The accused of trying to kill a man with an ax in a Rourell farmhouse in July 2019 has stated that he thought he had thrown a stick at him and that he did so in self-defense. In his statement, the investigator explained that the victim entered his house with an “unfriendly” attitude to demand what he was doing in the house and that he knocked him down with a blow. “I think I lashed the stick out and it hit the stone table, I heard a cry of pain,” he said. He has also assured that he was very afraid and that he called 112 to ask for help for both him and the victim. His lawyer has defended that the young man had no intention of killing.
The accused has explained that he was alone in the farmhouse on the night of July 12, 2019 when he felt that a vehicle was approaching his home. According to his version, the victim entered the farm to ask him who he was and began to walk around the house. “When I saw how he acted, with his tone of voice, I saw that he was not coming in a friendly way, he told me that this was his house, I was very nervous and scared, everything happened very quickly,” he declared.
He also claimed that the man hit him and knocked him to the ground. He explained that he had several sticks and an ax by the fireplace to chop wood for a fire and that during the fight he picked up one of the sticks and threw it, not realizing it was an axe. He reiterated that he was very scared because he did not know the man and that he called 112 for help. After the events, he says, he hid behind some brambles for fear that the victim might come back to attack him.
In his statement, he also explained that he called his mother-in-law at the time and that when they arrived they went to the Campclar Mossos d’Esquadra police station to explain the facts. However, the accused has said that he does not remember when he changed his pants full of blood and if there was a lot around the motorcycle and the porch of the farmhouse, as several mossos testified this Monday, July 10, when the trial began .
He has also indicated that his father had agreed with the owners of the farmhouse to carry out works in exchange for living, and that they had a rental contract. The defendant claimed that the owners were aware that they lived with his brothers and that he did not “like” that they were there. In addition, he declared that when he arrived at the police station, the police asked him if he was the one with the Rourell ax and, immediately, they arrested him. So, he chose not to testify at the police headquarters.
At the hearing on Tuesday, three forensic doctors have also testified, one of them proposed by the defense, who have shown discrepancies about the damage and consequences suffered by the victim as a result of the ax blow. Both coroners have confirmed the reports, which indicate that the victim suffered injuries consistent with a head injury with an open left fronton-parietal fracture.
As a result of the injuries, the man spent four days in the ICU, out of a total of nineteen hospitalizations and needed 432 days to recover. According to the forensics, the injuries caused him serious sequelae, such as a cognitive disorder and neuropsychological damage, which affected his memory, speech, and prevented him from practicing his profession as a doctor. In addition, they affirmed that the injuries are compatible with the ax blow, both for the park that it cuts and for the torso, and that the wounds represented a “significant vital risk for the man.”
Instead, the forensic doctor proposed by the defense assured that the injuries were caused by a fight and not by an assault. The coroner considered that due to the type of injury “it is more appropriate to say that it was done with the back of the ax because it was a rectangular lesion, if it had been done with the thread it would have been longer and finer,” he asserted. He also noted that the victim suffered from bipolar disorder and was dependent on cocaine, among other substances.
The victim died in 2022 due to heart disease, but in this Tuesday’s session the statement given in court was read. Then, he explained that he went to the farmhouse with his friend’s motorcycle, just after dinner, because he had previously seen that the farmhouse was in poor condition. He said that when he entered, he told the defendant that he could not be there. He stated that the person being investigated was very upset and that when he called the son of the owners he became “violent”. He also testified that in an “inexplicable way” the defendant began to beat him.
His statement also states that he lost a lot of blood and that he returned to the village house barefoot, where they helped him until the emergency services arrived. In addition, the statement of the owner has also been read, which explained that she was aware of the events after they occurred and that they had a part of the farmhouse rented, in exchange for the tenants doing some work.
The public prosecutor maintains the sentence of ten years in prison for the crime of attempted murder, although it has partially modified its final conclusions, by removing the mitigating confession and adding the request for probation for a period of five years. He also maintained the request for civil liability, estimated at more than 190,000 euros, for the heirs of the victim.
The prosecutor has stated that the defendant’s statement is not a “true” or “coherent” explanation and that the appearance at the Mossos police station seeks to give an appearance of collaboration, but without being so. “He had more elements of overacting to try to evade that responsibility that he could incur,” he said. He has also assured that the defendant had the intention of killing because the blow was made with an ax and in the area of ??the skull.
For her part, the defendant’s lawyer has demanded an acquittal and has said that the young man acted out of “insurmountable fear” in the face of the situation. She affirmed that his representative never intended to kill the victim and that she called the emergency services to request help for both him and the other man when she heard his moans, despite the fact that he was in a panic situation.
Likewise, it considered that the attenuated confession should be taken into account because he appeared at the police station. “The maximum would be imprudent to throw the stick, they ask for an acquittal and secondarily that it be for injuries because it has been proven that there was no intention to kill,” he added.
