“We have never had lunch, I have never been to his house, he has never come to my house.” Those were the words of prosecutor Lorena Parra in an interview with TVN on September 27, when asked about her relationship with lawyer Luis Hermosilla, accused in the Factop-Audios case that she heads.
And after the formalization in August, little by little information emerged that prosecutor Parra had had contacts with the lawyer in previous years that had not been previously revealed. “The proof that I don’t owe him anything is that it was investigated with zeal, it was formalized and today he is in prison,” said the prosecutor. in an interview with The Third published on Sunday, September 1 in reference to the preventive detention decreed for Hermosilla while the investigation lasts.
It is possible that she has never been to the lawyer’s house, nor he to hers, and that they have never had lunch together. But what the prosecutor did not say, partly because she was not asked about it in the interview nor did she want to reveal it, is that she did frequently go to Luis Hermosilla’s office, located in the Patio Group corporate building in Alonso de Córdova Avenue 3788.
“There was a time when she went to her office in Vitacura many times,” says a person who saw the prosecutor on numerous occasions in the Grupo Patio building, and especially on the fourth floor where Luis Hermosilla had his office, in specifically the one numbered 41-A, overlooking Alonso de Córdova.
“In the office everyone placed her [Lorena Parra]from the reception to the secretaries,” said this person. “That’s why no one understood that she was in charge of this case, if she was one of ‘ours’.”
The accused lawyer seemed to know that it was better not to leave many traces of the prosecutor’s visit. This person assures that Luis Hermosilla often went to look for her in the entrance hall of the building or in the third basement where he had assigned her visitor parking. This in order to avoid registering with the janitors at the entrance. “He was careful not to leave a record of his entry,” he says. Even so, there would be at least two or three written records of his entry into the Grupo Patio building, this person claims. Camera logs probably also exist, but the footage is usually deleted after 30 days. It is not known if the PDI has had access to these records.
“She was like a member of the house, she spent time in the office in Hermosilla and they locked themselves in for hours,” says another witness of their relationship.
The people who provided this information to Interference They did so under the condition of remaining anonymous for fear of labor or judicial reprisals.
This last witness to the frequent on-site interactions between the lawyer and the prosecutor affirms that there were so many topics that the two discussed periodically that Hermosilla commissioned one of his approximately 14 employees to serve as a liaison between him and the Oriente regional prosecutor. . “In the office everyone was there, from the reception to the secretaries,” said this person. “That’s why no one understood that she was in charge of this case, if she was one of ‘ours’.”
The changing versions of prosecutor Parra
In March of this year, the regional prosecutor of Santiago Oriente, Lorena Parra, managed to have the former director of the PDI Sergio Muñoz placed in preventive detention for alleged crimes of revealing secrets. Parra achieved this measure by announcing that records of this had been found on lawyer Luis Hermosilla’s cell phone. In charge of the Factop-Audio case since November 2023, which has Luis Hermosilla as one of the main defendants, on that occasion the prosecutor did not reveal her extensive links with this lawyer.
Interference contacted Juan Pablo Hermosilla’s office providing the guidelines for this article, to which we were told that the main revelation – the numerous visits by prosecutor Parra to Luis Hermosilla’s office in Vitacura – were correct.
It was only at the end of August, after Hermosilla was remanded in custody, that the details of their relationship began to surface. It was Juan Pablo Hermosilla, defense lawyer and brother of the accused, who began the campaign to reveal these links, and others, outraged after the statements of President Gabriel Boric. Upon learning of Luis Hermosilla’s preventive detention, the president said, ignoring the presumption of innocence, that “they have just sent to jail, in preventive detention, a man who believed himself to be all-powerful, Mr. Hermosilla. (…) There cannot be first and second class citizens and justice and the law must be the same for everyone. Therefore, it is good that those who thought they were powerful also go to jail.”
From there, prosecutor Parra had to come out repeatedly to explain her relationship with Hermosilla. But this was always a trickle, and he had to expand his statements with each new revelation that showed that he was hiding a large part of the truth about his interactions with Hermosilla.
Thus, in an interview with TVN On September 27, he acknowledged that he asked Hermosilla for help via WhatsApp chats for his application to be Regional Prosecutor of Santiago Oriente. “I knew that he was an important lawyer, that he was a lawyer who had access to the system in general and that is why I gave him my resume when I decided to apply to be the Eastern Metropolitan regional prosecutor,” he said on the occasion. Subsequently, the prosecutor asked Hermosilla “how the negotiations have gone” and that “around August 12, he answered me that he is carrying out the negotiations with one or two ministers,” he stated in that interview.
Previously, the Public Ministry stated that the conversation in 2021 between the prosecutor and the lawyer “had no other objective than to make known his career and his plans for the prosecution.”
However, on October 3, a report by Chilevision revealed several conversations between Parra and Hermosilla, which began in 2019, before his candidacy for regional prosecutor, and which extended until at least the end of 2022, a time when Parra was lobbying Hermosilla in favor of Marta Herrera as the new national prosecutor.
Contrary to what Lorena Parra stated, Hermosilla’s efforts in favor of her candidacy for the regional prosecutor’s office went far beyond presenting her resume to the judges of the Court of Appeals in charge of the nomination.
On August 2, 2021, Parra wrote to Hermosilla that “we are missing ministers Alejandro Madrid, Muñoz Pardo, Zepeda Arancibia, Dobra Lusic, Fernando Carreño, Maritza Villadangos, María Kittsteineir, Elsa Barrientos… Inelie Duran is also missing,” in a clear allusion to getting votes in his favor, rather than making his CV known.
“OK,” Luis Hermosilla responded.
“Luis, you were able to speak with Minister Sabaj, I was a little worried,” the prosecutor replied.
A few days later, prosecutor Parra sends her a message saying “thank you very much for the support,” after being elected to lead the Eastern Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office with 27 votes.
In the second half of 2022, Lorena Parra tried to convince Hermosilla to receive Marta Herrera to help her in her application to be the new national prosecutor. “I know that he insisted a lot, he wrote and called him all the time,” recalls a lawyer who witnessed those efforts. Finally, Hermosilla agreed, even though his favorite candidate was prosecutor José Morales. “In those weeks at the end of 2022, Lorena appeared almost every week at the office [de Luis Hermosilla]”comments one of the people who witnessed his visits to the offices of Alonso Córdova in Vitacura.
a weeks ago, Interference He contacted both Lorena Parra and Marta Herrera to find out their version of these events. We never got a response. We also contacted Juan Pablo Hermosilla’s office providing the guidelines for this article, to which we were told that the main revelation – the numerous visits by prosecutor Parra to Luis Hermosilla’s office in Vitacura – were correct.
In light of the potential for bias regardless of the nature of personal relationships between prosecutors and defendants, what concrete reforms could strengthen the Chilean legal system’s safeguards against conflicts of interest and bolster public confidence in its integrity?
## Interview Questions: The Case of Lorena Parra and Luis Hermosilla
This article raises crucial questions about potential conflicts of interest and the transparency of justice. To unpack these issues, we’ll divide the interview into thematic sections, addressing each topic with open-ended questions designed to encourage discussion and diverse perspectives.
**Section 1: The Relationship Between Prosecutor Parra and Lawyer Hermosilla**
* Prosecutor Parra has admitted to asking Hermosilla for help with her candidacy for Regional Prosecutor and even lobbied him to support Marta Herrera for National Prosecutor. Can these actions be considered inappropriate given their professional roles and the nature of the Factop-Audio case where Hermosilla is accused?
* Anonymous sources report frequent visits by Parra to Hermosilla’s office, something she didn’t initially disclose. How can we balance the need for transparency in such situations with the right to privacy and professional confidentiality?
* Given the revelations about the extent of their interactions, how can public trust be restored in the impartiality of the investigation and the justice system as a whole?
**Section 2: Transparency and Disclosure**
* Prosecutor Parra initially downplayed her relationship with Hermosilla, only revealing details gradually as new information surfaced. What are the ethical implications of this approach? Does it erode public confidence?
* Should there be stricter guidelines or regulations requiring public officials to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, even if those relationships seem tangential? How can we balance the need for transparency with the potential for misuse of such information?
* How can we ensure that media coverage and public debate surrounding these cases prioritize factual accuracy while avoiding sensationalism and potentially harming individual reputations?
**Section 3: Bias and the Perception of Justice**
* President Boric’s statement about Hermosilla, made before he was formally charged, sparked controversy. Did his statement undermine the presumption of innocence, and if so, what are the consequences of such pronouncements by high-ranking officials?
* Does the existence of a personal relationship between a prosecutor and a defendant, regardless of its nature, automatically create a perceived bias? How can we address these perceptions and ensure that justice is seen as truly impartial?
* What reforms could be implemented within the legal system to further safeguard against conflicts of interest and strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice?
**Section 4: Broader Implications**
* This case raises broader questions about the potential for influence and corruption within the justice system. How can we promote accountability and ethical behavior among legal professionals?
* What safeguards are in place to protect whistleblowers who come forward with information about potential wrongdoing?
* Can procedures like recusals or independent investigations be more effectively utilized to address perceived conflicts of interest and ensure fairness in legal proceedings?
By asking these open-ended questions and encouraging diverse perspectives, we can foster a deeper understanding of the ethical complexities surrounding this case and its implications for the justice system as a whole.
