Cristina Pardo, stunned when listening to Mouliaá’s lawyer to say that “I didn’t know that the witness would not contribute anything”

Return to the case of Elisa Mouliaá in front of Iñigo Errejón. This March 7 has presented a witness cited to declare by ALFREDO CROUNDlawyer of the complainant, an anonymous person who would have been at the party but who, according to the testimony offered, has not contributed anything that can be used in favor of the actress’s version. In ‘Better late‘(La Sexta) have contacted the lawyer of Mouliaá to know his opinion of what happened in that appearance and the answer has left something out of both Iñaki López and Cristina Pardo, especially this one.

He has commented that the UQE person has come “has not said anything. He said he did not remember and has answered all the questions with an ‘I don’t remember it’ and ‘I don’t remember it because he was very drunk’ ». Upon hearing these references, the presenters looked at each other somewhat incredulous. The lawyer has continued pointing out that “he has focused on that, which is something very neutral that does not serve to accuse or defend. He has not been a good witness ». Cristina Pardoarrived that point, he asked the following: “And you didn’t know what I was going to say?”

ALFREDO CROUND He has ‘defended’, wielding that one never knows what a witness will say “and we cannot do anything about it.” Pardo nodded and told him that of course he understood it but that “it is normal that if you take someone to declare it is because you know that what he knows, knows, what he lived, could help the client, I think.”

To counteract this, the declaration of the “father of Elisa Moulaá, who has had a very active participation,” said Rario. He has reported how I listen to Elisa through the call he made that night and has affirmed that he felt he was “under the influence of something.” The lawyer added that “a friend of Elisa has corroborated her point version by point.”

He ELISA MOULIAÁ LAWYER It begins to leave interventions for memory, because it seems not to know everything about its client and the case, especially in relation to details that would be important for the development of the cause.