entre villanos

you say and this program where it goes, towards where it goes? Still on Saturdays with Paul like where he wants to wobble for good is that tell me what you call it is not today, but the other one is true I' m wrong. Don' t imagine how bad they are that they ' re already common to you, that you don' t even know it anymore, but it' s okay. It' s okay, because you don' t know what' s wrong with him, what' s wrong

with him, isn' t even ours. Mind the joy with all the Basque that we do remind everyone that, indeed, telling me is no longer a program that is on anyone' s radar. I don' t think so, but I don' t think so. I don' t think it' s on anyone' s radar. Well, let' s hear it. We' re going to change the subject, because yesterday we were all waiting for this one to appear because this happened to see the sentence appear or if they ratified or what happened if he got out of jail. Reader

Parra and first Dani, Dani takes out this very optimistic video. I want to see my dad out here, too. Yeah, I' m really sorry, I feel like it' s done, it' s already done right like that, yeah, yeah, that' s a live thing that we already think is when I go out to my dad if he' s not an ifist with tamales, we' re minted smooth. That would be for the best. They like the plan where we could say it. Well, that' s how Dani was celebrating or ahead of time celebrating, because

I think we all thought about it. The truth is that I thought so too, because this had already come very far. Not for my taste, for my taste, because, according to what they have said, there is

no convincing evidence or anything like that. And, well, in the end, at the end this is given, the notice comes to him, as he told us gerarda here, to daniela a parra, well, to the lawyer and then they warn daniel the vine and already since his countenance has changed and all the same good night hear, well, we didn' t expect anything, and yet they managed to disappoint us and they are going to re - dict my dad on the 15th of March. They gave us a new

hearing for March 15. We didn' t expect anything, but we knew we were against a corrupt system and apparently nothing makes sense. Nothing' s made sense since the trial started. Nothing made sense in two years, eight months ago. There' s no point in this happening. But, well, that' s what happened. We' ve just been notified, because

nothing I just wanted to tell you. I' m angry, I' m disappointed, I' m frustrated, but I' ve always said it as far as I can tell we knew this court was chocolate, as many people had already told us, and it turned out to be yes. Then, well, there it is, they give desperate, well, frustrated, disappointed. And this, don' t really go away for the purpose of

this is no one' s exclusive. This has been published by the same stakeholders, because all the information regarding Hector Parra' s new sentence that sexual abuse was now added to the Esa had been removed in the first sentence. Now they' re putting it back on. So, he' s gonna be older. That was leaked by Alexa Parra on her social networks. That ' s nobody' s exclusive, and no one was investigated. No, that was leaked by Alexa Parra herself on her social networks, on her Instagram

stories. There you can see them and it' s sad. You know what the joke is here, that it' s one is two sisters confronted by an improba. It' s how I' ll tell you a possible, possible, but unlikely. I don' t know if I' m implying things could have happened, but it' s pretty unlikely that it happened. Daniel Parra will know the evidence he brings to his father. And, on the other hand, because according to annexation and evidence, but I insist, uh, I' m not saying that one is guilty or not guilty.

The point here is that it has been a very manoeuvring case involving people who did not have to enter. People who didn' t have to put their hand in have their hands. What Sergio Mayer had to do, speaking for no one, giving lectures of nothing, why, why I think it ' s a big feat in this case. I don' t know what you think, Ephraim, if you want to start, I know which girls

didn' t understand. What happens to the head if there were lies here to see so much pain and what will happen to the head of those who lied. I mean, it' s what I can' t understand, because and I can' t understand me, he' ll tell us more how this little girl has, that strength, because they' ve done everything to break her soul, ah soul broken and so didn' t have a bad dad who hasn' t broken her soul, even though he' s

been told everything to break her soul. And that' s what I don ' t and you have to respect this, send her all the light, all the strength, because she' s out fighting with faith That is, we saw her face full of optimism and then we faced a system that doesn ' t work, because, then, if there are laws, but because

they are already contentillo, it must be very hard. I don' t know what you think about what she said wrong, yes, she was giving me a lot of attention, especially the turn that according to what Alexa publishes, because in fact, she' s the one who publishes this about what

she gave. Yesterday I was notified of the judge' s decision confirms the production and said that he never had to be acquitted for the other crime and that he is now convicted for both and that she says on March 15 will be the hearing for how many years he is increased, increasing him for both crimes. She' s giving, as a matter of fact, that besides everything, it' s now going to be counterproductive to have exactly requested this new hearing, this exact hearing. There he is on appeal. This is

Alexa, the one who publishes it. Otherwise, they' re not going to shine the opposite, because if it' s Alexa, who publishes this doesn' t, it doesn' t publish it. Dani Forgiveness Anua is there, but go on. Indeed, it says so by saying that God

does justice, because indeed, that is what would have to happen. Then it draws attention because while I do not bring the knowledge of how this type of procedure is handled, it is striking that the intention was to review whether this man could be innocent because of all the errors Daniela points out or argues about the procedure. I was to blame and see what else finds you that sinks you further. I mean, this strikes me very much at what point

it takes a turn that this certainly seems more justice looks like revenge. And, well, nobody was in there No one knows for sure. But what you can see and how you say it is observable behavior. What we see is anger or anger from a person seeking revenge against an ex- husband who left her, because that' s how it happened. And I don' t say or insist, I don' t put my hands in the fire

for anyone. But when there is a reasonable doubt, when you did that for bad people who had nothing to do, because of influence, there can be suspicion that there may have been a mishandling, because that makes there is a reasonable doubt about this case, emfraín forgiveness is that the victims must be believed and will tell them one thing. Clearly, in this case I believe the victim that I probably don' t know who he says is the exact victim. You don' t hear it' s a topic, but here

' s the case. Is the case here the thing? It' s very easy. You may think he is most likely guilty, most accurate to be innocent. That' s for sure. I insist, when there is reasonable doubt, it is better to leave a guilty person free than an innocent person in prison. That' s for sure, that' s for sure, you can' t. What you can' t do is put an innocent man in jail. When there' s a reasonable doubt. That' s what' s serious about this case. That there' s no certainty.

There is no certainty, it is absolute and I insist there were handlings and in these handlings all the certainty is lost, all the security. So, yes, it' s very likely and very possible that they' re getting in or having an innocent locked up in jail. That we can give him a vote of intent, says Shane Ruiz. We can give the victim a boat of confidence. Of course it is, and I think I' ve repeated it a million times. I don' t say yes or no,

whether he' s guilty or not. The thing is, there' s doubt, there' s doubt, and when there' s doubt, you can' t risk putting a person in jail being innocent. And here this is full of doubts, filled with so, driving, because of strange hands that put things there. Sorry, Ephraim, the two girls are victims. It' s not the two girls who are victims, but not what we' re hearing they' re victims of. I see an angry mom

here alienating a girl by forcing her because there' s the audios. Bringing this to the magazine, I mean, you' re wrong, it' s just logical. I mean, I didn' t see the attitude here I' m sure it tastes better Lupita, too, you worked with a mom' s kids protecting her daughter by cloak and sword. We didn' t see lectures, some weird things, which isn' t the usual behavior

in a mom protecting a kid who was a victim of forgiveness. Yes, it seemed to me an extremely narcissistic attitude on Jinny Hofman' s part. Personally. It' s my appreciation. My appreciation, but in the same way that we suggest that we give the benefit of the doubt, Alexa, because we also have to give the benefit of the doubt to Daniela and Hector

Parra. Also everyone deserves and the same ja deserves for the benefit. Not then, why we' re going to give the certainty and we' re going to say, that is, the fact that a judge says it just makes a little bit of a matter of grief. I' m not in favour of the first death, but the cots have always seemed to me that the damned might be in error. A person who until the moment of his last second says I am innocent, because star making a very serious mistake.

Not good. This doesn' t come as far as you can imagine, this won' t go that far, but it is. You' re taking a man ten years out of his life. You' re taking a woman away from her father for ten years. On the other hand, yes, indeed, on the assumption that Jinny was a manipulative with her daughter, she has taken her and taken her daughter from her father and has taken her sister away. He' s taken a family from him. Not like that, and I think it' s not that strong, too strong. Mel

' s got a delay. So if we stay silent, it' s not because we' re responsible. Okay, sorry. Yeah, I think

so. Here I am listening, yes, now, now. I was going to listen to you that all these irregularities are precisely the ones that have generated this vote of confidence or that possibility, precisely that this gentleman can prove an innocence that he has pointed out from the beginning and that has had no effect on his process, because the matter is that from the first day he was arrested according to the lawyers or the lawyer who defends him today, but

other lawyers have pointed out that he was arrested illegally and from the moment he was arrested, he was deprived of his liberty, receiving the treatment that you pointed out from a guilty person. Therefore, the vote of confidence or credibility, for it has been given to the today considered victim, who is alexa, because the lord stopped it was heard to her and he is deprived of liberty the one who is trying to celebrate and give him that same thing in

which he is in prison and the daughter who supports him. That' s the difference. So, in this case we do not know the truth, as we have pointed out so many opportunities, but the point is that they are not equal, because he has already been condemned, imprisoned and so on. Then it is huaal that they are asking for the opportunity for the evidence they claim to have provided to be considered in a way that was not previously

considered. That is why we are not talking about two who are standing in the same place and we will see, as a public opinion, that we choose this yes, this one not, because he is already in exact prison and she has a sentence look. What it says to generate, because from before they wanted to make a documentary with the gray victim you are already fit,

because why make a documentary. That on the one hand, but on the other hand, they remember this documentary that we talked about this able girl We made some more broken than what this girl' s name is who just got out of jail for having finished her mother, that jip s i cy

Gipsy Rose. Gipsy Rose was manipulated. To the degree of feeding herself by probe, to the degree of not standing from a wheelchair, to the degree of altering her voice, to the degree of allowing her teeth to be hurt, to the degree of believing herself that she had cancer, when she did not have it at that level, was manipulated. Graciey rose, that is, on that level. Now you assume that no other children can be manipulated

upon the parents, men of course who can manipulate. But it is the mother who exercises power from birth, over behavior, the psychela, all of a child, of course, of course she can manipulate it and the terrible one. Terrible. That' s why there are no equal circumstances here. Like Dr Amela said. This isn' t the same here. You are not equal, this has not been even, Ephraim, no, and the strength of the mother to manipulate, that is, we have to understand that

our mother is not also for us to reaffirm it. It is a reflection and an extension of us. No, and that' s where we seek safety, containment, and it has a lot to do with self- esteem. So if your mom tells you it' s green and you' re on this typical roll with her, even though you see it' s red, it' s green, exact, exact. That' s called the manifesta. That' s what I' m about to see. Imagine if there are husbands, teachers, spiritual guides who are capable of manipur You know

if this child cannot be manipulated, of course. Of course, so I, the truth would throw me away. Don' t worry. You come in and room at the time you want, look, says Laura Torres. It says. The issue of Héctor Parra should be analyzed from the legal point of view and not from the place of a daughter who helps her father. This person committed the crimes and there is evidence. But they also say Laura, and Daniela has said that the evidence she has in favor of her father

has not been accepted. How to say that the events occurred in a house he never lived in, for example, That is one of the evidence that was not accepted. So, from the legal point of view, of course I do understand it perfectly. The problem is that all the evidence is actually accepted. No, no, I don' t know, not one.

There is no doubt about the laws, there is doubt about the exercise of the laws, of that, that is what is being doubted, no, not about the laws that are right or wrong, whether there is evidence or not, because it has nothing to do with it here. The question is how the authorities have been manipulated and who has put their hand and who, being a Member and who has finally raised all that kind of things that they

do. Let this be so, it says how funny that they say that daniel is manipulated by their dad anymore they don' t know what to invent. No, I don' t think I, frankly, don' t think Daniela is manipulated by her father. I think so. They don' t live under the same roof. They didn' t live under the same roof, because Daniela lived with her own mother, so there wasn' t this hole where Hector Parra could be manipulating her daughter, because maybe she would

have alienated her. He had alienated them both against each other, against his mother. And it' s not like that. On the other hand, I believe, on the contrary, as they have described, the relationship they had, that it was a relationship to go out, to play, to have fun and Daniela' s own mother. He said it. The one who took responsibility for the obligations was the mom and going out with her dad was going out for fun. Then. I don' t think there was

any kind of alienation from Hector to Daniela. I don' t think he wanted to say anything, and what' s important is exactly what' s said. For example, he' s guilty and there' s evidence that he' s guilty, because this is what he told you, because we haven' t gotten the file, we haven' t seen it, and we wouldn' t have the right to have that hold on our hands.

And, likewise, those who have doubts, at least it is not that most people are sure that the Lord is innocent, but they have immense doubts about everything that has been written in these last few minutes and because Daniela Parra also expresses that there is evidence that shows otherwise, that shows innocence and that those evidence was not recognized or valued with justice. And we don' t know about those tests either because we don' t have them the same in

our power. This is the reason to say yes there is evidence that he is guilty, well, because they are telling us and because, indeed, the authority considered it so. But this part that defends says there is evidence that needs to be used also without being there. This is what hasn' t happened. And, on the other hand, the doubt that I believe many people have also expressed the responsibility that in this case the mother, which is Jenny Hoffman, would have, since she says she knew it a long

time ago. He reveals it later, many years later, making sure it was so that his daughter would be of age and could say it for herself. However, he has spoken to you about possible complicity and I have not all that sometimes they have given us comments where they tell us no, that it is not so, because Jimmy stopped sending alexta with the father the moment he found out about it and, according to the information that we do know, that is not so. She kept going to see the age sa being

pointed out and I listened to the lawyer at the time. That was last week, not this occasion. When he had recently given them the date of resolution on this hearing, they asked him a great deal. Without it there will be a counter- claim that then Jimmy was also responsible and she pointed out very promptly that in this case that in criminal matters it is not a counter- claim, but that a direct and specific complaint should be made about

this person. Then, this other part would also remain pending. No, then what is going to happen then in relation, I do, I can tell you that many times the manipulated people there is a day that wakes up, There is a day that you light that little light of conscience and wake up who is the manipulated hear. And our section today, because it says here you know they' re super serious. They' re always your super serious. We' re all at peace here, but you' re right.

Peace can also be happy. Sure or, of course, everything can be fun and then it occurred to him. I will blame you, Ephraim and Mel I would be incapable. I' d be incapable. A section that when they gave me the note and I said ah so, look. It' s like I' m Charles Manson defending Ted Bondy and I said well, not like the jock defending the penguin. Yeah, and it' s kind of like that. He goes, he goes, because it turns out that you will remember that we have seen. We saw it because we

all saw it. We all saw it. We saw Emilio Fernández, son of El pirru, former husband of Marianne, widower of Mariana Levy, ex - husband of Ana Barbara. We saw Emilio say that the house his father had left, his house in Cuernavaca, full of debts, because he had never paid the property because he had never taken over, because he had no money. Grandma had just died and he was alone, he had no one

to be with. He wanted to sell some notes from Ana Barbara. Ana Barbara, I don' t want to receive him because he didn' t comply with the rules of his house. And well, there was the emillo saying so flatly. No, my dad said it because we heard it or tell me. Don' t tell me you don' t. But he said that practically his father had never seen for them, had never looked after them and that he lived alone in that house and owed more than a million

pesos of prediales. That' s what he said. And then, now that Ana Barbara is coming, because the poor woman of Navarre, because they already bring her to the target, then the brother that if the songs that if they are mine and Yana Barba said go with the lawyer and then then some of them leave Emilio to say that the boyfriend or husband or whatever of Ana Barbara has treated the other children badly and that because everyone has already gone

with his dad and that which we don' t care about, the dads or anything. But the thing is, this man has done, he' s got Na Barbara manipulated and done good. So that accuses Emilio, that ' s what he said no. I also don' t know it' s true, it' s false, it' s rapping, but it ' s what they say and it' s the arguende that started and yes there is that he did say no, and then the pirru whom his own son accused of irresponsible, his own son accused of irresponsible? He writes for

a program and says I' ve decided to give this statement. This is the first- hand programme exclusively for Mr Infante, with whom I have had profound differences in the past, but I believe that he is exercising his profession in a more sensible way and lasts a lot of peace. I think you ' re now documenting research into a note, because you know the extent to which they can have the damage they can do, so I think it'

s your mission now to get to the bottom of the stories. Well, before the recent statements that hurt my children, I want to tell you first that as long as I live, you will never be alone and helpless, so I will support you in every way. Up to the last consequences and I' m even going to plot. That tells us it is regrettable and very unfortunate that through an alleged lawsuit of a third party, of a lawyer, who represent barbarous couple who try to intimidate and threaten. If there'

s the family thing. This, then, I hope, will be fixed, but the part where the pirro says he exercises his profession in a sensible, mature and much more measured way in his claims. I think he now documents and investigates before making himself known, because he knows the ay not what tenderness. I really did if I saw Charles Manson defense, I didn' t give you matching goody, do the math. I don' t know what you think, but it was in all peace this section is going to

need a cortinilla and everything it takes away I mean. They said I don ' t need to see. Please, they said it was the guaso that good, depending on the guato or the other way around and then what else was Ephraim, that was the tano, the dracula, defending Bachor and Abaxa. That, I mean, really is something that pulls laughs at the absurd, but it also gives a lot of surprise. I mean, I wonder

what happened there. Something happened because he himself says that they did not talk for many years, that they have had terrible differences, but that the pirrou decides to give this statement first to Gustavo Gimante, because now he realizes that he is doing, in short, an involuted work. Martia lamiadosa, is a Martian pious, is the unifier of families. He' s what makes families mean, so he' s suti. He' s a social fighter,

he' s like involuntary sarcasm. Or I don' t know what this is, because here we' ve said it many times and the audience agrees because they see it and listen to it. And all the more, if something doesn' t have the journalist quoted in any of that that says there, then like why does the pirro choose him who, on the other hand, says that as long as he lives, his children won' t

be alone or helpless or something. When, indeed, his son José Emilio, revealed that he was with this bronc of the house alone there and the father who Tirru said yes, he already locked you with his nails as he wants, he is already of age and I do not know who, that is, in which universe any of those two fragments of the statement makes sense.

I mean, that' s why it really surprises and draws attention powerfully And what' s most striking is the conviction with which the kid gets it He hears it, but you know it' s funny, it' s like it' s like you want someone we' re going to not know this one, because I don' t know that I don' t know if they find out who was good. Of course, I guess most of

them are Ferdinando Marcos or his wife was Imelda Marcos. They were a dictator for a dictator in the Philippines who his wife, when we were taken back, had more than 3, 000 pairs of shoes. Not then is it as if he went out to defend them, as if they had gone out to defend the seagull when he showed us his white house. I mean, explain to me, explain to me no, I mean, how to explain a little bit to me, no, but I don' t know for the best. Yeah, I' m wrong. And he' s a

social fighter. Is he a social fighter? Yeah, I' m worried because this social fighter really thinks he' s ethical, that is, he does believe it Maybe he' s misdefined. Ethics may have never read Aristotle. I think not, because and you see it dates his speech and that ' s it and what a barbarous then we' re going to ask a representative in this world backwards hear to me that he draws my attention is this, Mr Pirru That, because there is to see. Not we' re

not talking about your family, because all families have problems. We' ve said it a million times. There are two types of family, the dysfunctional ones and those who believe they are not. Those are the two types of family that exist. No more. So, well, all families, absolutely all families, have problems. Everything that comes out of me jumps me. It is that this man, whose son has now openly denounced him also in trees, a flag of the great father of a defense, is that they

notice what a contradiction or what contradiction. No, on the one hand, we have a girl defending a imprisoned father, on the other hand, but a girl who, because she blindly trusts her father and, on the other hand, a father defending her son whose son does not trust him, does not trust because in fact, notice that there is a very remarkable situation here and it is true that people can some, of course, not all,

but some people can develop a rather intelligent and manipulative use of language in their casto, a rather brilliant management of the rentorist and can deceive people not just by word. One would have to believe someone, but when you have been before the public light for a long time and there have been actions that have repercussions and that are visible to others, that is the famous observable behavior, for then the word is already doubted and that is where we can detect phenomena

such as incongruity. And so that' s why we don' t believe people who have all known that they have acted differently from what they suddenly come out of nowhere and say. And in the case of like- dollous infant, because more than a lot of people, because maybe I did one thing and a few months later he totally says the opposite. That' s what

attracts attention. But what strikes me is that I saw an interview that José Emilio Fernández gave on the channel of Inés Moreno, where he speaks lupita of a sensible one and sees that he is a child who must surely have many problems because of everything he has lived. He must be immature, because he is barely nineteen and surely has no emotional armament that would have provided him with

any other kind of circumstance than the one that touched him. And as soon as he' s training at the training center, there in Televisa and he ' s already driving and so on. But it really draws attention to the way he talks, because, far from falling into this and saying yes, you see how my dad will defend us, he does something very subtle, very very careful plus, he has a great vocabulary to be a young boy

who is just telling you to start studying. Besides, it' s not like he' s in college, he' s training to be an actor, a driver, and so on, and I' m not saying it ' s any less. It' s just another way. Let' s

say formation, another orientation towards histrionics. And all this he handles with vocabulary, He handles the ideas very well and says to him he holds what he says if he considers that there is abuse in that family, but he also thinks it' s great that the dad has decided to act and take the other little brother with him, because he thinks that whatever he wants from his dad and he' s going to be better. But when they ask him and you, you, when you' re recognising your dad because I know

they' re distanced and he took a look. I don' t think that' s the moment. I hope he gets here. I think if he looks at you for something, he' ll also say if my dad wants to find me, then he' ll look for me like he' s saying maybe. I' ve looked enough for him and he didn' t want to. I don' t know, but what I' m going to do is it' s not feigned. Right now, yes, no. He says how nice what my dad wrote he recognized it. Write

very well how good it is that you take care of my brother. But I' m already doing my thing, I' m already doing my thing, I' m studying. I' m fine, and if you get it and so much is over I liked what he said in that interview. I thought, it seemed centered. And I think it' s okay, because he' s probably gonna have a beer or something to do with this race and he can make it clear that he' s gonna make it through,

so he can make it through. Ephraim, no, for what do I say to my dog- faced pirro, for it is that ah no what face of dog, not because they liked forgiveness. It' s just that he' s the person who cheats on you, he' s very smart and knows how to take information to the most ethical places in the world. So, since then no words, girl, I get a circus. I don' t understand why this gentleman liked to generate circus through his children

so much. It really bothers me that your dad does that beyond Gustavo adol I was all that, because he doesn' t like to make five and then they put him in the tent because he' s so, so, so, are they so so? Tan? Tal? It' s one, but it' s an exact shame. They put the tent on him because to see you destroy a family, like it happened with Alejandra, with his daughter, Well then and ended one, truth be told, frankly shattered,

with differences, irreconcilable and so on. But here they are worth getting alone, vain, they get very very very, very amazing, the truth very yes, very very very. I don' t know what they think and what they want to conclude this beautiful program with all peace we' re in every step of the way that I' ve been watching and meditating, two hundred pardons, what you' re going to talk about and now you ' re not. I was good at chatting and I saw a comment and

you tell me I went somewhere else. But then nothing, which is always the issue with the parents. The parents are here to protect the children and here is another dad who, as my companions said, likes the circus, they put the tent on him and instead of being a dad he starts to be an exact clown and with shoes off, your shoes with another clown also Basler, because yes I am also seeing for some comments. I told him he' s not very much in favor of José Emilio and he looks like

he' s a covert. I don' t know what, because maybe I do, but I do have a particular inclination to want young people to have a chance to straighten out whatever they have done at their young age and get out as well as possible. They inspire me you know, inspire me hope, inspire me with passion even to think that someone has to take care of, someone has to take care of the children, young people and guide them properly. Maybe land does, that' s right. Perhaps it is

true that José Emilio wants to look good. Maybe if you want them to start looking at you to see if that makes you famous, because in the end you' re going to start an artistic career. Maybe so, but that doesn' t seem so terrible to me, it doesn' t seem evil or harmful to anyone, because, as you like, he' s trying to get through exactly what he has with what they gave him and what they taught him. So if you do a little bit, I don'

t think that' s so bad out there. But I write a little boy who shouldn' t have had a good time, really lost his mother when she was a baby and didn' t even know her, a dad as inconsistent, as inconsistent as this, a mom who was his mom, but then not one who goes, that is, it' s not simple, no forgiveness, no, it' s not that easy. He' s a kid who lost his mother eight months after he was born. It ' s a but he doesn' t have a responsibility under him. He

' s nobody' s father. He has to be responsible for himself what you do as you say by going out on his own. Okay, yeah, yeah, he has to give you a media tour and do, well, yeah, because that' s what he' s looking for. He ' s at the training school of Televisa being. Then, yes, yes, you need to. On the other hand, his father, for no, his father was exhibited by his own son. But, well, I hope, you will settle family matters and hopefully this will come to a good

end. In the end, they are family and everything that families are always rescueable is very rescueable. And, well, I hope they keep coming closer to benefactors and social fighters. Thank you very much, dear Dr Amel, thank you and forgive the accidental start, but I think this was composed a little bit later. How good, my dear, Ephraim, remember that this thing about us leaving, going out, going in is the shadow of the

eclipse that is coming. Ah yes, the eclipse is coming. Besides, or I' m coming back lourdes I swear I' m not doubted it went a little ris was a little free and they stayed eyes preserved, but not many thanks to all of us for having accompanied us and we' ll see you soon tomorrow here in peace, but you can go see Queen Victoria, chapter one and two. You can tomorrow live by Broken Souls with a very interesting theme, a self- widow, but which has a lot of

history. It happened here in Mexico, in a thousand nine hundred and sixty - one. It was a very famous case, so famous that you look at Mexican society as a whole. It happened there in Polanco, but we ' re going to tell them tomorrow and go see the OSCARS programs, go see the problems of the Oscars, which are quite entertaining and with a lot, a lot of content. I' ll be back soon, I promise the Guadeloupe Valley, and we' ll leave like this later, boys bye

bye. Thank you all. They' re on radio too and YouTube and Facebook and everyone thanks