One month after the Porreres crime a reconstruction was held at the same scene
In the morning of February 24, 2018, a judge in Manacor supervised a reconstruction at the home where the incident unfolded. A thief had fallen during a home invasion, and the whole event became the centerpiece of the day. The principal figure in this early phase was Pau Rigo, an elderly man who fired the shot, and Freddy Escobar, the brother of the young Mauricio who died from blood loss during the assault, were both involved in the episode in different ways.
The living room of the Porreres residence was chosen as the focal point of the reconstruction because the lethal shot was fired there. Alongside the judge and the prosecutor, security personnel and lawyers attended. Rigo, who had recently left the hospital, reaffirmed the stance he presented at the hearing: he acted in self-defense because he believed his life was in imminent danger.
I took the rifle in a moment of surprise
During the recorded reconstruction, Rigo recalled how his wife was being threatened while the assailants demanded jewelry. The elderly man, visibly affected by the memory, sometimes had to pause and sit while recounting the events. He stated that the attackers sought money and looked for more value in the safe than what they found, admitting that his finances were already depleted.
Rigo spoke of a robbery three months earlier in which a gun had been pointed at him and he was confined to a room. The attackers had beaten him to extract more money, and he feared for his life in that moment as well. He described the situation as escalating quickly: one intruder went upstairs, another went downstairs, and when the two confronted him, he asked them to leave. Instead of leaving, one attacker pressed forward and struck him.
I don’t know where I hit it
The reconstruction made use of a shotgun, and Rigo repeated the position in which he raised the weapon and aimed at the stairs where the two siblings were located. He said he could not see clearly at the time because glasses had been taken during the earlier blows. He added that he did not know where the shot landed or whether it connected with its target. The shot came as the attackers approached, a reflex action to save his life that he described as a moment of panic rather than calculation. He insisted that he fired because he believed his life was in danger and that he would have been killed otherwise.
Throughout the staging, Rigo maintained that the act was self-defense. He noted that the intruders aimed to find more money and that the confrontation occurred in a very short span. There was no other option to protect himself and his wife, he argued, given the threat the attackers posed and the lack of any other means to escape or deter them.
He recalled warning the two thieves to leave by pointing the shotgun at them, but according to his account, one attacker struck him with an iron rod. He suggested that if the intruders had left, the shooting would not have occurred. He stressed that the decision to shoot arose only after the attackers continued their assault, making clear that his objective was to defend himself rather than to kill.
“I will not kill anyone for 15,000 euros”
The crime scene was confined to a relatively small area—the main living room facing the room where the wife was threatened. Tears filled Rigo’s eyes as he reflected that his primary concern at the moment was not the money but the safety of his family. He stated that he would not kill for a mere 15,000 euros and suggested that the thieves might have been the same group from a previous incident. He claimed the attackers pressed a gun to his head and described them as part of a violent gang. Before the shooting, he believed the intruders would retreat when they saw the shotgun. He gave them a chance to leave, but when they did not, someone attacked him, and he fired in response.
The testimony deepened the emotional weight of the scene. He described the attackers as having struck him and attempting to seize his rifle. In the struggle, he tried to flee, but the other thief grabbed the firearm. He admitted losing consciousness after the blows and the ensuing physical chaos. He maintained that he would always tell the truth as long as his actions were driven by self-defense.
In recounting the events, he spoke of the attackers verbally and physically threatening him and his wife, and he stressed that the priority was to survive, not to accumulate more money. He asserted that the only motive of the intruders seemed to be their demand for wealth, and he did not want to escalate the situation into more bloodshed.
Conviction
The narrative presented during the first reconstruction aligned with the version later offered at trial before a popular jury. Yet the jury rejected his account, finding him guilty of murder despite his claim of self-defense. Rigo now awaited news on whether the conviction would be appealed or revisited with a different judge and jury, a step that could lead to a new examination of the facts and legal arguments in this high-profile case [Citation: local legal proceedings].