Antonio Garrido—Beñat Zaldúa

The relationship between Antonio Garrido and Beñat Zaldúa is defined by Garrido’s exploitation of a maltreated boy and his attempt to turn that abuse toward violence against Beñat’s father. Garrido describes using Beñat in the nighttime desecration of a church, then names patricide as what the boy ought to do. Amaia Salazar responds not as though this were merely provocation: she sends officers to get Beñat out of the house before he might act on the suggestion.

Exploitation and the Church Desecrations

During his confrontation with Amaia, Garrido acknowledges that he used a poor, abused child to damage a church at night. His words make Beñat’s participation part of a relationship shaped by an imbalance of power: Garrido speaks of the boy as someone he could enlist, while Amaia calls attention to the abuse behind that enlistment. The episode does not establish what Beñat himself felt about the acts; Garrido claims that the boy liked them, but that is Garrido’s assertion, not independent confirmation.

Garrido’s remarks also shift from the desecrations to Beñat’s home life. He says the boy lacks the courage to do what he should, and, when Amaia asks him to specify, answers that Beñat should kill his father. This turns the earlier account of using Beñat against a church into something more immediate and dangerous: Garrido is not only describing past involvement but voicing a violent prescription concerning the boy’s family.

Amaia’s Intervention and Beñat’s Removal

Amaia treats Garrido’s statement as a warning that Beñat might gather the courage he supposedly lacks. She immediately calls Zabalza and directs him to take a patrol to Beñat’s home and remove the boy. Her instruction preserves the distinction between Garrido’s claim and a confirmed plan by Beñat: the urgent action is precautionary, based on the possibility that Garrido’s words could become a threat in practice.

Zabalza later reports that Beñat has been taken from the house with the help of social services. He has also spoken with a cousin in Pamplona who seems likely to take Beñat in. The reported outcome is therefore a separation from the immediate home situation and a possible family placement; the passage does not confirm whether the cousin ultimately assumes care, or what happens to Beñat afterward.

The Relationship’s Significance

The brief exchange reveals Garrido’s reach into Beñat’s life through two forms of pressure: he describes drawing the boy into church desecration and then directs him toward killing his father. The boy’s vulnerability is explicit in Amaia’s identification of him as maltreated, while Garrido’s claim that Beñat enjoyed the desecrations remains unverified. The contrast matters: Garrido presents participation as willing, but Amaia’s response foregrounds the danger of a child being used and further endangered by an adult’s influence.

The relationship is consequently conveyed less through Beñat’s own account than through Garrido’s words and the protective action they provoke. Amaia’s call converts a disturbing exchange into intervention, and Zabalza’s report gives that intervention a concrete consequence: Beñat is removed from home with social services. The evidence establishes neither the full history of Garrido’s influence nor Beñat’s response, but it does show how quickly Garrido’s suggestion of violence changes the practical stakes of their connection.