Criminologist: 'They are not killers' in Gata de Gorgos case

The criminologist who said 'they are not killers' after a bat attack

A 38-year-old man was beaten to death in Gata de Gorgos, an Alicante municipality of about 6,000 inhabitants. Three men, identified as Segarro nationals in circulating reports, were arrested for the attack. A criminologist appearing on a TV program made the statement that changed everything: "They did not have many resources because they used a simple baseball bat. They are not hitmen. They are not murderers."

A crime, a guest commentator qualifying the act, and an audience that could not believe it. The ensuing public debate has one virtue: it forces us to look squarely at how a homicide is reported when it does not fit the script. The question is not whether a baseball bat can kill. The question is who decides what to call the person who uses it.

What peine in the Gata de Gorgos crime
The facts, as they were disseminated: a 38-year-old male died after receiving multiple blows with a baseball bat. According to the strongest circulating version, the victim had intervened to defend his girlfriend. Three men were arrested, and the case was left to judicial investigation, with no known final resolution.

It is at this point, with the case file open, that the focus shifts from the courtroom to the studio. Because the controversy was not about the facts—few disputed them—but about the words used to describe them: 'aggressors,' 'suspects,' 'not murderers.' Each of these terms performs a different function before public opinion.

'They are not murderers': where the phrase comes from and what was said afterward
The statement was broadcast on television and is attributed to a criminologist, Carmen Corazzini. The most widely replicated sequence was an intervention emphasizing the lack of professional means—a bat, not a firearm—as an indicator that the perpetrators were not hitmen. 'They are not murderers,' she concluded. When another panelist reminded her that the result was a violent death, the response was a lexical nuance: that they were not killers.

There is something almost comical about that leap into English, and something very serious. From 'they did not want to do it' to 'they did not have a long incivil career,' a narrative is built, phrase by phrase, in which the outcome—a dead man—is reduced to collateral damage. The parallel launched in the debate was swift: if the lack of prior records and the absence of confessed intent lowered the qualification, several famous convictions for gang sensual assault would fall by themselves.

How the case was reported: archive footage and missing nationalities

Part of the indignation pointed to the media treatment. It was criticized that public television used archive footage from 21 years ago to illustrate the news, that it referred to 'aggressors' rather than alleged perpetrators of a homicide, and that the nationality of the suspects was omitted while any other detail was specified. There was also criticism that a medium had published the incident under an associated heading instead of its main newspaper, hiding behind an editorial decision: 'not to turn an anecdote into data.'

These criticisms are not neutral or casual. They define the framework. If the story is constructed with old images, soft verbs, and subjects without names, the conclusion the viewer reaches is already set. If, in addition, the only expert voice in the studio insists that the lack of resources explains the weapon, the conversation ceases to be about a murder and becomes about the circumstances of the alleged murderers.

Were the suspects released on bail?

According to reports circulating after the incident, two of those involved were released, in some cases without charges. There was no official confirmation of these details in available information. The practical consequence is that, while the case trinc its judicial course, the collective sensation is one of a system acting with a slowness that is confused with indulgence.

Here lies the core of the irritation. Not so much the phrase from a studio as the suspicion that words and decisions go in the same direction: softening the narrative and lightening the consequences. For part of public opinion, the release—if confirmed—would be proof of a double standard. Another part recalls that pretrial detention is an exceptional measure and that the investigation takes time. Both can be true at once, which comforts no one.

The crime enters politics

The case jumped to the partisan arena. The Socialists announced a hate crime complaint against Justice Minister Elisa Núñez (Vox) for statements deemed xenophobic regarding this crime, according to information published by Cadena SER. In parallel, and for different reasons, Junts demanded that Catalonia be excluded from the mandatory distribution of unaccompanied migrant minors among communities, with the argument—attributed—that this flow 'brings negative and dangerous consequences.'

Note the coincidence. The same incident is used to accuse of xenophobia those who point out nationalities and to build a discourse of closure at the border. One homicide, two political benefits and no explanation of what failed beforehand: who was in the country, in what administrative situation, and with what prior records, if any.

What remains of the case

The underlying debate is not whether a baseball bat is or is not a lethal weapon. It is, and anyone who has seen the scene knows it. The issue is language: with what words is the person who beats another to death described, and who has the authority to choose those words during prime time.

The most honest closing is the one left by the program itself: in the same space where it was discussed whether three men who beat a man to death are murderers, it ended up discussing the translation of the word killer. The corpse had no possible translation.