Huesca enters the investigation as a destination for urgent scientific collaboration. Amaia Salazar plans to travel there with Jonan Etxaide and case samples, hoping that researchers who study bears can help speed the work; the planned journey connects the murder inquiry to specialized expertise beyond the police laboratories.

Role in the Investigation

The trip is arranged while Amaia is pursuing similarities among cases of violence against women. In the Lucía Aguirre and Johana Márquez investigations, both victims’ forearms had been removed after death, while the men who confessed to killing them denied responsibility for the amputations. Amaia regards the repeated removal of the same limb as a distinctive feature that warrants comparison rather than an assumption that the confessed killers committed every part of the crimes.

The Planned Journey

Amaia tells Jonan to continue searching for parallels in other cases and to rest before their departure. She expects to collect him in Pamplona at about seven in the evening with the samples; the work is likely to keep them up all night. The bear researchers are expected to help accelerate the process, although the account does not specify precisely which tests they will perform in Huesca.

A related plan identifies an independent laboratory in Huesca as the destination for overnight analyses. Amaia says that she and her assistant will travel to Aínsa to guard the samples and expects results the following morning. The stated emphasis on accompanying and safeguarding the material makes the journey part of the investigation’s practical chain of custody, not simply a consultation.

Forensic Context and Limits

The surrounding inquiry relies on several different kinds of evidence, whose conclusions are not interchangeable. Examination of the amputated remains identifies clean, post-mortem cuts made with a toothed tool, but photographs alone cannot establish whether the bones came from amputations or disturbed graves; direct samples and comparison of tool marks would be needed. The planned work in Huesca belongs to this broader effort to accelerate analysis, but the evidence does not attribute every subsequent forensic result to a Huesca laboratory.

For example, tests on infant remains found a partial DNA correspondence with Amaia, and the results were repeated at laboratories in Zaragoza and San Sebastián. Separately, metal analysis linked the alloy and forging of a tooth embedded in Lucía Aguirre’s bone to an antique scalpel from Estella Sanatorium. These findings deepen the wider investigation, but they do not establish that either analysis took place in Huesca.

Narrative Significance

Huesca marks a point where the investigation seeks to overcome the delays and institutional divisions that have kept related clues apart. Amaia’s decision to travel overnight with the samples shows the urgency of testing the emerging connections, while the involvement of bear researchers and an independent laboratory underscores that the case requires expertise and comparisons beyond a single police team. The destination is therefore significant less as a developed setting than as a working link in the inquiry’s search for reliable, cross-case evidence.