Rubén Manu Simón Case Violence, Justice, and a Life Tragically Lost PART3 #7

The authorities asked him to provide some kind of sample, something that could help prove his innocence. Ironically, it was the accused himself who reinforced the idea that no one else was involved. He insisted, over and over again, that he had acted alone and that none of his friends had any idea what had happened that night. According to him, nobody else had any role in the events that led to Vanessa's death. Going back to what allegedly happened inside the house, before he contacted Luis, the young man told investigators that Vanessa had gotten upset about something. He described the situation vaguely, saying she became angry and that he reacted by grabbing her forcefully. At that point, his version of events was still unclear, full of gaps and inconsistencies. Later on, when he made another statement, this time with a court appointed lawyer by his wife, his story shifted slightly. He claimed that he had engaged in consensual relations with Vanessa. However, the investigators didn't buy that version. From the beginning, they strongly suspected that there had been a sexual assault. His explanation felt incomplete, almost like he was trying to adjust the narrative to something less incriminating. During the interrogation, he appeared visibly shaken. At times, he even broke down crying while trying to explain himself. He talked about memory lapses, saying that he couldn't recall everything clearly because he had consumed a large amount of drugs that day. According to his own account, he had taken around three grams of cocaine, in addition to smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol. He insisted that he wasn't fully aware of his actions and that he never planned to commit any crime. But the investigation painted a different picture. It suggested that Ruben had deceived Vanessa. He had invited her to go for a walk with him and his cousin, but in reality, the cousin was never part of the plan. That detail raised even more suspicion about his intentions from the start. A forensic doctor examined him and determined that he was mentally fit to give a statement. When he was brought before the court in Zativa, accused of both rape and murder, he claimed that Vanessa's death had been accidental. According to him, he had strangled her unintentionally during an argument. Despite his claims, the judge ordered pre-trial detention without bail. As he was escorted in and out of the courthouse through a side entrance, surrounded by police officers and hiding his face under the hood of a red coat, tension was already building outside. A group of residents from Selah had gathered there, shouting insults at him. He called him a murderer, cursed him, and expressed their anger openly, wishing that he would spend his life behind bars. While Ruben began his time in Pick a Sent Prison awaiting trial, Vanessa's family was going through something completely different. They were preparing to say their final goodbye. On November 3, the streets of Selah were filled with grief. Hundreds of people came together to accompany the young girl's coffin. The atmosphere was heavy, emotional, and deeply painful. In the town square, near the city hall, flags were lowered to half-mast and black ribbons were placed as a sign of mourning. Friends, classmates, neighbors, everyone who had known Vanessa, gathered to pay their respects. After the funeral mass, a large procession followed her remains to the local cemetery. It wasn't just a farewell, it was a collective expression of heartbreak from an entire community. Almost a year later, those same streets would once again fill with people. This time, it was to mark the first anniversary of her tragic death. Meanwhile, her killer remained in prison, still waiting to face trial. The town organized a tribute in the central square, and the turnout was massive. It was clear that Vanessa had not been forgotten. One of the speakers at the event was Natalia Talone, a friend of the Farrah family. She addressed Vanessa's relatives directly, reminding them that they were not alone. She assured them that the community would stand by their side until justice was served. Her words carried weight, especially when she spoke about how this tragedy had changed everything. According to her, it had left a permanent mark on a town that had never experienced anything like this before. She also reflected on the way people leave traces behind. Some people disappear and are forgotten, she said, but others remain present even after they're gone. The tribute wasn't just about remembering the tragedy, it was also about celebrating Vanessa's life. Her family handed out bracelets to those who attended, small tokens of remembrance. People left messages and notes at a makeshift altar covered in flowers and photographs of Vanessa. Several of her friends honored her by reading verses from Mario Benedetti, adding a poetic and emotional touch to the ceremony. Her sister also spoke, sharing personal memories and moments they had lived together. It was intimate, raw, and deeply moving. Eventually, the long awaited trial began on July 13, 2020. The legal battle brought new details into the spotlight. The lawyer representing Vanessa's family, Juan Malteseers, requested a sentence of permanent revisable imprisonment, the harshest penalty under Spanish law. The prosecution supported this demand and also asked for financial compensation of 100,000 euros for her parents. On the other side, the defense took a completely different approach. They argued that the case should be treated as manslaughter, not murder, and requested a sentence of just four years in prison. The contrast between both sides couldn't have been more extreme. Malteseers explained that under Spanish law, the crime qualified as murder due to aggravating factors such as treachery and deception. He argued that Rubin had deliberately taken Vanessa to a secluded part of the house, where he left her semi-conscious before sexually assaulting her and ultimately killing her by suffocation, using his arm to choke her. From his perspective, there was no way the death could have been accidental. Ending someone's life through strangulation requires both time and force, something that doesn't happen by mistake. He also introduced the idea that this was a gender-based crime. Even though the victim and the accused were not in a romantic relationship, he argued that there was a clear intention of domination and humiliation. According to him, the way Vanessa's body was later disposed of, thrown away as if it were nothing, only reinforced that idea. He also dismissed the accused claim that they had been involved in a secret relationship. Investigators found evidence that Rubin had been attracted to Vanessa, but she had rejected him in the past. Another important point raised during the trial was Rubin's claim about being under the influence of drugs on the night of the crime. Reuters countered this by pointing out that toxicology reports showed no traces of the substances he claimed to have consumed. That detail seriously weakened his argument. The lawyer also referred to a forensic report stating that Rubin could not have been mentally impaired at the time. His behavior after the crime, hiding evidence, attempting to mislead investigators, and constructing an alibi, suggested planning an awareness, not confusion, or loss of control. Additionally, Malthusier's challenged the defences claim that Rubin had cooperated with authorities from the beginning. In reality, when Vanessa was first reported missing, he denied having seen her that night or having any contact with her. He even sent messages pretending to be concerned about her disappearance, trying to appear innocent. At one point, he went as far as suggesting that an undocumented immigrant might have been responsible. He expressed fake concern, asking where she could be and hoping she would return home safely. According to the prosecution, his eventual confession only came after investigators discovered that Vanessa had sent a message to a friend saying she was going to meet him that night. This detail placed him directly at the scene and contradicted his earlier statements. The prosecution also highlighted his attempts to obstruct the investigation, hiding Vanessa's phone and trying to create a believable alibi. When Rubin finally spoke in court, answering questions from his lawyer, he stuck to his version that everything had been an accident. He described being in the house with Vanessa, under the influence of drugs, and mentioned telling her about another girl he liked. According to him, that triggered an emotional reaction from Vanessa, and in response, he grabbed her by the neck. He claimed that when he realized she wasn't responding, he tried to revive her but failed. Hanuk took over, and instead of calling emergency services, he made a series of decisions driven by fear. He insisted that he never hit her and suggested that the injuries found on her body happened while he was moving it. He described feeling disoriented, weak, and overwhelmed. That, he said, was why he chose to wrap her body, transport it, and dispose of it in a ravine instead of asking for help. Even during the trial, he didn't change his initial claim about having his sexual relations with Vanessa. He explained that he thought presenting it as an intimate encounter would make it easier for people to believe that he he never intended to harm her. As the trial continued, more details would emerge, and tensions would only grow stronger. As the trial moved forward, Ruben continued to build on his version of events, trying to make his actions seem like the result of confusion rather than intention. He explained that after everything happened, he didn't really know how to react or what steps to take. According to him, the next day he left the area and went somewhere else, attempting to clear his head while dealing with what had just occurred. His statements during this phase were still inconsistent in tone, sometimes he sounded detached, other times overwhelmed. He also mentioned a conversation with his father that took place shortly after the incident. In that conversation, he claimed to have confessed what he had done and admitted that he was thinking about ending his own life. His father, as he told it, managed to calm him down and convinced him not to take any drastic actions. Instead, he urged him to contact the authorities and face the situation. Ruben used this moment as part of his defense, presenting it as evidence that he had eventually chosen to do the right thing. He insisted multiple times that he had turned himself involuntarily, that he had cooperated with the investigation, and that he had shared everything he was capable of remembering. However, as the prosecution had already pointed out, those claims didn't fully align with the earlier stages of the investigation, where he had denied involvement and even attempted to mislead authorities. During one of his statements in court, visibly emotional and with tears streaming down his face, he repeated that everything had been an accident. He described Vanessa as a kind and wonderful girl, someone he never intended to hurt. He said he felt deep regret and that he would carry the weight of what happened for the rest of his life. At one point, he directly addressed Vanessa's family, asking for their forgiveness, although he admitted that he didn't believe he would ever be able to forgive himself. While these emotional moments unfolded inside the courtroom, the atmosphere outside was also intense. On the second day of the trial, a group of young people gathered nearby to protest. They demanded the harshest possible sentence, permanent Revizable imprisonment, for Vanessa's killer. Their presence reflected the broader sentiment in the community, where anger and grief were still very much alive. One of the most crucial days during the trial was when the Forensic experts from the Institute of Legal Medicine of Valencia presented their findings. Their testimony became a turning point because it directly challenged the narrative presented by the defense. The Forensic doctors explained that during the autopsy, they found clear signs of sexual assault, both vaginal and anal, which had occurred very close to the time of death. This directly contradicted the defense's argument that those injuries could have been the result of consensual relations that had taken place the day before with Vanessa's boyfriend. According to the experts, the timing and nature of the injuries didn't support that claim at all. They also addressed the physical injuries found on Vanessa's body, particularly those on her face and head. The defense had suggested that these injuries might have been caused when Rubin dragged her body after her death. However, the Forensic analysis showed that those wounds were inflicted while she was still alive. The presence of bleeding confirmed that her body was still functioning at the time the injuries occurred. This detail was especially important because it further weakened the idea of an accidental death. Instead, it suggested a sequence of violent actions that happened while Vanessa was still conscious or at least alive, reinforcing the prosecution's argument of intentional harm. The jury also had the opportunity to hear from Vanessa's family and those testimonies added an emotional layer that no technical report could match. When asked about her sister, Alba described Vanessa as a joyful, genuine and generous person. She talked about her love for life, her willingness to help others, and her strong personality. According to her, Vanessa was the kind of person who stood up for lost causes and cared deeply about the people around her. But beyond describing who Vanessa was, Alba also spoke about the impact of her loss. She said that their father would never recover from what had happened, that he would never be the same again. She described how their mother had been consumed by anxiety and had lost her sense of self. The tragedy hadn't just taken Vanessa's life, it had shattered an entire family. These testimonies made it impossible to ignore the human cost of the crime. It wasn't just about legal arguments anymore, it was about the irreversible damage left behind. As the trial progressed, the contrast between the two narratives became even clearer. On one side, the defense continued to push the idea of an accident, emphasizing confusion, intoxication, and lack of intent. On the other side, the prosecution presented a sequence of actions that pointed toward planning, control, and awareness. They highlighted how Rubin had lured Vanessa under false pretenses, how he had isolated her, and how he had taken steps afterward to cover his tracks. On their perspective, these weren't the actions of someone acting in a moment of panic, they were the actions of someone trying to avoid consequences. Another key point was the way he handled the aftermath. Instead of seeking help, instead of calling emergency services, he chose to hide what had happened. He wrapped her body, transported it, and disposed of it in a remote area. Then, he went on to lie about his involvement and even tried to shift suspicion onto someone else. All of these elements combined a form and narrative that was difficult to reconcile with the idea of an accident. At the same time, the defense tried to humanize him, focusing on his emotional state, his alleged substance use, and his eventual confession. They argued that he was a young man who made a terrible mistake, not a calculated killer. They tried to create doubt to suggest that there might be another explanation for what happened. But the forensic evidence, the inconsistencies in his statements, and the sequence of events presented by the prosecution made that argument increasingly fragile. As the days went by, the courtroom became a space where facts, emotions, and interpretations collided. Every testimony added another piece to the puzzle, but also raised new questions. What really happened in those final moments inside that house? Was it truly a sudden loss of control or was it something more deliberate? How much weight should be given to his emotional displays in court? Were they genuine expressions of remorse or part of a strategy? These were the kinds of questions that the jury had to consider carefully. Their role wasn't just to listen, but to evaluate to decide which version of events made the most sense based on the evidence presented. Meanwhile, outside the courtroom, life incella continued, but it wasn't the same. The memory of Vanessa remained present in everyday conversations, in quiet moments, and in the collective consciousness of the town. Her story had become a symbol of loss, but also of the community's demand for justice. The trial wasn't just about determining guilt or innocence, it was about acknowledging what had been lost and deciding how society should respond to such a crime. As everything moved toward its conclusion, one thing was clear, no verdict, no sentence, would ever be able to undo what had happened. The outcome of the trial would bring a form of closure, perhaps, but it wouldn't erase the pain or bring Vanessa back. Still, for her family, for her friends, and for the entire community, the hope was that justice, whatever form it took, would at least honor her memory and recognize the truth of what she went through. And so, with all the evidence laid out, all the testimonies heard, and all the arguments presented, the final decision rested in the hands of the jury, who now carried the responsibility of delivering a verdict that would mark the end of one chapter and the beginning of another. To be continued…