Docs: Man kills wife, dumps body in Juarez due to affair
EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) – A 47-year-old man was recently arrested and charged with murder for allegedly strangling his wife to death and dumping her body in Juarez after knowing she 'cheated on him,' according to court documents obtained by KTSM.
El Paso Police: Man charged with murder after woman's body found in Juarez
According to court documents, Jorge Mares Raygoza, 47, was arrested on Friday, March 28, for killing his wife, later identified as Coral Llamas Sifuentes, 45.
Sifuentes' body was found in a desert area off the side of a roadway near Mirador Camino Real — approximately 23 miles from the Ysleta port of entry — which is a park located in Juarez.
Raygoza was charged with murder under a $1.25 million bond, El Paso Police said.
According to court documents, on March 28, detectives from the El Paso Police Department's Crimes Against Persons unit were advised of a death investigation by the FBI.
FBI investigators informed detectives of an unidentified body found in Juarez the morning of March 22, which showed signs of being strangled and sexually assaulted with 'an unknown object,' according to court documents.
According to court documents, FBI investigators were notified by Mexican authorities after Raygoza came forward and said that the unidentified person was his wife. Raygoza said he was able to identify his wife after seeing a news release and identifying her shoes.
Investigators found that Raygoza resides in Hobbs, New Mexico, while Sifuentes and their children live in El Paso. Raygoza was known to come to El Paso on the weekend to visit his family, according to court documents.
According to court documents, investigators found that Sifuentes had been having an affair with an individual for around two years. Investigators were able to identify and interview the individual who said Raygoza recently knew of the affair on March 18.
Sifuentes and the individual rented a hotel room together, and Raygoza began a video call with his wife. The video call alarmed Sifuentes as Raygoza 'had never called her using the video call feature,' according to court documents.
According to court documents, after Sifuentes didn't answer the phone, she and the individual went their separate ways when Raygoza sent her a photograph of her vehicle in the parking lot of a hotel during the time she was with the individual.
Later that same day, Sifuentes texted the individual, saying that Raygoza was aware of the affair. The individual said that his last contact with Sifuentes was on March 21, when they exchanged text messages, according to court documents.
According to court documents, through investigation, it was found that Raygoza was captured via the Ysleta POE border crossing cameras at 5:49 p.m. on March 21, crossing into Juarez and driving Sifuentes' vehicle. The vehicle appeared to be clean as it drove into Juarez.
Raygoza was then seen driving back into El Paso at 7:48 p.m., and Sifuentes' vehicle appeared to have been driven through desert terrain as it had dirt on the tires and appeared dusty, according to court documents.
According to court documents, investigators further obtained screenshots of Raygoza's Google search history showing he was searching for a specific 'El Diario de Juarez' news article eight separate times between March 22-23. Raygoza later told investigators that he was not aware of the news article until March 25, when he was told by family members.
Investigators with Crimes Against Persons met with Raygoza at his residence, and he voluntarily agreed to meet with investigators at the El Paso Police Department headquarters, according to court documents.
According to court documents, Raygoza told investigators that on March 18, he tracked Sifuentes' location and learned that her vehicle was at a hotel. Raygoza asked a friend of his to drive to the hotel to take a picture of Sifuentes' vehicle, which was in the parking lot.
Raygoza said he called Sifuentes through the video call feature for about 30 minutes, but she didn't answer, according to court documents.
According to court documents, Raygoza said he continued tracking Sifuentes' location, which moved to a gym. Raygoza then sent Sifuentes the picture of her vehicle at the hotel and told her he knew what she was doing, and that they would talk about their future when he came back to El Paso.
Raygoza said he arrived in El Paso on March 21 and drove directly to his residence. He said that the main reason for his return to El Paso was because of a job interview he had secured to be closer to his family, according to court documents.
According to court documents, Raygoza said that he and Sifuentes 'engaged in sexual intercourse.' After the encounter, both of them walked into the living room and began to talk about Sifuentes' affair.
Raygoza brought up the individual with whom Sifuentes was involved and wanted details of their relationship. However, Raygoza said Sifuentes didn't want to talk about the affair, which enraged Raygoza, and he 'lost it,' according to court documents.
According to court documents, Raygoza told investigators that he strangled Sifuentes to death with both his hands for about 30 minutes due to all the rage and frustration he had against her.
Raygoza said Sifuentes was unclothed when he killed her, and he dressed her fully to take her out of the residence, according to court documents.
According to court documents, Raygoza said that he placed Sifuentes into the backseat of her vehicle in a seated position and left her in the driveway throughout the day.
After returning home from his job interview, Raygoza said that he got into Sifuentes' vehicle and drove across the Ysleta POE into Juarez. He said he destroyed Sifuentes' phone and smart watch and threw them in Juarez, according to court documents.
According to court documents, Raygoza said that he drove to a park located in Juarez where he dumped Sifuentes' body. After that, he proceeded with errands in the area, then drove back into the U.S.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Military News
an hour ago
- American Military News
Video: 9/11 involved a 5th plane but the FBI covered it up: Report
A new video released Tuesday by TMZ suggests that there was a fifth plane that was 'intended to strike' as part of the unprecedented terrorist attacks that took place on September 1, 2001, but that it may have been 'covered up' by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). According to TMZ's investigative video shared Tuesday on YouTube, United Flight 23 was grounded prior to taking off on a flight from the John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens, New York, to the Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. TMZ reported that the pilot of the airplane and the flight attendants believe that the airplane might have been intended for use as part of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. TMZ reported that the video, titled 'TMZ Investigates 9/11: The Fifth Plane,' comes after the outlet spent six months investigating the alleged activities on United Flight 23 that led to the FBI interviewing the pilot and flight attendants in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. According to TMZ, the outlet interviewed the United Flight 23 pilot, a United Airlines dispatcher, three flight attendants, and a member of the 9/11 Commission regarding claims that there were four suspicious passengers on the airplane that wanted to quickly take off from the airport and that two individuals were observed running through the airplane cabin 20 minutes after the plane was evacuated and locked due to the airport shutting down after the World Trade Center was attacked. READ MORE: Video: Rare 9/11 first-hand footage captures real moments of terrorist attacks The United Flight 23 pilot, identified as Captain Tom Mannello, told TMZ, 'The airplane was locked and sealed when I left the airplane, so something else was going on that I cannot explain. Something was going on there that should not have been going on.' Mannello suggested that the two individuals seen on the airplane after it was locked could have been attempting to remove weapons or other evidence from the airplane. 'There's a good chance that somebody was plotting to try to use our airplane as a weapon of mass destruction,' Mannello said. Sandy Thorngren, a fight attendant on United Flight 23, told TMZ, 'I definitely think that Flight 23 from JFK to LAX was the fifth plane.' Another flight attendant, Barbara Brockie Smaldino, added, 'In my mind, there was no doubt that we were a target of a plan that would have taken us to our end.' In a caption to TMZ's new video, the outlet wrote, 'Was it grounded in time? Covered up? Or simply forgotten? This investigation digs into government documents, eyewitness accounts, and hidden details that may point to a fifth plane… and a deeper conspiracy.'
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
Why the Supreme Court just handed a big victory to gun manufacturers
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Weapons seized from members of the gang Los Zetas are displayed by police during a presentation to the press, in Mexico City. Luis Acosta/AFP via Getty Images The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion on Thursday that shuts down a lawsuit brought by the nation of Mexico against US gun companies. In Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico sued seven American gun manufacturers, claiming that their products are often sold to gun traffickers who then provide these guns to Mexican drug cartels. The Mexican government claims that up to 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico come from the United States. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Unfortunately for Mexico, however, a 2005 law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) gives American gunmakers broad immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for harms 'caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.' PLCAA does contain some exemptions to this general rule. As Justice Elena Kagan explains in the Court's Smith & Wesson opinion, a gunmaker can be held liable for 'aiding and abetting someone else's firearms offense.' Mexico claims that the gunmakers aided and abetted illegal sales to cartels by 'supply[ing] firearms to retail dealers whom they know illegally sell to Mexican gun traffickers.' Mexico also faults the companies for allowing bulk sales of guns, which can enable illegal sales, and for practices such as designing guns that appeal to Mexican culture. One such gun, for example, features an image of the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, along with a quote from Zapata: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' But Kagan's opinion concludes that the mere fact that US gun companies likely knew that some of their guns were being resold in the illegal market, much less that some of their guns are designed to appeal to Mexicans, is not enough to overcome PLCAA. As Kagan explains, this conclusion largely flows from the Court's fairly recent decision in Twitter v. Taamneh (2023). Twitter concerned an attack by the terrorist group ISIS that killed 39 people at a nightclub in Istanbul, including a man with American relatives. Those relatives sued several social media companies in US court, claiming that the companies aided and abetted the Istanbul attack by allowing ISIS to post content which promotes ISIS's ideology and that attempts to recruit people to the terrorist organization's cause. But Twitter warned against a legal regime where 'ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services, no matter how attenuated their relationship with the wrongdoer.' As a general rule, someone who provides a good or service to all comers is not legally responsible if a bad actor uses their product for a wicked purpose. If Ford sells a truck to a man who intentionally uses it to run over and kill his wife, Ford normally will not be responsible for this homicide. And so Kagan concludes that it's not enough for Mexico to show that gunmakers could have taken additional steps to prevent their products from winding up in the hands of drug cartels. Instead, 'the merchant becomes liable only if, beyond providing the good on the open market, he takes steps to 'promote' the resulting crime and 'make it his own.'' Of course, one thing that distinguishes Smith & Wesson from Twitter is that social media platforms are not weapons whose entire purpose is to injure people. If PLCAA did not exist, Mexico might have argued that the gun companies' decision to make and sell an inherently dangerous product should make them liable for the consequences of selling such a product.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules in favor of U.S. gun makers in Mexico's lawsuit
June 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers. "The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the opinion of the court. Mexico filed suit in March against a group of companies that includes Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock, alleging that the defendants violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, which can allow for some lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms. As stated in the case document, Mexico purports the accused companies "aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels," and failed to exercise "reasonable care" to keep their guns from being trafficked into Mexico. Kagan explained that it falls on the plaintiff in this case to properly show that the defendant companies directly committed violations of PLCAA, or otherwise "the predicate violation opens a path to making a gun manufacturer civilly liable for the way a third party has used the weapon it made." Kagan did include that "Mexico has a severe gun violence problem, which its government views as coming from north of the border." She added that the country has only a single gun store, which is slightly inaccurate as Mexico currently has two, but in regard of the one store she mentioned, Kagan claimed that it "issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year." She also purported gun traffickers can purchase weaponry in the United States, often illegally, and then take those guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Kagan further noted that as per the Mexican government, "as many as 90% of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States." Nonetheless, the court ruled "that Mexico has not plausibly alleged aiding and abetting on the manufacturers' part." This is why, Kagan explained, that the defendant companies are immune under the PLCAA. In a concurring statement, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court's opinion hasn't resolved what exactly a future plaintiff will have to show to prove a defendant has committed a PLCAA violation, and that Mexico hadn't "adequately pleaded its theory of the case." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also included a concurring statement that Congress passed PLCAA in order to decide "which duties to impose on the firearms industry," and that ignoring PLCAA's set reasons that do "authorize lawsuits like the one Mexico filed here" would twist PLCAA's main purpose.
