Pamela Díaz’s lawyer, Matías Caviedes, explained why his client did not reach a judicial agreement with the journalist Hugo Valencia and the model Adriana Barrientos. in the lawsuit that La Fiera filed against the entertainment panelists.
Díaz filed a complaint against Valencia and Barrientos, who had treated her as a drug trafficker on the Zona de Estrellas program, after making jokes after an extract from the reality show “Tierra Brava” went viral, in which Daniela Aránguiz claimed that the “Fiera” had involved “even marijuana” to the confinement.
The hearing took place on May 16, where Díaz’s defense, like that of Valencia and Adriana Barrientos, had previously reached an agreement, which included the prohibition of the panelists from speaking about “La Fiera” for 3 and 5 years respectively.
As Caviedes explained to LUN, the agreement fell apart because when it was presented to the judge, she questioned the extension of the ban, considering the work of Valencia and Barrientos, which the public defender would have used to ignore the agreement.
“The magistrate questioned whether there was such a long prohibition in circumstances where they carry out their work activity in a program. It was then that the Public Criminal Defender’s Office took a certain confidence and ignored what we had talked about,” said the lawyer.
For his part, Hugo Valencia explained that the agreement was complex, because due to his profession as a journalist, it was complex not even being able to mention that Díaz hosted a program or entered a program.
“In fact, this meant that I couldn’t even mention her at a barbecue or say that she was the host of a program. If she did so, she had to pay one and a half million each time. *I am a journalist and in my work I am called to inform. “I couldn’t accept the conciliation they offered me because in practice it means stopping working in the media.”commented the journalist.
Finally, the lawyer for “La Fiera” defends the proposed ban, adding that Valencia and Barrientos’ comments affected the employment of Manolete Neira’s ex.
“What I can tell you is that one understands that such a long imposition of not talking about it can be considered too much and affect their source of employment. It’s fine, but what we criticize is that they have already misused their space (…) We are not making these prohibitions on innocent people who have never made a mistake. They linked Pamela to a kind of drug trafficking business and that affected Pamela’s source of employment. For her it has been extremely damaging and we are going to take the trial to the end,” the lawyer concluded.
