Calm on the surface and almost theatrically hushed at times, the defense tried to present David S. O., known as El Tuvi, as a boyish, even naïve figure. He appeared before the Valencia Provincial Court on Tuesday to answer for an attempted murder charge tied to the only surviving victim of his strangulations, a young woman who had been his partner for eight months until she reported his abuse. The portrayal of a childlike persona was shattered by the stark, firsthand account given by his former partner about what happened on a Sunday morning in late September 2020, in the wake of a turbulent relationship marked by fear and coercion.
María, a fictitious name to protect her anonymity, had started a relationship with David S. O. in January of that year. It had already been three months since the alleged third victim, Wafaa Sebbah, had died, and seven others were believed to have been killed in prior incidents. The sequence of killings extended through a pattern of abuse and control that preceded the eventual denunciation by María and the decision to end the relationship. Her testimony described repeated insults, threats, and episodes of violence that left her convinced of danger and searching for a way out.
On August 24, just days after his arrest for gender violence, María obtained a restraining order against him. He disregarded it, continuing to exchange messages and meeting up several times. On September 25, she agreed to return with him to a rented apartment he had previously used, a place tied to a sequence of events that dated back a year earlier to the afternoon he allegedly killed Wafaa.
She Wanted the Complaint Withdrawn
Everything was peaceful at first, but the morning of the Sunday in question grew tense. María was pressured over and over to drop the complaint she had filed for domestic abuse. Time was not on her side; the defendants had not faced questions about the murders of Wafaa, Isabell, or her unborn child yet. Refusing to retract the denunciation, María recounted a terrifying scene in which David grabbed her by the neck and briefly choked her. She described being forced to drink water while he urged her to withdraw the complaint, a demand she resisted despite the fear for her safety.
The confrontation began at the doorway and escalated as María attempted to leave. She testified to a second choking that occurred as she cried out for help. He admitted to a struggle but claimed the force used was minimal and not lethal, insisting there was no intent to kill. His account stood in tension with María’s, who described the attack as a clear attempt to end her life and silence her accusations.
María’s testimony painted a vivid scene of fear and desperation. She described being grabbed from behind, with the attacker pressing so hard that she could not breathe. She showed how her legs were pinned and how she lost consciousness during the assault. When she came to, he directed her toward a shower, a chilling sequence that underscored the severity of the injuries and the emotional shock of the encounter.
Blood and Breath Under Duress
María recalled the moments of extreme distress that followed. Sitting on the sofa, she felt a creeping exhaustion and a sense that she might slip away. She vomited again and again, while he urged her to drink and insistently pressed her to drop the complaint. The chilling account included a series of episodes where she was unable to swallow and experienced a lingering fear for her life that would not subside.
A medical visit a couple of days later confirmed the assault’s lasting impact. She told her doctor she had a sore throat, a claim that masked the more serious reality. The physician detected the deception, recognizing the injuries that pointed to an act of close-quarters violence rather than a simple illness.
Two forensic doctors later described in testimony the dual mechanisms of asphyxia that María endured, noting a combination of blood flow restriction and airway compromise. They explained that she came perilously close to death, describing the blood-tinged sputum that can result from microhemorrhages in the lungs when breathing becomes nearly impossible. The medical verdict reinforced the severity of the abuse and the danger María faced in those moments.
Her account aligns with the prosecution’s narrative and with the position of the defense attorney, who represented María’s interests and underscored the evidence of near-fatal harm. The testimony indicated that after the second choking incident, María remained unconscious for about twenty minutes, a period during which no help was sought or offered and no medical attention was pursued.
A Distinction Between Good and Evil
David S. O.’s defense relies on a theory that an accident in 2015 left him with impaired will and some diminished capacity for self-control. During cross-examination, both the defendant and his mother acknowledged that he did not take any medication or seek psychiatric care until 2020, precisely when María filed the complaint. The defense argued that after meeting María, his condition had improved, even as past victims like Wafaa and Isabell had already perished. Two psychiatric reports were referenced in court, one prepared at the mother’s request in March 2021 and another by a forensic doctor involved in the María case. The first report did not appear in court as it was not part of the current defense’s request, while the second corrected earlier findings to suggest that while there might have been some loss of volitional control, the person still retained the ability to distinguish right from wrong.
In the courtroom, the defendant denied intent to kill and claimed that the violence was not premeditated, even describing the incident as a few aggressive gestures that escalated in the heat of the moment. The cross-examination highlighted contradictions in the statements and emphasized the decisive role María played in pressing for accountability for the violence she endured.
The Defendant’s Final Statement
At the close of testimony, the defendant was afforded the right to speak one last time. He returned to the topic of money, insisting that the victim had refused to repay a loan and that his actions had nothing to do with killing yet again. The judge pressed him for any further remarks, and he replied with a brief assertion of no intent to kill, describing the injuries as minor. The Tuvi did not settle on a plea with the prosecutors and now faces a potential sentence of seventeen and a half years in prison. The court adjourned with a verdict pending, signaling a judgment that would soon follow.