Original article: Abogada Caso Julia Chuñil señala que tesis de Fiscalía ha caído: “Existen evidencias de huellas de neumáticos, pisadas y amenazas previas”
Defense Criticizes Prosecution for ‘Media Spectacle’ in Julia Chuñil Case and Questions Evidence
In a pivotal turn in the case concerning the disappearance of activist Julia Chuñil, defense attorney Karina Riquelme labeled the public prosecution’s charges as «a fabrication,» following the release of two out of three accused sons.
In an exclusive interview with Grupo DiarioSur, Riquelme argued that «if solid evidence existed against them, they would not be free,» challenging the scientific validity of the evidence presented: «To claim that a small fragment might be human based on an analysis by two academics from the Universidad Austral… the law is clear: only institutions like the Legal Medical Service can conduct DNA testing. That report is not scientifically validated for a trial.«
The defense also criticized the «media spectacle» surrounding the presentation of skeletal remains and DNA traces found on a machete, demanding «serious evidence, not media litigation.» Riquelme revealed an alternative thesis that has not been investigated: «There are testimonies from protected witnesses who state that on Friday night, people were drinking nearby, and a pickup truck arrived. There are accounts of a fight after which Julia did not return. Evidence of tire tracks and footprints exists, along with previous threats from neighbors… It is the prosecution’s responsibility to investigate these theories, not ours.» She further denounced illegal monitoring of elderly residents’ homes.
Ultimately, the attorney announced plans to appeal to the Valdivia Court of Appeals to secure the release of the third brother still in preventive detention, asserting that intrusive measures against witnesses violate fundamental rights. «We have requested that they receive legal counsel,» she declared. For more details and to watch the full conversation, we invite you to see the entire interview below.
Complete Interview, Reproduced Verbatim. Conducted by By Pablo Santiesteban, Grupo DiarioSur.
— Following today’s resolution, which lifted precautionary measures for two of your clients, how do you assess the situation?
— We are pleased that all measures regarding Pablo and Jeannette have been lifted. This clearly shows that the prosecution’s theory, which sought preventive detention for all three, alleging their involvement in a homicide, has collapsed. If there were solid evidence against them, they would not be free. This shows that the accusation is a fabrication; we have demonstrated that it is false that Julia was attacked by her sons that Friday night.
— The prosecution recently presented the discovery of skeletal remains. How do you respond to this new evidence?
— We believe this is somewhat of a media spectacle. We have known of the existence of those remains since January 17; it comes as no surprise. What is surprising is that they claim a small fragment might be human based on an analysis by two academics from the Universidad Austral. The law is clear: DNA testing can only be conducted by designated institutions like the Legal Medical Service. That report is not scientifically validated for trial purposes.
— Regarding the DNA samples found on a machete and traces of blood, what validity does the defense attribute to them?
— The prosecution claims there is DNA from sons or grandsons, but we do not know the genetic timeline; it is unclear if it is from before or after the disappearance. It is striking that after three prior searches in 2024 and 2025, using ground-penetrating radar and excavation, nothing was found, and now these pieces of evidence have appeared. We demand serious evidence, not media litigation.
— There is still one brother in preventive detention. What actions will you take regarding him?
— We will appeal to the Valdivia Court of Appeals. We believe the evidence is weak, and there is no risk of him affecting the investigation if released. His siblings complied with total house arrest and never interfered, even allowing for reenactments of the scene without objection. Preventive detention is unnecessary.
— If the prosecution’s theory regarding the sons weakens, what direction do you believe the Public Ministry should pursue?
— There are testimonies from protected witnesses recounting that there were people drinking in the area on Friday night, and a pickup truck arrived. A fight occurred after which Julia did not return. There is evidence of tire tracks and footprints, along with prior threats from neighbors known to the Public Ministry, but that line of inquiry has not been investigated thoroughly or objectively. It is the prosecution’s job to rule out these theories, not ours.
— You have also mentioned the use of intrusive measures against witnesses…
— That’s right. There have been illegal monitoring and recordings at homes, affecting even elderly residents. We believe the prosecution’s actions have exceeded the norms regarding the protection of these individuals, and we have requested that they be assisted by attorneys, as their fundamental rights are being violated throughout this process.
