Edurne Zabaleta

Edurne Zabaleta is the sister of a murdered woman whose forearm was removed after death. When Amaia Salazar questions her, Edurne’s account supplies both a close family perspective on the crime and a concrete detail relevant to the investigation’s emerging pattern of postmortem amputations.

Family Background

Edurne describes a family with roots in Baztán and ties to the Basque coast. Her mother came from Ziga, while her father belonged to a well-known business family in Neguri; her parents met when her mother visited Getxo on holiday.

Edurne’s sister was born in Baztán because their mother wanted to give birth at home. She had a difficult first labor there. When Edurne was born later, her mother gave birth in a hospital. The contrast places the sisters’ births in different settings and connects the murdered woman’s origins to the valley Amaia is investigating.

The Interview About Her Sister

Edurne comes to the meeting after being told that the police want to ask her about her sister’s murder. Her manner is polite and restrained, but her voice falters when she mentions the killing. She had not expected the crime to be revisited after so much time had passed.

Amaia asks whether the killer amputated a limb. Edurne confirms that the forensic examiner said the amputation took place after her sister was already dead. The timing is not merely a grisly detail: it distinguishes the removal from the act that killed her, and Edurne herself cannot make sense of why it happened.

Place in the Investigation

Edurne’s testimony concerns a case that Amaia is comparing with other murders of women by their partners. In the investigation, the removal of the same forearm after death recurs alongside similarities in the killers’ conduct after arrest, including suicides and messages left behind. Amaia regards the unusual precision of the amputations as a possible signature linking crimes that might otherwise look like separate cases of domestic violence.

The pattern is not presented as a simple match. Amaia’s wider review finds that many of the men had histories of violence, prolonged abuse, or substance use, while the case of Johana Márquez differs in important respects. That contrast makes the shared amputation an investigative clue rather than proof that every perpetrator fits one profile.

Significance

Edurne’s role is brief but consequential: she confirms that her sister’s arm was removed postmortem and conveys the family’s inability to understand the act. Her interview turns an abstract pattern into a detail attached to a particular victim and family. Through her, the inquiry’s effort to connect separate murders also exposes how such crimes could remain isolated in records and in public attention.