The incident involving Carmen Lomana at home became a major topic on Espejo Público this Monday. Pilar Vidal pressed Lomana’s version during the program, and the person who streamed the show live on Antena 3 explained the sequence of events as follows: I’m relieved that you are safe, she said. You say you’re traumatized, yet since yesterday, after the robbery, I’ve seen you on every channel. I understand you have had little sleep tonight.
Lomana replied that she hadn’t gone anywhere, though La Roca had called to say they were waiting. After speaking with the police, she said she cried and, overwhelmed, could not attend the program. She explained to Vidal that everything stemmed from that conversation. Later, when Gema López listened to her colleague, she added a sharp angle to the discussion, implying a pattern of celebrity robberies and casting doubt on Lomana’s account. The journalist pressed, asking whether something was stolen and whether Lomana’s account could be influenced by the broader media spotlight. Lomana responded by stressing that her role was never about seeking attention but about respecting her colleagues and safeguarding her own boundaries. She noted that calls from other channels had come, but her priority was to speak with her colleagues on Espejo Público and another Telemadrid show. She questioned the tone of the questions, suggesting that it was unfair for a fellow woman to scrutinize another woman who had been robbed and acted in what she believed to be the best way under distress.
As Vidal remained skeptical, Lomana expressed frustration and turned emotional, describing the moment as painful. She asked rhetorically how the other person could make such statements and suggested the remarks forced her to reconsider what had happened. It seemed as though Lomana was signaling that the questioning could be interpreted as an attempt to trap her, especially given the timing around her television commitments. She defended her decision not to pursue sensational coverage and to prioritize respect for her schedule and for the viewers who follow her public appearances. The exchange left the impression of a clash between two media figures, each weighing the other’s motives in a tense, public setting.
Pilar Vidal pressed on, proposing the idea of a trap and questioning whether Lomana might have invited premature danger by letting in visitors or allowing access to her home. Lomana maintained that she would not undermine her own safety or reputation, insisting that she is a widely recognized figure whose presence draws widespread concern when unusual events occur. She explained that the goal of her appearances was to connect with audiences rather than to fuel controversy, and she conveyed a reluctance to engage with the relentless scrutiny that often accompanies celebrity misfortune.
Vidal pressed further by asking about Lomana’s self-defense training, and Lomana turned the exchange back to a broader point: the suggestion of threat versus the reality of a public image. The socialite insisted that she was not seeking confrontation; she was merely expressing her viewpoint. Vidal retorted that she was sharing her opinion, and Lomana reaffirmed that she simply wanted to ensure that her position was understood. The discussion closed with Lomana reiterating that she would prefer to safeguard her privacy and respond to questions when it felt appropriate, rather than be drawn into a speculative narrative that could distort the facts of the case. The overall tone highlighted the friction between two media personalities as they navigated a sensitive incident in the light of intense public interest.