One month has passed since the lawyer acting on behalf of Carlos Mazón in the dana case, Ignacio Gally, gained access to the complete instruction on July 31 thanks to the Valencia Court allowing the former president of the Generalitat Valenciana to appear in the process. And on the first day of September, he sent a letter to the Catarroja court in which, first of all, he asks the judge to specify if there is any open line of investigation or pending opening regarding a possible criminal responsibility for action by his client, once the TSJ ruled out the possibility that Mazón has any criminal responsibility for omission.
Read more The Government appoints Leire Iglesias as the new Secretary of State for Housing
After arguing against the then head of the Consell intervening at any time in the management of the emergency during the tragic October 29, 2024, during the afternoon he spent at the El Ventorro restaurant in the company of journalist Maribel Vilaplana, and denying that he gave instructions to the councilor Salomé Pradas, directly or through his Chief of Staff, José Manuel Cuenca, the lawyer even responds to the possibility that this hypothesis was true.
“The issue is to determine whether a certain person would have survived if they had received the message a few minutes earlier,” argues Mazón’s lawyer
In that case, even assuming that Carlos Mazón’s intervention delayed the sending of the Es-Alert by a few minutes, the lawyer argues that “the issue is to determine whether a certain person would have survived if they had received the message recommending avoiding travel a few minutes earlier.” He believes that “to answer that question, the time of death is not enough. Between sending an alert and preventing a death, there are numerous links that must be sufficiently proven.” And he goes on to specify them: in the lawyer’s opinion, to consider it proven that the fatal victim could have been saved, it would be necessary to determine where the victim was, if they had a compatible device with them, if it was operational, if there was coverage, if they would have received the warning at the same moment of its possible issuance, if they were in a condition to notice and read it, if they would have understood the recommendation and, above all, “if the specific recommendation to avoid travel would have led them to behave differently from what they were actually doing and if that alternative behavior would have effectively prevented the death.”
In short, Mazón’s lawyer puts himself in the worst-case scenario for his client—that at some point it is proven that an intervention by him caused some delay in sending the alert, and points out to the judge that, in that case, it would be impossible—and essential to impose a sentence for reckless homicide—to prove that any of the deceased could have acted differently and saved themselves if the warning had been issued earlier.
Read more Germany points to Russia as responsible for the drone attack at Leipzig airport
