Lawyer Dora Cavalcanti, who represents Luan Araújo, on the eve of the second round of the 2022 election, says that the federal deputy of the PL gave a series of lies and distortions about the episode.
Dora says that since the day of the episode, Zambelli seeks to reverse the roles: “At that moment [em 2022] Carla Zambelli went to the net and started, very powerful on the networks, to record a video in which she completely reversed the papers and wanted to put herself as a victim. That is why this case is so dramatic in terms of narrative. “
“She was never pushed and her son was never pushed either. So I would say that, honestly, even amazes me that she repeats this narrative,” says Dora.
Last week, the (Federal Supreme Court) to 5 years and 3 months in prison under a semi -open regime and the loss of mandate. The trial is suspended.
Luan acted in the process as prosecution assistant. Zambelli on charges of illegal possession of a weapon and illegal embarrassment with the use of a weapon. The persecution occurred in the gardens in São Paulo.
Dora disputes, as a point she sees as symbolic – because she would be used by Zambelli to put herself as a victim – that the deputy says she would have been pushed on the day along with her son. “He [Luan] He had to resist a lot to effectively become the victim, to prove that he was the victim and not the author of this violence, “says the lawyer.
In his vote, the rapporteur of the case, minister, says that Zambelli tries to run towards Luan, “but becomes unbalanced on the sidewalk and falls, rising with the help of military police Valdecir, who accompanied her.”
Dora also says Luan would not have spit on Zambelli. In an excerpt from the vote, Gilmar points out that, according to one of the videos of the occasion, when the deputy says that Luan was spitting, he replies: “I’m not spitting, I’m talking to you.”
The lawyer also says that the moment she begins to argue with Zambelli, Luan was with only another friend, who were not four people as Zambelli says. “There is no such narrative that she could have felt threatened in some way,” says the lawyer.
In addition, she criticizes Zambelli for claiming that the ministers might not have seen information about her gun possession – as treated by the rapporteur in her vote, in response to the defense of the deputy’s defense, who are rejected.
Another contested Zambelli’s claim is that her attitude of withdrawing the gun that day would be justified because she would only have done it after hearing a shot and would not initially know where he left. He further argued that he would only have known that the shot had been fired by the police officer accompanying her.
According to Gilmar Mendes, in his vote, this allegation “does not find back the factual dynamics calculated throughout the procedural instruction”, adding that the version is contradictory: “After the reciprocal verbal aggressions, the victim [Luan] It’s all the time trying to evade the place. “
The minister also states that no witness supports the version of Zambelli and that in none of the videos in the file, “is there even the possibility of glimpsing any given objective” that indicated that Luan carried a gun.
It also says that from the videos it is possible to extract that “at no time does the accused lose direct vision of the victim and events to the point of infer that the stampeth would have come from a firearm led by the offended.”
Minister Cármen Lúcia, in her vote, even classified the defense line at this point of delusional. “At the time of the shooting, Valdecir Dias a few steps from the accused and there is no visual obstacle between them. This circumstance, coupled with the fact that Luan Araújo ran with empty hands, makes this allegation delirious and completely isolated from the evidence gathered.”
Zambelli moved against Luan a due to an article he published on the internet with criticism of her after the episode. The lawyer who represents Luan in this other case argues that the text is within freedom of expression.
After the Supreme Court form, Luan said in a statement that he expects the court’s decision to help the population understand that the democratic process “does not tolerate such an attitude – specially coming from a parliamentarian.”
“It was an extremely painful moment that I would not even want my worst enemy. To this day, I need medical and psychological follow -up,” he said. “I often say that, as a black and peripheral man, I suffer a police approach a year, but I never imagined going through something like this at such a delicate moment for Brazilian democracy,” he said.
