pictured shooting with the right hand, and I'm sure it's because gunshot residues were found in the right hand of Borja. Once in the back seat, there were not so many options to shoot. Anyway, I'll write about it later, because there is something very interesting about the position of the killer.

Left handed or right handed, the strange position the killer would have to take vs just doing the easy thing of shooting her on the side of the head, around the head rest, makes me wonder what really happened in that car.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Muy Curioso]

Thank you. That is quite a different person, although he must have looked considerably younger at the time and before the facts.
As for the motive ~ he would have been afraid that Sheila would tell his GF from Barcelona ~ this seems a bit thin IMHO. Killing someone after an alleged relationship of a few hours during 3 weekends because your GF will be coming over is so extreme. Planning that killing and making a 'scene' out of it is even more extreme.
And all because another GF was coming to visit?

It makes one wonder what kind of person this Borja is, and what really happened or did not happen between Sheila and Borja during those 3 weekends.

http://www.diariodeleon.es/noticias...ja-vidal-sospechoso-crimen-sheila_149283.html from 29 / 07 / 2004


BBM

But the judges did not consider important the results of GSR test. They ordered some reports and reached two conclusions:

- It can not be established a direct relationship between the GSR and the cartridge found in the car.

- The time elapsed between the shot and the GSR test makes it almost certain that the residues found in the hand of the suspect are result of a transfer or contamination.

The samples were recolected about 33 hours after the murder. That is out of all protocols. It is almost impossible for GSR to remain after so long in the hand of the killer. The murderer would have washed his hands repeatedly, take a shower, or more ... Especially because when handling the body of Sheila, it is almost certain to get his hands blood stained.

What it means is that although Borja had shot Sheila, the residues found not correspond to that shot. It is almost certain that there was contamination or transfer, and I think I know how it could happen.

As for Borja´s alibi, it seems that the detectives did not attempt to check it until several months after the crime, and could find no indication that his parents and his brother were not at home that night. The big question is: Why did not they tried to verify the alibi a week after the crime, when they received the results of GSR test?

They say: We were unable to prove they were at home (the parents) or that they were not. But keep in mind an important factor, Borja said from the beginning that he had been at home with his parents that night. If it had been a lie, it would have been easy to prove those early days.


The motive. The problem of the investigation of this crime is that detectives first deduced the model of crime, and then looked for who best fit that model. They concluded that it had to be someone close to the victim, with any relationship, and that quickly left only two suspects. A few weeks after the crime, the Civil Guard only had two suspects: Borja and Teo. They had more against Borja than against Teo, so they went for him.

No evidence, no motive. Nothing. But he was the one who best fit their model. I think they made a mistake. And it was not the first mistake of this group of detectives. They had committed a very serious one little earlier. In fact, during the investigation of this case, there were media coverage of the mistake in that other case, and I think that saved Borja.

 

[Muy Curioso]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanninkhof_case

Four years before the murder of Sheila, detectives of the UCO committed a serious error. Very serious. They put a suspect in their model of the crime, without evidence and without motive, and convinced judges, prosecutor and jury, that trusted on them. Detectives claimed to be convinced that Dolores Vázquez was the murder. The suspect was convicted and the real murderer killed again.

Shortly before the murder of Sheila, the error was exposed. And then the prosecutor and judges did not trusted more in the Civil Guard.

It came out in the press that the team was sent to investigate the case of Sheila was the one who had investigated the Rocio case. And if you look, investigations are alike as two drops of water.

 

[ZaZara]

Left handed or right handed, the strange position the killer would have to take vs just doing the easy thing of shooting her on the side of the head, around the head rest, makes me wonder what really happened in that car.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

The choice of the weapon is strange too.
A hunting rifle would be more logical, given the area. But I guess this would not fit in a small car ~ if you want to use it inside the car, I mean.

IMHO this points once again at premeditation and planning. Yet the perp could not count on Sheila being there at that moment.

 

[ZaZara]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanninkhof_case

Four years before the murder of Sheila, detectives of the UCO committed a serious error. Very serious. They put a suspect in their model of the crime, without evidence and without motive, and convinced judges, prosecutor and jury, that trusted on them. Detectives claimed to be convinced that Dolores Vázquez was the murder. The suspect was convicted and the real murderer killed again.

Shortly before the murder of Sheila, the error was exposed. And then the prosecutor and judges did not trusted more in the Civil Guard.

It came out in the press that the team was sent to investigate the case of Sheila was the one who had investigated the Rocio case. And if you look, investigations are alike as two drops of water.

I looked up the Dolores Vázquez case. Amazing that anyone might have seriously considered that a woman was responsible for the way in which that crime was committed.
The big difference is IMHO: did Sheila's killer strike again? Were there similar cases before or after her murder?

As for the Guardia Civíl, they may have been wrong about everything but still got the right man for all the wrong reasons. I know this does not stand in court


With the DNA that is available, they could start a forensic DNA family relationship analysis investigation among all males (?) between a certain age bracket who were living at the time in the (wider) area. Even if this does not yield a direct hit, it may reveal family members.
I do not know if this is allowed in Spain, but once it becomes available IMHO it may be very effective in Sheila's case.

 

[Muy Curioso]

I´d settle for DNA test on all friends and acquaintances of Sheila. Maybe 50 or 60, or a few more. They only did the DNA test to ten people. Why?

For me it is clear that once they found that the DNA did not match with Borja, they had no more interest in further testing. What would they do if they had found a positive? To recognize that they were wrong?

They are detectives that leave not unsolved cases. For them, this case, like the one of Rocio before, is solved. To continue making DNA tests could indicate that they are not sure who is guilty. As they have convinced the family of Sheila that Borja is to blame, they do not ask for more DNA analysis. Who asks for them? No one.

Now it's easy to say that Dolores Vázquez did not fit, but at that time almost everyone thought she was guilty. The only one who really thought she was innocent was his lawyer. 80% of people thought she was guilty, no doubt. Another 20% said she could be, but that there was no evidence, and that we could not condemn anyone without proof. But very few claimed her innocence. The Guardia Civil (and after the prosecution) had leaked partial and biased data, magnifying insignificant facts and hiding data that exonerated her. They invented hatred, exaggerated, convinced the mother of the victim (as in this case) that Dolores was the culprit, and used her as they wanted.


Look at the digital archive of newspapers articles of that time, and see how was the issue. Almost all trusted the Civil Guard, that they did not accuse anyone without good reason, and of course, they would not do anything doubtful. For many this case was a shock, the end of innocence.

The cases are not similar, so it looks the investigation. Another day I will show all the similarities. This two investigations seems original and photocopy.

 

[ebfortin76]

Anything new?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[ebfortin76]

Bump

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk