Killing Words

A respected philosophy professor who abducts Laura and uses calculated word games to elicit a confession. He exerts rigid control over the conversation, oscillating between feigned harmlessness and murderous intent. His ‘games’ reveal a volatile mix of intelligence, vanity, and a readiness to kill if it serves his narrative. His disturbing romantic interest in Laura and admission of affairs show a dangerous pattern of manipulation.

A psychiatrist who becomes the focal point of Ramón’s test of power. She negotiates for her freedom, offering to use sex as leverage, only to be thwarted by Ramón’s constant mind games. She reveals hidden aspects of the divorce history, including lies meant to protect Ramón from humiliation. The interview forces her to confront her own complicity and fear.

A police inspector involved in the ongoing investigation of Laura’s disappearance. His observations in parallel to the basement dialogue create tension as investigators piece together the truth. He interprets the doctored messages and searches for inconsistencies to unmask the truth behind the confessions. He represents the external machinery trying to decode a hidden narrative.

A high-ranking police official who oversees the case and weighs evidence from the home search. He must decide when to press the investigation or accept Ramón’s narrative, highlighting institutional pressure and skepticism. His role emphasizes authority in scenes where truth is contested by clever storytelling. His decisions influence when Ramón appears to walk free.

Ramón’s mother, present as part of the familial background shaping the case’s emotional stakes. Her relationship to Ramón adds a layer of personal history that informs the tension between personal life and public accusation. She represents the family dimension that underpins the abduction’s social consequences.

A secondary inspector who collaborates in the investigation, contributing to the procedural rhythm of the story. His presence helps frame the parallel police inquiry with the basement confrontation. He helps drive the sense that the case is as much about evidence as it is about psychology.