Lorraine Williamson
The latest courtroom testimony in the judicial investigation into the 29 October 2024 DANA disaster in Valencia does not just add another witness account. It sharpens one of the case’s most sensitive questions: who was where, and when, in the crucial period before the mass mobile alert went out.
According to multiple Spanish reports on Monday’s hearing in Catarroja, Josep Lanuza, described as an external political adviser who travelled with Carlos Mazón to the emergency coordination centre (Cecopi), gave a version of events that clashes with earlier statements from Mazón’s security detail.
Why this testimony matters
The dispute is not over a minor scheduling detail. It goes directly to the reconstructed timeline of decision-making on the day of the floods.
Reports say Lanuza told the judge that Mazón arrived at the Palau de la Generalitat at roughly 7.30–7.42 pm and spent around 20–25 minutes there before leaving for Cecopi. Earlier testimony from escorts had reportedly placed Mazón’s arrival later, closer to 8.00 pm, and said he was in the office only briefly before departing.
That discrepancy is significant because the court is examining how the emergency was managed in the hours before the ES-Alert warning was sent to the public.
The hearing appears to have exposed a credibility clash
Spanish coverage highlighted a moment in which the judge reportedly challenged the contradiction head-on, asking, in effect, which version she was meant to believe.
That kind of exchange matters in a case like this. The investigation is being built not only on documents and call records, but also on witness chronology. When two insider accounts diverge on timings, the value of each testimony gets tested more aggressively.
What Lanuza reportedly said about the drive to Cecopi
Beyond the Palau timings, reports say Lanuza also addressed what he heard — and did not hear — during the car journey to the emergency coordination centre.
Coverage from SER and EFE says he told the court he did not hear Mazón discussing the emergency until later in the sequence, and that he did not perceive prior knowledge of the ES-Alert before it was sent. EFE’s report also notes that Lanuza and Mazón entered the Cecopi building at 8.28 pm, which would be 17 minutes after the first public alert at 8.11 pm.
For the inquiry, that places even more weight on the exact timeline of calls, movements and who was informed at each stage.
This is becoming a battle over reconstruction, not rhetoric
Public debate around the DANA tragedy has often focused on political messaging. Inside the court, however, the contest is increasingly more technical: movements, minutes, call logs and who can corroborate them.
That is why this testimony has drawn so much attention. It is not only that Lanuza reportedly contradicted the escorts. It is that his account potentially affects how the court pieces together the window before the emergency alert and before Mazón arrived at Cecopi.
What happens next in the inquiry
Monday’s testimony is unlikely to settle the argument on its own. The judge continues to gather evidence and witness accounts linked to the handling of the emergency, while media reporting indicates ongoing scrutiny of calls, messages and movements around senior officials.
The broader political fallout will continue, but the immediate legal significance is narrower and more concrete: the timeline is still being contested, and the court is now working through contradictions inside the same chain of events.
The key issue now is not just what happened, but what can be proved minute by minute
The takeaway from this latest development is clear: the Valencia DANA case is moving deeper into the evidence phase, where credibility hinges on precise timing. Monday’s testimony did not close that gap. It made it more visible.
Journalist speaks out on Mazón lunch amid Valencia DANA tragedy