Spain is reeling after another devastating rail tragedy. At least 39 people were killed and more than 120 injured when a high-speed train derailed and collided with an oncoming train near Adamuz in southern Spain, marking the country’s worst railway accident in over a decade. As investigations begin, the incident has reopened painful memories of past disasters that left deep scars on the nation.

Here is a look at some of Spain’s deadliest train disasters over the past century.

Santiago de Compostela train crash (2013)

Spain’s most lethal rail accident in recent memory occurred near Santiago de Compostela in July 2013. A high-speed train derailed on a sharp curve, smashing into a concrete wall and catching fire.

The tragedy claimed 80 lives and injured 145 people. An official investigation found that excessive speed and driver distraction played a key role, though victims’ groups argued that inadequate safety systems also contributed.

Madrid commuter train bombings (2004)

On March 11, 2004, Spain witnessed one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in Europe. Ten backpack bombs exploded on four commuter trains during rush hour in Madrid.

The coordinated attacks killed 193 people and injured thousands. The bombings, carried out by Islamist extremists, were linked to Spain’s involvement in the Iraq war and fundamentally changed the country’s security landscape.

El Cuervo train collision (1972)

In 1972, a head-on collision on the Cadiz–Seville route near El Cuervo resulted in 86 deaths and more than 150 injuries.

Investigators concluded that the crash occurred after a driver failed to stop at a red signal, highlighting the dangers of human error in rail operations.

Urduliz rail accident (1970)

A fatal collision between two trains in Urduliz, near Bilbao, killed 33 people in the summer of 1970.

Initially, a stationmaster was blamed, but later findings revealed he had been working exhausting 16-hour shifts for several consecutive days, raising serious concerns about working conditions and fatigue.

Grisen train fire (1965)

In 1965, a passenger train on the Madrid–Barcelona line caught fire near Grisen.

Officials at the time reported 30 deaths, but later accounts suggested the toll may have been as high as 80. Under the Franco regime, details of the disaster were allegedly suppressed, leaving lingering uncertainty about the true scale of the tragedy.

Torre del Bierzo rail disaster (1944)

One of Spain’s deadliest and most controversial rail disasters occurred in 1944 in Torre del Bierzo.

A train travelling from Madrid to A Coruña suffered brake failure and collided with a locomotive inside a tunnel. Moments later, a third train crashed into the wreckage. Official figures cited 78 deaths, but censorship under dictator Francisco Franco has led historians to believe the actual toll may have been much higher.

A nation forced to remember

Each new rail disaster in Spain revives memories of these tragedies, underscoring the high cost of safety failures, human error, and, at times, political secrecy. As authorities investigate the latest crash near Adamuz, the hope is that lessons from the past will prevent history from repeating itself yet again.

The legal battle surrounding disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has taken another dramatic turn. His defense team is now pushing hard to undo his latest New York conviction, citing claims that a juror was pressured and bullied into delivering a guilty verdict — a move that could potentially reopen one of the most closely watched trials in modern American legal history.

In June, a 12-member jury in Manhattan convicted Weinstein on one count of a criminal sexual act in the first degree involving former Project Runway assistant Miriam Haley. The jury, however, acquitted him on a separate charge involving former model Kaja Sokola, and failed to reach a verdict on a third count of rape connected to aspiring actress Jessica Mann, leading to a mistrial on that charge.

A Juror’s Claim Sparks New Legal Strategy

Weinstein’s attorney, Arthur Aidala, says the verdict may have been compromised. According to Aidala, a juror approached his legal team moments after the verdict, alleging they were intimidated by fellow jurors and effectively coerced into voting guilty on the Haley charge.

“These are not small claims,” Aidala said in remarks to The Hollywood Reporter. “At the very least, we are asking the court to hold a hearing and hear this juror out.”

ALSO READ : “She Never Made It Out…” Albany House Fire Claims Woman’s Life as Family Pleads for Help to Bring Her Home

The defense formally moved to vacate the conviction in October, backing the request with sworn affidavits from two jurors. The motion argues that internal jury pressure crossed a legal line — a rare and difficult standard to prove, but one that can be explosive if accepted by the court.

Prosecutors Push Back Hard

Prosecutors have strongly opposed the request. In a November filing, they argued that juror testimony about internal deliberations cannot legally be used to overturn a verdict unless it involves extremely narrow exceptions, such as racial bias or improper outside influence — neither of which, they say, applies here.

“Juror testimony cannot, as a matter of law, be used to impeach a guilty verdict,” prosecutors wrote, emphasizing that tension, disagreement, or heated debate inside the jury room does not constitute misconduct under New York law.

They also stressed that the trial judge, Curtis Farber, addressed concerns promptly and thoroughly whenever they arose during the proceedings.

Earlier Jury Tensions Revisited

During the trial, the jury foreperson approached Judge Farber on two occasions. One concern involved jurors allegedly referencing Weinstein’s past conduct that was not entered into evidence. Another juror later said he overheard discussions about a fellow juror in courthouse elevators and questioned whether the deliberations were fair.

Judge Farber questioned the jurors both in open court and privately in chambers before determining there was no misconduct serious enough to halt the trial. Notably, the juror now cited in Aidala’s motion was not among those previously questioned.

What Happens Next

A hearing on the motion to vacate had been scheduled for this week but was postponed until early January due to unrelated court matters. At that hearing, Judge Farber could dismiss the motion outright, order a limited hearing with the juror, or move forward with preparations for a new rape trial related to Jessica Mann.

Meanwhile, Weinstein has yet to be sentenced on the June conviction. Since April 2024, he has been held at Rikers Island, following the overturning of his 2020 New York conviction. He has also spent time at Bellevue Hospital during the proceedings, as his legal team continues to cite serious health concerns.

According to Aidala, Weinstein is now “on the verge” of entering his seventh year behind bars when accounting for time already served — a grim milestone for the once-powerful studio executive whose downfall helped ignite the global #MeToo movement.

Whether these new juror intimidation claims gain legal traction or quietly fade away, they underscore one reality: even years after his initial conviction, Harvey Weinstein’s courtroom saga is far from over.

The legal battle surrounding disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein has taken another dramatic turn. His defense team is now pushing hard to undo his latest New York conviction, citing claims that a juror was pressured and bullied into delivering a guilty verdict — a move that could potentially reopen one of the most closely watched trials in modern American legal history.

In June, a 12-member jury in Manhattan convicted Weinstein on one count of a criminal sexual act in the first degree involving former Project Runway assistant Miriam Haley. The jury, however, acquitted him on a separate charge involving former model Kaja Sokola, and failed to reach a verdict on a third count of rape connected to aspiring actress Jessica Mann, leading to a mistrial on that charge.

A Juror’s Claim Sparks New Legal Strategy

Weinstein’s attorney, Arthur Aidala, says the verdict may have been compromised. According to Aidala, a juror approached his legal team moments after the verdict, alleging they were intimidated by fellow jurors and effectively coerced into voting guilty on the Haley charge.

“These are not small claims,” Aidala said in remarks to The Hollywood Reporter. “At the very least, we are asking the court to hold a hearing and hear this juror out.”

ALSO READ : “She Never Made It Out…” Albany House Fire Claims Woman’s Life as Family Pleads for Help to Bring Her Home

The defense formally moved to vacate the conviction in October, backing the request with sworn affidavits from two jurors. The motion argues that internal jury pressure crossed a legal line — a rare and difficult standard to prove, but one that can be explosive if accepted by the court.

Prosecutors Push Back Hard

Prosecutors have strongly opposed the request. In a November filing, they argued that juror testimony about internal deliberations cannot legally be used to overturn a verdict unless it involves extremely narrow exceptions, such as racial bias or improper outside influence — neither of which, they say, applies here.

“Juror testimony cannot, as a matter of law, be used to impeach a guilty verdict,” prosecutors wrote, emphasizing that tension, disagreement, or heated debate inside the jury room does not constitute misconduct under New York law.

They also stressed that the trial judge, Curtis Farber, addressed concerns promptly and thoroughly whenever they arose during the proceedings.

Earlier Jury Tensions Revisited

During the trial, the jury foreperson approached Judge Farber on two occasions. One concern involved jurors allegedly referencing Weinstein’s past conduct that was not entered into evidence. Another juror later said he overheard discussions about a fellow juror in courthouse elevators and questioned whether the deliberations were fair.

Judge Farber questioned the jurors both in open court and privately in chambers before determining there was no misconduct serious enough to halt the trial. Notably, the juror now cited in Aidala’s motion was not among those previously questioned.

What Happens Next

A hearing on the motion to vacate had been scheduled for this week but was postponed until early January due to unrelated court matters. At that hearing, Judge Farber could dismiss the motion outright, order a limited hearing with the juror, or move forward with preparations for a new rape trial related to Jessica Mann.

Meanwhile, Weinstein has yet to be sentenced on the June conviction. Since April 2024, he has been held at Rikers Island, following the overturning of his 2020 New York conviction. He has also spent time at Bellevue Hospital during the proceedings, as his legal team continues to cite serious health concerns.

According to Aidala, Weinstein is now “on the verge” of entering his seventh year behind bars when accounting for time already served — a grim milestone for the once-powerful studio executive whose downfall helped ignite the global #MeToo movement.

Whether these new juror intimidation claims gain legal traction or quietly fade away, they underscore one reality: even years after his initial conviction, Harvey Weinstein’s courtroom saga is far from over.