During a testimony before a popular jury, a victim and roommate pleaded for mercy as the defendant pressed a tight grip around the throat until life ended. The alleged killer described the moment with a conflicted mix of duty and revulsion, insisting he did not want to kill and that the strangling resembled nothing he had seen in crime dramas. The incident is said to have occurred at a social health center in Barx, Valencia, in November 2019. The accused argues that impulses and unstable personality traits influenced his actions, noting a struggle to stop the choking. From the age of twelve, narcotics use was a family issue that led to placement in a mixed housing facility for the elderly and mentally ill, where another life was claimed seven months after admission.
The central legal question concerns how much attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may have affected the defendant during the crime. The case, brought against Rabah MGM, a 23-year-old of French descent, focuses on whether such character traits—antisocial, borderline, and histrionic tendencies—impacted cognitive and volitional control, potentially triggering a diminished capacity defense. The defense contends that the defendant lacked awareness of his actions.
Prosecutors have requested a sentence of 17 years for murder, recognizing aggravating circumstances such as the victim’s vulnerability and the substantial age difference between the two parties, as well as the defendant’s obesity. This marks a second significant point for jurors to consider.
Prosecution seeks 17 years in prison for manslaughter with psychic alteration
The defendant’s account describes a confrontation on the night of November 9, 2019, following an argument about a matter inside the residence. He claims to have been repulsed by the partner’s behavior, noting a recurring pattern that had drawn attention from others at the facility. According to his recollection, a fight ensued during which the victim attempted to defend themselves by scratching at the defendant’s hands.
The defendant admits to squeezing the neck for more than a minute, but he argues that the tracheal rupture resulted from the struggle and the victim’s fall. After the incident, he says he placed the body back to bed and cleaned the surrounding area, washing stained clothing and linens in an attempt to hide what happened. He asserts these actions occurred in the midst of a broader public health crisis and reflects on how the pandemic situation may have affected behavior.
There were further statements in which the defendant claimed he sought help, stating he could not breathe and suggesting his partner had died alone. Later, under questioning, he admitted to lying about the circumstances and to a confession made nine days later, while under the Civil Guard’s scrutiny, indicating a willingness to harm again if not confined.
In a debt of regretful reflection, Rabah described a sense of isolation and fear that led him to want imprisonment to gain access to drugs in a different setting. He acknowledged that prison did not bring the relief he anticipated and stated a clearer awareness of the consequences now.
Could the crime have been prevented?
The third contentious question concerns the possible legal responsibility of the Barx residence. Critics argue that the facility did not provide sufficient tools to prevent a troubled resident from harming a roommate who had previously attacked others, including staff. The special prosecutor’s office contends there should be a formal isolation protocol to protect all parties, noting a lack of adequate preventive measures and ongoing surveillance at the center.
Marked questions remain about whether the institution bears secondary liability alongside the main prosecutor. The debate centers on whether more robust safety procedures and early interventions could have mitigated the tragedy, and whether such measures were active and appropriate given the context of the center and its residents.
As the trial progresses, the public record will explore these complex issues—mental health, impulse control, care in group facilities, and the balance between patient rights and public safety. The case continues to raise questions about prevention, accountability, and the limits of intervention within care settings. [Source attribution: a regional newspaper group reporting on the case, with corroboration across local press.]