[ad_1]
A key instance has faced the civil lawsuit against the entertainer José Miguel Viñuela, sued by the cameraman José Miranda after the well-known episode in which the communicator cut the official’s hair in full transmission of the morning Mucho Gusto last July.
A few days ago, Viñuela’s defense presented its response to the lawsuit, with a detailed 30-page answer that discards the violation of Miranda’s rights, as stated in his legal action; that the plaintiff never expressed opposition to the facts, accepting, according to them, the context of “humor” in which they occurred; that the $ 100 million in compensation demanded is excessive, and that the same claim lacks any support, against which it should be rejected by the court.
In detail, the response of Viñuela’s lawyers – to which La Tercera had access – begins by giving an account of the communicator’s more than 20 years of career in both radio and television, being in the latter medium where he has reaped the greatest achievements . All this, they explain from their defense, to note that in all these years their perseverance, professionalism, and respect for the public and their co-workers have prevailed.
“By the way, like all human works, the trajectory of mr. Viñuela Infante is not exempt from errors and troubles. But no one can responsibly affirm that we are facing a human rights violator, or of being an abusive, discriminatory, arrogant and disrespectful person towards others, as the counterpart has pointed out in this headquarters and in various media, “he says. The document.
Regarding the events themselves, which occurred on Thursday, July 16, the defense completely ruled out that Viñuela had abused his power, had the intention of undermining and humiliating Miranda by acting in an arrogant manner -as the lawsuit states-, and that by the opposite has been characterized by a good treatment of his colleagues, regardless of their work.
“The latter, by the way, is also fully applicable to the relationship that our client had with the plaintiff, with whom for years he shared work on various television programs, developing a good working relationship between them, without ever having existed any attitude that could give foot to sustain an alleged use of its “position” as a television face “, planet the document.
Returning to the day of the incident, the animator’s defense once again states, as Viñuela himself stated in his public apology on July 17, that he cut the cameraman’s hair in a context of humor and joke, and that the gestures expressed by Miranda before, during and after the events, they expressed their willingness in some way.
“If Mr. Viñuela had perceived any sign of disapproval, express or tacit, on the part of the plaintiff before the fact, have no doubt that our client would never have proceeded to cut his hair,” they assure.
It is recalled by the way that Viñuela -the same as the animator Luis Jara-, was temporarily removed from the Mega morning due to the change of focus of the program, now inclined to the news, as a result of the social and health crisis. However, “for strictly television reasons,” says the text, Viñuela reappeared on the program in mid-July, “with the express mission of returning more entertainment and joy to the program, with the understanding that this was precisely what the audiences they needed and asked for more at a time of so much anguish and uncertainty as a result of the pandemic and confinement ”.
Hence his presence on July 16 when the episode with Miranda occurred, and the context in which the case would have developed.
After the haircut, the defense reply continues, the cameraman, still on camera, would not have shown consternation or concern about what happened, and that he even took his lock of hair, putting it in Viñuela’s jacket pocket, alluding to the popular humorous character, Charly Badulque.
Once the program was over, Viñuela went to the channel’s hairdresser where Miranda, accompanied by more people, was matching her hair. There, they say, the official maintained his position, indicating to the animator not to worry, and that he understood the joking context in which the events took place. This cordiality in the deal, they say, was reflected in an Instagram story that the animator uploaded to his social networks.
The animator’s lawyers reinforce his version with post-haircut situations. They say that Miranda expressed to Viñuela his intention to donate the lock of hair to a foundation for people with cancer. That in fact her hair was prepared for such an act, but that it never materialized since after the presentation of the lawsuit on July 20, Miranda and Viñuela did not speak again.
After that episode where Miranda would have expressed her intention to donate her hair, she went to the program’s management office, where according to this version she told the executives that everything was fine, that she understood the situation and that in fact she had been thinking about cutting for a while their hair.
Another situation that in his opinion reinforces his position is that Miranda accepted the payment of $ 350,000 from Viñuela, “so that Mr. Miranda could dispose of the
yourself at your convenience, ”the document explains. They also emphasize that this money accepted by the cameraman – since he would have provided his account number to the animator to make the delivery – is not mentioned in the lawsuit.
The defense reiterates a point: “By the way, seen from the perspective of time, the specific act of cutting Mr. Miranda’s hair was an error, an excess, motivated by the adrenaline of the moment, of which Mr. Viñuela regrets and he apologized both privately and publicly. “
However, and due to all the foregoing, they rule out that the compensation demanded by the plaintiff can be valued at $ 100 million pesos as a result of the “non-material damage” suffered. They indicate that the amount is “excessive, thereby distorting the purpose and objective of all compensation, turning it into a source of profit and profit for the plaintiff if it is granted.” In fact, a series of judgments of even lesser amount are exposed, related to larger cases.
They also reiterate that there are a series of errors in the way of presenting the claim: something that they previously expressed through an appeal presented by Viñuela’s defense, and that was rejected by the court a week ago.
Together with the response of Viñuela’s lawyers – who since Friday has returned to the Mucho Gusto morning – it is requested that the claim be rejected in its entirety.
For the defense of the cameraman, this response completely ignores the events that occurred on July 16 in the Mucho Gusto program and that were raised in his lawsuit. “The answer to the lawsuit combines contumacy, denial and incoherence,” Miranda’s lawyer, Roberto Ávila, told La Tercera.
The representative argues that “he persists in the error of claiming that a successful television career would be a kind of patent of impunity to act in society that would put the defendant above the rest of the citizens. Ávila also adds that “the defense disputes the facts presented by us, that is, it denies what happened and that the whole country saw, it is pure denialism”, and that at the same time “it denies what was also accredited by the Labor Directorate and the National Television Council ”, alluding to two instances: the first, where after an investigation the Labor Directorate established last October that the animator was solely responsible for the incident, and exempted the channel from all incumbency; and the sanction of the CNTV for the “degrading and humiliating treatment given to a cameraman”, establishing a fine of 400 UTM to the channel.
Miranda’s lawyer also considers that such an answer from Viñuela’s defense “is incoherent because apologies are publicly apologized and innocence is alleged in the process,” appealing to the statements provided by the communicator the day after the incident, when opening the program where he expressed: “In a situation of humorous and joyful context, circumstances led me to make this mistake, of which I feel deeply regretful and affected because I have never wanted to undermine or make any person feel bad, much less from my work team ”.
Ávila also refers to the $ 350,000 mentioned by the animator’s defense, which would have been delivered to his client after the incident. “It is stated that a tiny amount of money was deposited in the account of my client, without his consent or knowledge, why did he do that if he is innocent?”
The case continues its course in court, awaiting key instances such as the call of witnesses, where the animators Diana Bolocco, Soledad Onetto and Michelle Adam, present on the program when the events took place, as well as the executive director will be summoned of the Chanel. Patricio Hernández.
Finally it is estimated that the case could be decided in March.
