• Courts Trial for the amputated penis: the victim exonerates his roommate and declares that he self-used

  • Courts Judged for cutting off his roommate's penis for 200 euros

The trial that is held in the Provincial Court of Zaragoza against

Aarón Jonás B. L.

, Accused by the Prosecutor's Office of amputating his roommate's penis, at his wish and in exchange for 200 euros, has been seen for sentencing this Tuesday .

After the alleged victim,

Andrew B.

, a 33-year-old English teacher, dismissed his last statements on Monday and exonerated the defendant, assuring that he was actually the one who did it, that he self-harmed, the prosecutor has requested in his final conclusions that the victim be investigated "for being untrue in a judicial case, for understanding that he has committed yesterday, during the videoconference in which he gave a statement, a crime of false testimony."

The change in version of Andrew B. has been a major setback for the Prosecutor's Office, since his testimony was the main evidence against the accused.

For this reason, at the request of the Prosecutor's Office, the statement in which the young Englishman blamed Aaron was reproduced in the session on Tuesday, given before the investigating court weeks after the events, which occurred on March 8, Day of Women, 2019 in Zaragoza.

This is the fourth statement made by Andrew B .: the first two before the Police in which he said that he self-used, a third also before the Police in which he changed his version and pointed to Aaron as the author of the castration and this fourth in court in which he confirmed that Aaron cut off his penis after his express request.

-Do you remember what you said to the police?

the examining magistrate asked him.

"More or less yes," answered Andrew B. in Spanish.

-You came to say a little briefly that you had the firm intention of amputating your penis because you did not have the masculine feeling.

-I had a mental health problem and both of us, he [for Aaron] and I, needed money at the time.

- So you, in addition to having that feeling that you were not comfortable with your body, considered it a way to get money.

How was that money going to be obtained, recording it?

-Recording it (...) The police have my phone number, but I don't think we recorded it, so we haven't won anything.

-Was it only his phone or was it also on the phone of ...?

-Only mine.

-In other words, the only one with whom they were prepared to record was with his phone.

-Yes

- Do you know if it was recorded?

-I know how to record, but at one point we drank and I think I did it wrong and then we didn't record.

-When the events occurred, you say that the decision was made freely and voluntarily.

-Yes.

-You told the other person to help you.

-Yes.

-In a voluntary and free conscious way.

-Yes.

- Had you taken any type of alcohol or substance?

-Yes, nothing substances, but a bottle of white wine each.

-In the statement you gave to the police, you say "in the house Aaron offered him more pills, he thinks it was Valium, and they drank practically all of the wine."

Do you know if he took any tranquilizers?

-He offered me, but my memory is not exact due to the

shock

of this day, but I don't think I took anything.

- You say that you do not remember very well due to the state of

shock

that the event produced in you but that you think you remember that you did not take any pills.

-Yes.

-You also state in the statement that you even tied yourself like a cord to avoid massive bleeding.

-Yes, yes, yes, yes, we did it with a cord.

- So it is a measure that he voluntarily took preventive.

-For caution.

(...)

The accused, Aarón Jonás BL, in an image of a video in which he sings rap.

- Did you get when you paid that person 250 euros?

-I offered him 200 euros but I didn't pay him.

-He tried to dissuade you, to say "but how are we going to do this if we can put your life at risk"?

-I was not aware due to my mental health that the act would be so serious and I think I told him, I told him that it would not be so serious, that it would not be so much blood, and I do not know ... We both did not think that I would risk my death, my life, sorry.

-So in principle you proposed it to him and he accepted, there was no resistance on his part

-No, a little resistance and I convinced him a bit, but the truth is that we both did not think it would be that serious.

In this statement, Adrew B. also explained that he suffered from "paranoid schizophrenia", that he was being treated and that he would not repeat something like that.

"It is unthinkable that I would do the thing we did again, because in the end I have made my family and friends suffer, unthinkable to repeat such a thing."

And when the defense asked him why he had exonerated Aaron in his first statements, he responded like this: "The reason I said that was to protect Aaron, because I didn't want him to have problems with the Police. What I told the Police the first two Sometimes it is that I did it myself because the truth is that it was a consensual act and to think that in the eyes of the law I did not see the thing as it was ... ".

The defense of Aarón Jonás BL has protested the reproduction of this statement, stating that it would only proceed if the witness had not been able to give testimony at the trial.

And it has requested in its final conclusions the acquittal of the accused, considering that all the evidence provided in the trial indicates that he did not participate in the facts.

Thus he has underlined that Andrew ended up blaming Aaron, "due to pressure from the Police" and "out of fear," according to what he himself declared this Monday.

He has appealed to the testimony of the forensic doctors, who have declared this Tuesday and have considered "feasible" that the victim could have amputated his penis alone.

"We are talking about a person with a history of a chronic psychotic disorder. Sometimes psychotic patients have slightly abnormal behaviors or behavioral alterations that can lead them to do acts of this type," said one of the doctors.

The defense has also pointed out that the accused could have reached an agreement in accordance with the Prosecutor's Office, "but he has not done so because he is innocent."

And he has discredited the only witness, one of the victim's roommates and defendant, who testified against Aaron.

This witness related that the same morning of the events the defendant told him what they were going to do and how he was going to earn money from it by spreading the video they planned to record on the internet.

"From him it should have been requested that false testimony be deduced," said the lawyer in her conclusions.

"When the Police arrive, this man is asleep, plastered, drugged, he recognizes that he took speed that day. What credibility can this person be given? He is a sick person, who suffers from borderline, orientation, obsessive and adaptive disorder, who incurs in contradictions, which is not credible and which is also a mere reference witness ".

The Prosecutor's Office, however, has upheld its request for a sentence of four years and six months in prison.

"It was the defendant who, in collusion with the victim, agreed for a very clear reason, which is not an altruistic motive but a reason for remuneration, since it was intended to obtain an amount of money by posting a video, which later in the end could not be done, in a social network, he agreed to perform this maneuver and with a kitchen knife amputate Andrew's penis ".

The Prosecutor's Office has considered these facts proven based on the previous statements of the victim, whom it has accused of failing to tell the truth to protect Aaron.

"He is currently in England, he can hardly come to Spain with the current circumstances, he may never want to return again and probably the consequences of that false testimony will never have criminal consequences for this person," said the prosecutor.

Apart from what was previously stated by Andrew, the Prosecutor's Office considers Aaron's guilt proven based on the testimony of the aforementioned roommate and the attitude of the accused after the event.

"The logical thing is to have held him, to have called an ambulance and to try to help him right there, without causing him to bleed out on the street until he was located by the Police. Also the conduct of a person who has not intervened in these events It is to collaborate more with the Police, to hand over the knife with which that person supposedly has cut himself, not to clean everything running, fearing that they could implicate him in something. That is, the defendant's conduct enters into the conduct of the person who has collaborated to carry out these facts ".

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • Saragossa

  • Spain

  • Justice

JusticeThe court of the 'Hasel case' warns that eliminating the crime of glorifying terrorism would mean leaving society "unprotected"

Alquería case The judge places the former president of the Valencia Provincial Council on the bench for creating false executive positions for members of the PSPV and Compromís

CourtsThe Prosecutor's Office appealed to the Supreme Court the third degree of the imprisoned independentistas

See links of interest

  • Work calendar

  • Mirandés - Malaga

  • Real Madrid - Real Sociedad, live

  • Everton - Southampton