This Thursday we experienced a new chapter in the judicial process between the actress Elisha Moulia and the former deputy Íñigo Errejón. Two diametrically opposed versions, each with emotional weight, have faced each other in a day marked by tensions and multiple interpretations that have made this case a point of public discussion.
The prosecution lawyer, Jorge Piedrafitahas participated in the program Sonsoles Onega to make his position clear after Mouliaá’s statement: “It has been a coherent, consistent story, typical of a victim who has relived a painful experience”. Errejón has maintained his defense, alleging that the facts, although not denied in their entirety, had been misinterpreted, decontextualized and exaggerated.
Elisa Mouliaá’s story: tears and vulnerability
Elisa Mouliaá, alleged victim and complainant, experienced moments of deep emotion during her statement, according to her lawyer’s account. His testimony has included episodes of crying and indignation when his credibility has been questioned or the time it took him to file the complaint has been questioned. “She has felt vulnerable, intimidated and reliving what happened that day”explained the lawyer.
As she already said in the complaint, Elisa has once again explained that she was invited by Errejón to the presentation of a book. After the event, both went to a bar, where he began to perceive signs of discomfort in the politician’s behavior. According to his version, the episode culminated with a non-consensual kiss in an elevator, which he described as “violent” and carried out “up to the bell.” Mouliaá’s testimony before the judge, full of details that attempted to reconstruct what happened, has been interrupted at several moments by the emotional intensity of the memory. His lawyer has highlighted that these reactions are typical of someone who has suffered a traumatic act, underlining the authenticity of his story in court.
For his part, Errejón has adopted a different position, categorically denying the attack as described by the complainant. However, in a significant twist, he did not completely deny the facts, but instead offered an alternative version. According to him, the “three rules” mentioned by Mouliaá – referring to not separating more than 20 meters at the party, if he did, returning soon, and a kiss as a supposed requirement – were part of a context of “fooling around” and not of control or aggression.
The politician has acknowledged that there was a kiss, but has presented it as consensual and in a framework of friendly interaction. However, he has vehemently denied that this had been forced or violent. These statements, although apparently in his defense, leave room for doubts and contradictions, especially when he has been asked about previous statements in which he had admitted not always having behaved appropriately in his emotional relationships, just before resigning and publishing his acquaintance release.
The role of emotions and evidence in trial
The day has been marked by emotions, both in the statements and in the attitude of the alleged victim and the accused. While Mouliaá has shown vulnerability and anger when reliving the events, Errejón has shown, always according to the accusation, a calculated coldness, with a “very elaborate” version that has left loose ends in the lawyer’s opinion.
One of the most controversial issues has been Mouliaá’s mention of the possibility of having been drugged during the party. Although she herself has acknowledged not having concrete evidence, she has slipped the hypothesis after analyzing her memory gaps and the feeling of intoxication disproportionate to what she had drunk. This point, legally complicated to add to the case because it was not demonstrated or cited in the complaint, adds a level of complexity to the case, perhaps opening new lines of interpretation regarding the vulnerability of the complainant.
The political context and public discourse
The case takes on a special dimension due to the public figure of Íñigo Errejón and his role in a political party that has historically advocated for the defense of women’s rights and the importance of believing in the testimony of victims, highlighting the practical non-existence of false complaints. This duality has been highlighted by the prosecution lawyer, who highlights the contradiction between the values that Errejón has publicly defended and his actions in this case.
Errejón, aware of this symbolic burden, has justified his previous resignation not as an acknowledgment of guilt, but as a response to the “commotion” generated and the loss of confidence within his political environment due to this incoherence. However, his explanations do not dispel criticism about the coherence between his actions and his stated principles. The complexity of the case lies not only in the reported facts, but in how these are presented, interpreted and confronted in a context where scrutiny and public opinion play a notable role in the media circus.
Whatever the ruling, the truth is that this process has already left its mark on public perception of the behavior of political figures and the way in which they face accusations of this type, redefining once again the tensions between the private and the public. , between coherence and contradiction.
LinkedinBeloud