Carlos Mazón's Controversial Timeline: A New Defense Amid DANA Fallout
In a recent press conference, Carlos Mazón, the president involved in the aftermath of the devastating DANA (a severe weather event), asserted the consistency of his claims despite mounting pressure and scrutiny. Notably, Mazón referenced the date '2028', which he claimed is a time marker that contradicts allegations of his dishonesty, mentioning, '2028 is after 1930. When have I lied?' This statement has raised eyebrows, as it explicitly highlights his point of arrival at the Cecopi, the emergency coordinating body, as being shortly after a critical mass alert was issued.
Mazón’s defense comes four months post-DANA, specifically after Vice President of the Consell, Susana Camarero, refrained from clarifying when he arrived at Cecopi on October 29. Recent declarations from Mazón indicate he arrived at 2028, precisely 17 minutes after the alert sent to the citizens of Valencia. Prior communications from the Generalitat indicated a much later arrival time, after 1900.
The evolution of Mazón's narrative has shifted significantly in light of a judicial investigation and altogether different revelations of his whereabouts earlier that day. Reports surfaced suggesting his attendance at a lunch from 1500 until shortly after 1700, contradicting his previous claims about the timeline. Now, it appears his strategy is to distance himself from the decisions made concerning the timing and protocol surrounding the mass alert.
During his appearance, Mazón pushed back against criticisms directed at him. He accused government delegate Pilar Bernabé of attempting to malign his reputation by claiming he had disrupted meetings and delayed critical decisions regarding the alert's distribution. Additionally, he emphasized that it was now unreasonable for them to suggest he should have given orders via phone when issues were occurring online.
Bernabé, however, stands firm on her narrative, claiming she first saw Mazón at Cecopi after the mobile mass alert had been dispatched. In her interview, she described how power outages during the telematic meeting hindered decision-making, which led to the eventual alert. Bernabé said the initial plan was to confine the alert to the Ribera area; however, her request was pivotal in extending the warning to encompass the entire province of Valencia due to widespread flooding already reported by local officials.
This exchange highlights the growing friction between local authorities and politicians in Valencia as they navigate the implications of the DANA disaster. As investigations loom and public pressure mounts, both Mazón and Bernabé find themselves at moral and ethical crossroads regarding accountability, transparency, and response efficiency during one of the most challenging weather events faced by the region.
The conversation surrounding the events of October 29 and the ramifications of the decisions made will undoubtedly continue, raising questions about leadership and promptness in crisis communication. As residents demand accountability, the truth remains clouded in conflicting accounts, setting the stage for a deeply scrutinized political atmosphere in Valencia.
Related Sources: