[ad_1]
The civil lawsuit against the animator José Miguel Viñuela continues to advance, closing its first stage.
This is because after the response of the animator’s defense presented to the court almost a week ago, and in which it is requested that the claim be rejected, the lawyer for cameraman José Miranda, Roberto Ávila, sent his reply, responding point by point. point to Viñuela’s version.
In the first instance, the document -to which La Tercera had access-, gives an account of the term “contradiction in adjecto”, and which refers to the fact that “the alleged innocence (of Viñuela) is accompanied by a series of evident and manifest acknowledgments of fault ”, so the request that the claim be rejected would not fit.
For example, it is appealed that in the same response to the lawsuit, the animator’s defense recognizes that the fact “constituted an error, an excess, motivated by the adrenaline of the moment, of which Mr. Viñuela regrets and apologized both privately as publicly ”, they quote. With this, considers the representative part of Miranda, the fault is recognized.
Regarding the public apologies that the entertainer delivered on the same morning Mucho Gusto where the incident occurred, the day after Viñuela cut Miranda’s hair, that is, on Friday, July 17, he also states: “My client does not accept these apologies so devoid of sincerity and that, as can be proved, they are aimed at the audience and not at the victim ”.
It also responds to one of the points revealed by Viñuela’s defense: the payment of $ 350 thousand pesos by the animator to Miranda after the incident, “so that Mr. Miranda could dispose of it at his convenience,” said the defendant. They also assured that this money was accepted by the cameraman – since he would have provided his account number to the animator to make the delivery – and that it is not mentioned in the lawsuit.
Faced with this, Miranda’s lawyer first points out that precisely this payment of money is another manifestation of “guilt and consequent responsibility.”
They warn, however, that the cameraman did not reach an “agreement” with Viñuela and did not accept a deal with him to receive that money. “It will be the obligation of the defendant to prove the deposit and what is more important, the alleged agreement or consent, which due to its amount the law requires must be in writing,” replies the lawyer.
And it also adds that at this point “their actions were in bad faith, since they did not even notify the plaintiff, they only wanted to create conditions to try to avoid obvious future responsibilities.”
Miranda’s lawyer also states that after the filing of the claim there were additional situations that reinforce his approach: the opinion of the Labor Directorate, where the channel is exempted from liability but Viñuela’s is recognized; and the fine of 20 million pesos that Mega had to pay to the CNTV in response to the thousands of complaints that reached the council after the incident.
It also responds to the figure of $ 100 million in compensation demanded by the cameraman, which was classified by Viñuela’s defense as an “excessive amount, thereby distorting the purpose and objective of any compensation, becoming a source of profit. and profit for the plaintiff in case of being granted ”.
On this, Miranda’s lawyer explains that he responds to the seriousness of the offense, a humiliating treatment and that it attacked the dignity of the official, and also the financial capacity of the accused
Finally, Miranda’s lawyer rejects the animator’s argument that everything took place in a context of humor. “For those who receive the aggression, this is not humor, it is simply a violation and a mockery from the arrogance,” he responds.
Asked about this stage in the trial, lawyer Roberto Ávila spoke with La Tercera PM. “The process is accelerating, and everything indicates that we will enter the probationary period very soon,” says the representative regarding the steps to follow, where several of those who were present in the incident will be summoned, including the animators Diana Bolocco, Soledad Onetto , Michelle Adam, and also the executive director of the channel, Patricio Hernández.
It also reveals that “we now have new information that will allow us to summon other people to testify that will help us understand the euphoric and aggressive behavior of Mr. Viñuela that morning”, thus adding other officials of the channel.
As previously expressed by Ávila, the case could be decided in March.
Meanwhile, Viñuela returned to the Mucho Gusto morning a little over a week ago, after being removed from the program in July as a result of this same fact.
