Regarding the rejection of the appeal for protection in favor of Jorge Valdivia, his lawyer said that it was based “on errors at the time of adoption.”
Jorge Valdivia’s defense lawyer, Paula Vial, harshly criticized the Oriente Prosecutor’s Office and asserted that on the part of the prosecuting entity there has been “an extraordinary lack of care, which also ends up affecting the complainant as well“.
After the rejection by the Court of Appeals of Santiago of the appeal for protection in favor of her client, the professional questioned the work carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office that investigates the rape complaints against the former footballer.
The lawyer asserted that there is “a mechanism that unfortunately some prosecutors have become accustomed to, because it has brought them profits in media cases“, which includes the leak of background data to the press.
In this regard, he maintained that “I have no doubt that there is a gigantic harm to Jorge Valdivia (…) because he is a famous personand that this background has been charged and this half-biased information is leaked, what it does is generate doubt for him and those around him,” he said in the interview he gave to radio Infinita.
What Jorge Valdivia’s lawyer said about Maite Orsini
On the occasion, lawyer Paula Vial also referred to the statements given by Jorge Valdivia’s ex-partner, Maite Orsini, to the pursuing entity.
“It is indeed a very complex issue from several angles, as its intervention, from the point of view of the Public Ministry, is in line with what I have claimed as the showbiz of these investigations“said the professional.
Then the lawyer delved into the issue and stated that “the Public Ministry knows perfectly well that Orsini’s intervention has no relevance in the inquiry of the facts.”
Regarding the rejection by the Court of Appeals of Santiago of the appeal for protection that she presented in favor of her client, Paula Vial asserted that “It is based on errors at the time of adoption, when preventive detention is given, it is done by the Court, confusing the cases.“.
“This lack of sloppiness is very serious, because changing the basic panorama means that decisions are not made according to the real antecedents. it is not possible that you give rise to preventive detention by confusing the arguments and cases of one complainant and another to the detriment of the way in which these antecedents should be evaluated,” he finally argued.