Amaia Salazar—Doctor San Martín: forensic collaborators

Amaia Salazar and Doctor San Martín’s forensic collaboration turns a resemblance between cases into a testable question, while preserving the distinction between a promising lead and proof. Amaia brings investigative needs and a specific cross-case hypothesis; San Martín examines the material, identifies what it can support, and makes the limits of his conclusions explicit. Their work shows how procedural cooperation can advance an inquiry without allowing visual similarity to stand in for verification.

Identity and Professional Roles

Amaia is the inspector directing the investigation, while Doctor San Martín is a forensic physician whose expertise she seeks when the case calls for examination of physical evidence. Their relationship is professional rather than personal in the supplied scenes: Amaia approaches him with a concrete request, acknowledges his attention to procedure, and explains how a forensic comparison could affect the next investigative step. His role is not simply to confirm her theory. He assesses the material independently and distinguishes what he can observe from what would require further testing.

The exchange is reciprocal in its practical purpose. Amaia needs findings that can support a request to Judge Markina for authorization to take further action; San Martín needs suitable evidence before he can make a stronger comparison. Her investigation supplies him with photographs of remains found in a cave near Elizondo, while his examination provides a route from those images toward a potential test involving the remains and the Johana Márquez case. The partnership therefore links field investigation, forensic interpretation, and judicial procedure.

From a Cross-Case Question to Forensic Examination

Amaia asks San Martín to compare the bone-cutting sections shown in photographs of remains recovered by the Guardia Civil. She is interested in whether those cuts might be related to the arm removal in the Johana Márquez case. The distinction matters to the investigation: a connection could give the judge grounds to authorize further steps, whereas a resemblance alone would leave the theory unconfirmed. Amaia makes clear that she hopes to bring something stronger than speculation to her meeting with him that afternoon.

San Martín examines the case material with a powerful lamp and magnification, and photographs the relevant mark. He describes a clean cut made after death and notes that the direction and character of the cut recall the Johana Márquez case. The earlier investigation had considered possible tools associated with the suspected father, but those comparisons produced no positive result. This history gives the new comparison investigative value, but it does not establish that the same tool—or the same person—was involved.

He identifies a further pattern: the cuts appear to have been made using the same technique, by a right-handed person, with comparable force and confidence. Yet he refuses to overstate what photographs can prove. The pictured bones belonged to adults, but their lack of tissue means that age cannot be determined by sight; nor can the images establish whether the cuts resulted from medical amputations or grave desecration. Although the forearm cuts look similar, he explains that a definitive comparison would require the tool or direct access to the bone, so that casts could be made, scanned, and overlaid.

The Value and Limits of a Physical Trace

A small fragment found during the examination changes the evidentiary position. San Martín recognizes it as a piece of bone detached during cutting, removes it with tweezers, and examines it under magnification. It proves to be a tooth from a metal saw. Repeating the tooth’s pattern could help identify the type of saw used in the amputation, giving the investigation a specific trace to compare rather than relying only on the broad appearance of the cuts.

The discovery strengthens the possibility of a comparison with the remains from the cave near Elizondo, but it does not itself settle that question. San Martín explains that Amaia’s ability to persuade Judge Markina will determine whether the investigation can proceed to tests establishing whether the same saw was used. He then returns to the autopsy. The sequence captures the division of their work: he isolates a forensic lead and defines the test it could support; she must translate that finding into an investigative and judicial next step.

Collaboration Within a Wider Evidentiary Inquiry

Other forensic findings in the investigation broaden the context without, on the available evidence, establishing that San Martín personally performed each analysis. One set of remains was assessed as belonging to a male newborn, approximately nine months prenatal or one month old, and dated to around 150 years earlier, with a five-year margin of error. A familial comparison showed a 25 percent correspondence with Amaia. These results demonstrate how separate forms of examination—age assessment, dating, and familial comparison—can redirect an inquiry, but they should not be conflated with San Martín’s specific tool-mark work.

The same restraint applies to the broader pattern of case-linking. A repeated cut can prompt comparison, and a recovered saw fragment can make a more precise test possible, but neither fact alone identifies an offender. San Martín’s cautious account makes the difference visible: photographs suggest similarity; shared technique narrows the question; a physical trace may permit closer comparison; only further testing can establish whether the evidence connects the cases. Amaia’s insistence on obtaining something usable for Judge Markina and San Martín’s insistence on evidentiary limits are complementary parts of the same process.

Their collaboration is significant because it advances the case through disciplined uncertainty rather than premature confirmation. Amaia recognizes which forensic question could unlock further investigative action, while San Martín identifies both the promise of the evidence and what remains unavailable. The relationship is thus defined by a working exchange between investigative urgency and scientific qualification: one turns a suspicion into a testable request, and the other makes clear what the test must establish.