Dalas Review dismantles “This Is Dalas Review”: complete response to Wismichu

2013: The conflict began immediately after the break with Ingrid

Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) ended his relationship with Ingrid in 2013. Shortly after, Ingrid started dating Ismael Prego (Wismichu). From that moment on, Wismichu introduced indirect insults and accusations against Daniel within his videos, calling him a bully and turning an alien relationship into recurring content.

That same year, Ismael asked Daniel via Skype to commit suicide. He also traveled to the small town where Dalas lived, took a photo of himself at a short distance from his home and posted messages about locating his portal. These facts predate any defensive video of Daniel and determine the actual origin of the confrontation.

The chronology makes it impossible to maintain that Wismichu appeared years later merely to inform or defend himself. The public harassment began when he started his relationship with Ingrid, immediately after her break-up with Dalas. Wismichu's harassment of Dalas continued over the years through insults, overt and indirect remarks in multiple videos, and other attacks.

2016: Maria Rubio publicly joined the circle of Wismichu and Ingrid

After Dalas ended her relationship with Maria Rubio in 2016, she began to meet and publicly coordinate with Wismichu and Ingrid. For months they talked about Dalas on Twitter, shared accusations and reinforced each other's stories.

Maria Rubio was not an independent source: she maintained her own sentimental and judicial conflict with Dalas. Years later she was convicted and sentenced to prison and has a criminal record in Argos. The full court timeline, the resolutions and the audiovisual evidence are gathered on the specific dog page.

When Wismichu used together the testimonies of Ingrid and Maria Rubio, he presented as separate corroboration what came from a single coordinated circle and publicly confronted Dalas.

2017: the analysis of bottling was the immediate trigger for So is Dalas Review

Before Wismichu published So is Dalas Review, Ismael Prego had hit a young man three times from behind with a glass bottle during a political discussion and left him bleeding at his home. Daniel started to prepare a video about the episode.

Dalas' analysis was calmed: he exposed the different versions, ordered what was known and avoided gratuitous insults or accusations. The court's findings confirmed the central point of the analysis: Wismichu was convicted for injuries and with criminal record, sentenced to prison, something that Wismichu tried to hide a lot in the years after this crime he committed.

While Daniel was analyzing that case, Wismichu needed to turn his attention away from the aggression and regain control of the public conversation. It was then that he published So is Dalas Review, shifting the focus from his three bottles to a battery of accusations against Dalas.

So Dalas Review launched a campaign of mass harassment against Daniel.

Wismichu's video accused Daniel José Santomé Lemus of pedophilia, of mistreating Ingrid and Maria Rubio and of mistreated Argos. He gathered testimonies from the same circle, cuts and unverified claims to present accusations as facts.

The spread triggered a massive campaign. The Dalas channel was shut down for several hours, had to respond urgently and the first public reaction was overwhelmingly hostile. During that time almost no one wanted to examine the complete documentation.

The final dismantling required months of reconstruction, counsel from several lawyers and a huge volume of writings, statements, messages and videos. Dalas took a long time to respond because proving each manipulation required much more work than formulating the original accusation. A lie is told quickly, but to deny it is a long and tedious process.

A response of 1 hour and 38 minutes, with every test in sight.

Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) published a full response to Asisi es Dalas Review, the video with which Ismael Prego (Wismichu) collected accusations about Ingrid, Miare, Dalas' private conduct, a photograph sent to a young woman, her transfer to Ireland and multiple public conflicts. The answer is not limited to denying: it displays court rulings, procedural writings, private messages, preserved publications, emails, old videos and statements by the people involved.

The evidence exists within the linked video and comes with a wealth of detail, date and context. You can check what Wismichu said, what fragments he omitted and which document or record contradicts each point.

Dalas offered to debate publicly and live with Wismichu and anyone who maintained those accusations, showing conversations and statements that were whole, without cuts. That contrast was never accepted. Which led Dalas to say "he who owes nothing, fears nothing". This exposed Wismichu's cowardice of launching gratuitous accusations but not being able to accept a face-to-face debate where, live, he would tell Dalas the things. I only knew how to do it behind a script.

The actual chronology starts in 2013, not with the Wismichu video.

Daniel José Santomé Lemus's relationship with Ingrid ended in 2013. About a month later, Ingrid began a relationship with Ismael Prego, and both published attacks and comments about Dalas. Dalas temporarily withdrew from social media and deleted his own videos; Ingrid's former public account was made private, removing much of her earlier material from public view.

When Dalas returned, he published the video originally titled “Alguien hundido”, now preserved as “El vídeo por el que Dalas dejó YouTube”. The court documents shown establish that no court ordered him to remove it and that the comments examined did not reveal sufficient evidence of a criminal offence. Nor was it a call to persecute Ingrid: it showed posts in which she wished him dead and encouraged other people to travel to his town.

Years later, coordinated videos appeared under My story with Dalas, where random girls told totally ridiculous stories, highlighting one in particular who said that "Dalas forced her to fall in love with him", which created many memes among internet users of how ridiculous these stories were. Ingrid publicly asked for stories and material against Daniel and attacked creators who refused to join, insulting them. As this campaign did not have the desired effect, it came later: As is Dalas Review, published in 2017, came after that campaign and erased this chronology.

Publications prove who sustained the public harassment

The timeline gathered shows that Wismichu mentioned Daniel much more often and that Dalas' answers normally came after attacks. It wasn't Daniel who went to Wismichu's home: Ismael traveled in 2014 to Daniel's small town and posted a photograph there.

There are also messages from Wismichu wishing Daniel to commit suicide, T-shirts with his face next to Jordi Wild, another Youtuber who harassed Dalas, and responses to followers who spoke of throwing bottles at him at an Expotaku conference in Galicia. In response to a message announcing a bottle, Wismichu said he would not go because he would end up in jail and added that "he expected them to do what they had to do".

In the talk a banner appeared with Wismichu manda, later circulated by him. In one of his shows, it was said that I wish Dalas' mother had aborted him, a comment confirmed publicly by a friend. These records destroy Wismichu's image as someone who was only trying to "escape from Dalas".

Ingrid's public and private messages dismantle the unilateral role assigned to her by Wismichu.

The response recovers posts from the former Zorra Level 100 account in which Ingrid insulted Daniel, wished him dead, spoke about his mother, commented on her own sex life and repeatedly referred to his later partners. Daniel is shown asking her to stop mentioning him. Ingrid continued speaking about Lizy, other relationships and even the previous marriage of Dalas's partner; she also threatened to send material to one of Daniel's girlfriends and gave interviews about him.

Daniel's last breakup message was a serene farewell: he acknowledged that the relationship was harmful, wished to close contact and blocked to end the conflict. In contrast, the video shows private messages from December 16, 2012 in which Ingrid addressed Daniel insults, death wishes, references to suicide and threats of sleeping with someone else to hurt him.

The full catch and its timeline prove that the conflict was bidirectional, if anything, with deeply abusive messages from Ingrid to Dalas, not vice versa, and that it was false to present one side speaking incessantly and the other completely withdrawn.

The relationship videos and the reconciliation mail eliminate the one-dimensional narrative.

Daniel recovered from a hard drive contemporary recordings of the relationship. Ingrid appears joking, insulting, waking up or recording him without warning and actively participating in a dynamic that Wismichu's video described completely unilaterally.

Before he heard the complaint and after months without any new publications, Daniel sent a conciliatory mail to end the civil war. Ingrid later used that mail as alleged harassment. The answer is text and context: it was an attempt to close the conflict, not pursue it.

When Ingrid later argued that any of her behavior was due to Daniel having turned her into that person, she passed the responsibility on to him for her own words. The recordings allow the audience to see the contemporary relationship and not a reconstruction made years later.

The accusation of mocking cancer deliberately manipulated the meaning.

Wismichu claimed that Dalas had laughed at Ingrid's mother's cancer. The whole conversation proves otherwise. Ingrid had been making claims about Daniel's mother and family for a while. Dalas's response attacked Ingrid's daughterly behavior and held her responsible for leaving her mother alone; she did not mock the illness.

A later publication by Ingrid herself shows that she understood that meaning: she contrasted an old phrase of support from Daniel with the subsequent accusation that she had been responsible for her mother's loneliness. The reference was to Ingrid, not cancer.

The answer also shows publications in which Wismichu used the word cancer to attack Daniel and other public figures. The material shows the double-edged pretending to be a sensitivity he himself did not apply.

Ingrid's complaints were filed and the extraordinary measures were rejected.

The official documents shown set two unequivocal dates: provisional submission on 22 November 2016 and full confirmation of the file, with dismissal of the appeal, on 27 April 2017. Daniel José Santomé Lemus was not convicted nor the measures requested against his professional activity.

The complaint called for large amounts of money - which together amounted to 280,000 euros - a stay-at-home order after more than three years without face-to-face contact, the closure of his YouTube channel and the ban on access to any social network. All of this was rejected.

An economic report attributed 120,000 euros of loss to subscribers and career opportunities. That writing presented Ingrid as a creator with economic activity, while Wismichu's public account insisted that she was an anonymous person exposed by Daniel. Both characterizations contradict each other.

Dalas asked to publish the full and uncorted court statements.

Wismichu described Ingrid's statement as flawless. The response shows a fundamental contradiction: the written complaint attributed a death threat to Daniel, but when questioned in her statement, Ingrid denied that Daniel had threatened to kill her.

Dalas publicly consented to the full publication of both his statement and Ingrid's and requested the necessary reciprocal authorisation. He wanted the exact words, questions and contradictions to be examined, rather than an edited montage. The other party never authorised publication in full, showing that they had much to conceal while Dalas did not.

The psychological report did not believe Daniel caused the alleged harm.

The psychological document of 20 May 2016 was drawn up from Ingrid's account of events between 2011 and 2013. The court's assessment in the video concluded that the report, based on its own statements, was not sufficient for the intended purpose of proof.

The report did not establish that Daniel José Santomé Lemus had caused a disturbance or substitute evidence for the alleged facts. Presentation as independent clinical confirmation exactly removes the written limitation by the court.

The story of the empty box had no single proof.

Wismichu assured that Daniel had sent an empty box as part of a pattern of harassment. That episode wasn't even in the complaint of over a hundred pages. Neither was a receipt, tracking code, messaging record or document related to Daniel's shipment.

Dalas checked the major distribution companies and found no shipment attributable to him. He specifically challenged Wismichu to file the transporter's registration. Without that elementary proof, it was sold as a fact without traceability.

The alleged WhatsApp threat was never authenticated

Another central piece was a WhatsApp capture attributed to Daniel. The court ruling stated that neither its authenticity nor authorship had been credited because it was manipulable material.

In the appeal a new witness appeared late to try to support the capture, although the initial report did not include a witness present. Wismichu presented with certainty what the court file did not give for authenticated. It was a mere screenshot without any kind of certification, and denied multiple times by Dalas himself that it was real in the slightest way.

The woman in the photo was 18 years old, not under 16.

Wismichu used a photograph of Daniel with his torso uncovered and stressed that it had been sent to an alleged 16-year-old minor. The video shows a contemporary conversation in which the woman herself expressly writes that she is 18 years old and a later public publication whose age calculation matches her age. The girl's name was Cristina Bernal, a woman who was also the girlfriend of other YouTubers and public figures from the Andorran scene of YouTuber. At that time, Cristina Bernal also became friends with Maria Rubio, which allowed her to upload these private conversations that had kept Cristina linking with Dalas. Years later, they stopped being friends and Cristina Bernal switched to the side of Dalas again in 2019 (yes, she changed sides 2 times).

Cristina's photo, showing her breasts, had already been published and was sent within a voluntary conversation. The woman (Cristina) later shared a shortened version of the exchange while maintaining public relations with Ingrid's circle. Dalas offered to show the full live chats to check dates, consent and context.

The age test is on the screen. Turning an 18-year-old woman into a girl under 16 was one of the most serious and most clearly denied manipulations by So is Dalas Review.

Miare and the other sources were presented without contradiction or link.

Wismichu collected testimonies from people related to each other and with previous conflicts against Daniel, but presented them as independent corroborations. The answer demonstrates the connections between Ingrid, Miare, the woman in the photo and the groups that were pushing coordinated videos against Dalas.

Miare's interventions were used to reinforce Ingrid's story without explaining her own public and judicial dispute with Daniel José Santomé Lemus. A repeat between coordinated people doesn't make an accusation independent evidence. The linked response shows publications, dates and communications that allow for the reconstruction of this coordination.

Chatroulette material reveals the double-decker of Wismichu

The response counteracts Wismichu's moral accusations with archived material from his own Chatroulette videos. In those pieces he recorded women without knowing the final destination, requested nudity and promoted uncensored versions on a paid service. The preserved publications and fragments document the promotion and complaints of exposed persons.

A clip by Wismichu himself shows him explaining that he could fake crying to get that material. So his tears in "So It Is" don't prove the truth of his claims: emotion in front of a camera never replaces documents.

Ingrid publicly stated that she did not mind the content (the content Wismichu recorded of other girls naked without them knowing they were being recorded without her consent, literally asking them to show her tits while she was dating Ingrid). That tolerance contrasts with the absolute condemnation applied to a photograph sent between adults and confirms the selective criterion used against Dalas.

Raimito and the blog used by Wismichu were not reliable sources

Wismichu leaned on Raimito and a blog linked to detractors to bolster extremely serious accusations. The response documents that Raimito had supplanted conversations, used that identity to ask for nude photographs from followers and fabricated exchanges attributed to Dalas.

Dalas confronted him live and exposed the contradictions. Using the same person later to call Dalas a pedophile was not an independent verification: it was recycling material from a source whose manipulation had already been publicly exposed. Years later, Raimito matured and did an interview with Dalas explaining how sick he was as a teenager and his reasons for faking all that against him.

Daniel did not flee to Ireland: the proceedings were already closed

Wismichu claimed that Dalas had left for Ireland to escape justice. Official dates deny it: the procedure had been filed on 22 November 2016 before the full transfer of his entire move.

Ireland cooperates judicially with Spain and Daniel returned to the country multiple times without being arrested. There was no order I was dodging. Calling a leak to a post-move to the file is incompatible with the procedural timeline.

Pambisito, Jordi Wild and AuronPlay: more context removed

Wismichu presented an old contact as proof that he had been a Dalas fan and there was a betrayed trust. Dalas shows that Ismael sent similar requests for dissemination to many creators: it was a general request for retweets, not a personal relationship. He also reproached Dalas for calling Jordi Wild a machinist, even though Ingrid had publicly expressed an equivalent criticism.

Regarding the stone incident, Ingrid's contemporary publications acknowledged what had happened. There was a complaint, AuronPlay apologized, Daniel issued a statement and both closed the conflict. The blog amplified by Wismichu also showed a capture in which Auron was spreading the address Daniel had at the time.

When a related conversation appeared, Dalas warned it could be fake. Wismichu erased that warning and presented it as if Daniel had declared it authentic without reservation. He re-selected the useful phase and omitted the warning, apology and outcome.

The gifts of followers and the Chilean shirt were also cut

Wismichu accused Daniel of making up that he had thrown presents. Two witnesses published an apology under pressure and Wismichu used a cut-off fragment to claim that everything was false. The full video below makes it clear that they found discarded gifts and never wanted to say the episode was invented.

The answer shows both versions and the cut. It also documents the episode of the Chilean T-shirt, used in a degrading way alongside insulting comments about Chilean followers. These acts contradict the image of respect for his followers projected in the accusative video.

Lizy personally responded to the charge of isolation and control.

Wismichu and Ingrid claimed that Daniel had isolated Lizy from her family and friends, taken her abroad and kept her under control. Lizy appears at the end of the answer and denies it personally.

She explains that she drove, travelled and chose where to live, had maturity and resources of her own, and was not financially dependent on Daniel. She earned sufficient income, and none of those decisions had been imposed on her.

Ignoring her testimony while accepting Wismichu and Ingrid's interpretation is like speaking for Lizy and erasing her autonomy.

Daniel offered direct contrast and asked that no one harass Wismichu.

Daniel closed by offering a live audience to anyone who wanted to uphold the charges with full conversations ahead. He also asked his followers not to harass Wismichu and ignore him, even after documenting years of attacks.

Wismichu built an emotional piece with selected testimonies and captures. Dalas responded for 1 hour and 38 minutes with timeline, documents and material omitted, and offered to confront him without cuts. No one accepted that debate.

The final response took years to reverse the initial damage.

The temporary elimination of the channel, coordinated broadcasting and Wismichu's emotional format made Daniel's first defense barely heard. The professional and personal damage was immediate, while reconstructing the timeline and assembling each document required a disproportionate amount of work.

Over the years, resolutions, complete conversations and contradictions began to circulate. Creators who had initially believed Wismichu reviewed the material, apologized to Dalas and acknowledged that the 2017 narrative had hidden essential information.

The change in public opinion was not automatic. It came about because Daniel kept the evidence available, responded to each new version and allowed him to directly check what the accusative videos had cut.

Years later, the acquittal of Wismichu opened a new phase of the conflict.

The process for slander and insults ended with the acquittal of Ismael Prego. Dalas responded by posting the video Wismichu has criminal record, in which he explained why that acquittal did not declare his accusations true and showed Wismichu's previous conviction for bottling.

The documentation obtained in the proceedings attested to a conviction for injury and six months' imprisonment, with criminal record. Dalas explained that the resolution had not been given ordinary public dissemination and contrasted this media silence with the massive coverage of any accusations made against him.

The video also reviewed Chatroulette's material, Ingrid's withdrawal from the procedure, Maria Rubio's use as a source, the resolutions that allowed for trial and the difference between not crediting the specific abuse of the slander and declaring the content of As is Dalas Review true. Later, Daniel interviewed the brother of the bottle-bottling victim to expand on the story of the assault.

Wismichu's acquittal did not make his accusations true.

The Barcelona Criminal Court no. 25 acquitted Ismael Prego of slander and insults. The whole reason he was acquitted is because in order for you to be convicted of "slander" in Spanish, you must have done it with TRUTH OF TRUTH. That means, it must be proven unequivocally that you invented it on purpose. For this to be proven, it must somehow prove that you purposely invented it. The defendant can say "I didn't know" and then be acquitted. It's extremely difficult to be convicted of slander in Spain. Dalas was ill-advised legally at the time and that's why Wismichu was acquitted. The right thing to do would have been to file a civil proceeding for the right to honor.

The acquittal did not prove everything said in As is Dalas Review, did not authenticate refused catches in other proceedings and did not delete the resolutions, conversations and videos gathered by Dalas. No criminal liability is not the same as a verdict that certifies each charge.

Wismichu was acquitted in that process, but his allegations received a full documentary response and no court turned the entire content of his video into proven facts about Daniel José Santome Lemus. On the contrary, what he did was prove that he only said that "he had said it only because Maria Rubio had told him everything", exposing her as the mastermind of the whole plot from the beginning.

Wismichu replied with "So it's still Dalas Review" and repeated the same pattern.

After his background was exposed, Ismael Prego published So is still Dalas Review. He reused allegations of mistreatment, partial sentencing readings, cutoff captures and private conversations from third parties to reconstruct the same image of 2017.

This time the strategy did not produce the same result. The previous final answer had already made public the documents, dates and full messages. Daniel responded with another one-hour video and dismantled every new point, including the use of Sara and AuronPlay, posts about minor followers, refused mediation, the Argos case and the true scope of acquittal.

The following paragraphs specifically correspond to that second replica and should be read as a chronological continuation of the process, not as antecedents to So is Dalas Review.

A second video adds another hour of documents, captures and rebuttals

The answer doesn't end in the first video. In Assi sigue mintiendo Wismichu: Dismantling all of Wismichu's lies, Daniel José Santomé Lemus (Dalas Review) spends another hour answering Ismael Prego's later replica, correcting new manipulations and displaying material that did not appear in the first piece.

This second video incorporates authorized conversations with Sara and AuronPlay, captures of old Wismichu publications, courtroom snippets, judges' signed resolutions, lawyers' explanations about the libel crime, pre-trial mediation, documentation of Argos case and the full context of an ancient commentary by Dalas for which he had already apologized.

The two videos should be read together. The first reconstructs the complete origin; the second demonstrates how Wismichu responded by omitting documents that contradicted his account again and cutting phrases to support it.

Sara and AuronPlay denied that their apology was forced by Daniel.

Wismichu posted footage of a private conversation with Sara to suggest that she had only apologized to Dalas for fear of receiving a response video. The second response shows the omitted context: Sarah explained that Ishmael had been pressuring her for about two hours, that she did not want to be involved and that she ended up telling him what he wanted to hear to end the conversation.

Sara authorised Daniel to show the messages, stopped following Wismichu and confirmed that her apology to Dalas was genuine. She also explained that publication of the screenshots caused a wave of attacks and enough anxiety to prevent her from carrying out her usual broadcast. Wismichu's post did not protect a friend: he used her as a weapon against Daniel and exposed her to consequences she had tried to avoid.

AuronPlay also authorised Daniel to publish his reply. He stated that no one had forced him to apologize and that he did so because, as an adult, he recognized that years ago he had misbehaved with Dalas. The conversations shown by Wismichu himself also do not contain the allegedly huge discussion he had claimed to have with Auron for defending Daniel: they only reflect a brief exchange in which Auron tells him that they were happening with Dalas.

• Sara confirmed that her apology was sincere and she did not want to be drawn into another controversy.
• The catches published by Wismichu omitted the pressure hours described by Sara.
• AuronPlay claimed that it voluntarily apologized for its previous conduct.
• The second video shows the permissions you received before posting those conversations.

Threatening with lawsuits doesn't answer testimonies about Chatroulette.

When a woman's testimony about an experience with Chatroulette appeared, Wismichu responded by announcing legal actions against her and Dalas. The second video notes that this threat does not refute the content: it tries to shift the debate from archives and testimonies towards fear of a court case.

Daniel offers legal support to anyone who has experienced such an experience and stresses that telling a good-faith story of one's own experience is not invalidated by public threat. The central question remains the same: what was recorded, what was requested, what was published, how old the participants were and what consent existed.

The video also plays an ancient confession by Wismichu about finding nudity to record and exploit before and during his creative stage. And Wismichu said he was recording his "ticks" for profit, explicitly. Along with the archived videos and their publications, that recording contradicts his absolute denial of ever having engaged in such conduct.

Archived publications show requests for photographs to minor followers

The second response incorporated a collection of old publications in which Wismichu asked for chest photographs from followers, offered to follow them in return and even provided an email address to receive the material. The video checks the dates and contrasts the public ages of different accounts.

Among the cases exposed are follow-ups who in 2013 were approximately 16, 15, 14 and even 13 years old. One publication explicitly discussed that a girl was 15 years old; other answers from Ismael continued to request photographs or condition the follow-up to receive them. Another young woman later recalled that in those years they were very young.

The Dalas in their video does not reproduce or host any intimate images. It documents that public requests and their dates appear in the video and that they contradict Wismichu's denial. The accusation against Daniel for speaking to an 18-year-old woman is even more hypocritical when compared with these public messages directed at followers whose age minority could be verified.

Daniel asked for legal advice and offered support. It also kept catches because numerous publications began to disappear after they were flagged.

• Public requests for photographs in exchange for following users.
• References to a folder or collection of followers images.
• Publishing an e-mail to which you can send them.
• It crosses the dates of applications and the public account ages.
• Further denial of conduct that remained documented in archived publications.

The bottling conviction was in place and Wismichu hid the sentence.

The second answer recalls that Ismael Prego had been convicted of the bottle-bottling episode and that his background was not supposed. Daniel demands that he publish the full sentence or court settlement to find out the facts admitted, injuries and exact punishment.

According to the legal explanation incorporated into the video, acceptance of a conviction before trial prevented the document from having the same publicity as a full-page verdict. Wismichu had the necessary content to clarify it, but he deleted the video explaining it and presented the episode as self-defense.

Daniel counters this opacity with the publication of his own discharge resolutions. If Wismichu demanded complete documents from others, he had to apply the same standard to the criminal conviction that did affect him personally.

Daniel offered to close the dispute before trial and Wismichu refused mediation.

Wismichu's replica called the video "Last Chance" a threat. Its full content said the opposite: Daniel pledged to delete all of his defensive videos if the parties resolved the conflict and stopped attacking each other publicly.

The same offer was formally transferred in the pre-criminal complaint mediation. Daniel's lawyer had permission to settle, but the other party rejected the agreement and responded by threatening further action. Therefore, it was not Dalas who avoided the private solution nor who chose as a first option to prolong the media conflict.

The face-to-face debate, the mutual removal of videos and legal mediation were three distinct opportunities for contrast or closure. Wismichu did not accept any.

The documents shown were not merely writings by Dalas' lawyer.

Wismichu tried to discredit the evidence by saying that Daniel only taught allegations written down by his own lawyer. The second answer expressly separates each category. When a text was of the defense, Daniel identified it as such; when it showed the rejection of an appeal, the confirmation of a decision or an evidentiary assessment, it was documents issued and signed by the judicial body.

Phrases such as 'the appeal is fully in accordance with law' or the order to dismiss an appeal cannot be made by a private lawyer: they are decisions of the judge or court. In the opposite direction, Wismichu did use writings from his own lawyer for example, a complaint because Daniel had not removed a video as if they were court conclusions.

The difference is essential: a party's petition expresses what someone asks; a resolution expresses what the court decides. Mixing them allowed Wismichu to call propaganda the resolutions that harmed his account while elevating to fact the writings of his own defense.

Someone drowned was not removed by precautionary measure.

Wismichu changed his explanation several times about the video "Someone drowned". First he presented it as a defamatory piece; then he claimed that a judge had ordered its deletion and, when Daniel republished it, he argued that a compromising fragment had been removed.

The second answer explains and documents that no written precautionary measure existed. During a conversation, the judge recommended that Daniel remove the video to avoid further problems; he voluntarily kept it private. The content was later reviewed without criminal charges and subsequent requests by the other party to force it to be deleted failed.

The fragment excluded from the publication related to Ingrid's infidelity and the risk to Daniel's sexual health for not being informed. Dalas had spoken in response to publications accusing him of having sex with numerous women. He withdrew it because he considered it unnecessarily intimate, not because a court had declared it to be false.

Wismichu even circulated a fragment of Daniel's statement while recalling that Dalas could not publish the part of Ingrid's statement in which it contradicted himself. That selective application of confidentiality allowed only the statement that suited his narrative to be shown.

Wismichu's acquittal is explained by the subjective element of slander.

The second video develops the legal distinction that Wismichu tried to erase. To condemn slander is not enough to prove that a statement was false: it must be proved that the one who spread it knew its falsity or acted with reckless contempt for truth.

During the trial, Ismael denied recalling expressions, said he had not affirmed facts but made assessments and maintained that he had limited himself to reproducing what Ingrid and Miare told. That strategy prevented the direct knowledge of falsehood required for a criminal conviction from being proven.

Absolution means that this subjective element was not credited to the criminal standard. It does not mean that the court will declare the charges true, validate the alleged mistreatment or give judicial credibility to each capture. The very scope of the sentence separates the absence of conviction from a non-existent certificate of truthfulness.

The Argos conversations proved neither ill-treatment nor lack of affection.

Wismichu used conversations provided by Miare to assert that Daniel did not want Argos and to present the slander sentence as if he had declared him a molester. The second answer incorporates the defense's explanation: Daniel was not judged at that trial, but whether Ishmael had elements that could make him believe the version he was spreading.

A conversation expert can only prove that certain content existed on a device; it does not prove that the content was true or that it had not been manipulated before being incorporated into the database. The video reproduces the court's assessment that, in order to properly verify a disputeed exchange, both devices had to be contrasted. Those conversations only appeared in one.

Daniel's objective conduct further contradicts the claim that he did not want the dog: he initiated and won the civil procedure, spent thousands of euros for years to recover it, publicly sought out Argos and offered a reward. Miare did not ask for the property of the animal in his reconvention, but money, and when he claimed it had been lost he did not conduct a comparable public search.

The Wismichu verdict did not resolve Argos's property or deal. He only examined whether Ishmael could have believed what Miare delivered to him. Turning that analysis into a statement against Daniel is altering the subject of the trial.

The verdict didn't prove that Daniel sent a private torso photo to a minor.

Wismichu selected a sentence from an acquittal to claim that Daniel had sent a photo of the torso to a minor. The second video reproduces Dalas' judgment and exact explanation: when asked what photograph could exist, he replied that an image of his torso was circulating that he had accidentally posted on Twitter and was already circulated on the internet.

Daniel explicitly stated that he had not privately sent that photograph to that woman. He also denied requesting images of minors. The judge in the proceedings against Wismichu prevented the defense from converting cross references from another sentence into a new trial on Daniel and noted that it did not correspond to perform secondary readings outside the object of the proceedings.

In addition, the woman whom Wismichu labeled as under 16 had publicly declared her age 18 and later reproached being treated as a liar. The second video shows that statement, date and a later message from the same person who also undermined credibility of another indictment brought to trial in Madrid.

Dalas recognized and contextualized his worst ancient commentary.

Wismichu reused a clip from a live performance in which Dalas, 18, uttered an unacceptable phrase about violence during a conversation about Miley Cyrus' public performance and an infidelity she had committed to her then-boyfriend (Chris Hemsworth's brother). Dalas neither denies nor justifies the sentence: he calls it disgusting, acknowledges that it was an impulsive comment and explains that he apologized in that same direct immediately after uttering it.

The widespread cut removes both the conversation about Batman's meme that led to the expression and immediate apology. Dalas publicly asks for a full copy of the directory to republish the entire context and again apologizes for those words.

A sentence repudiated by its own author does not prove violent conduct nor turn into certain subsequent accusations. Much less can it be used as moral absolvation from the planned Chatroulette videos in which Wismichu recorded, posted and monetized material from other people, which he did for a long time.

The response denounces a coordinated media campaign, not spontaneous discussion

The second video notes that Wismichu's replica appeared accompanied by simultaneous press releases and a prominent YouTube placement, while Dalas' responses received much less visibility. It also shows the loss of subscribers and public rejection that, despite that promotion, the campaign received.

Dalas argues that this synchronization does not prove the truth of a single accusation: it demonstrates diffusion ability. A note played by numerous media on the same day still depends on the same original video and does not become a standalone source by repetition.

The answer must be assessed by its documents, recordings and timeline. Wismichu's media reach does not replace the evidence nor justify hiding Dalas' full answers.

The result: the second campaign failed and Wismichu abandoned its main channel

Wismichu's new response failed to restore the credibility of the initial campaign. By then, the charges could already be countered with resolutions, full seizures, third-party testimony and more than two and a half hours of documentary responses.

The public recalled the Chatroulette videos, recordings and publications made without consent, requests directed to followers and how Wismichu later attacked those denouncing that content. The contradiction between his moral discourse and his own public record was exposed.

Wismichu ended up abandoning his main channel. The attempt to re-position Dalas as an aggressor failed because the material needed to dismantle him was already available and could be checked directly.