The statement of the Madrid Government delegate, José Manuel Franco, as accused of holding the 8-M demonstration (in the midst of a wave of coronavirus infections) lasted one hour and 34 minutes. The Confidential has had exclusive access to the interrogation in which José Manuel Franco, in addition to defending himself, repeatedly points against the government he presides over Isabel Díaz Ayuso. After Franco’s statement, the chief magistrate of the 51st Investigating Court of Madrid, who was investigating the case, agreed to the provisional filing of the case for lack of evidence of a possible crime.
In his testimony, the delegate of the Government in Madrid assures that “in the Government Delegation two communications were received from the community about nursing homes and health centers regarding the covid-19. In those communications, we were not told anything of any measure that the Delegation should take. ” The judge, apparently surprised to hear the harshness of the criticism, asks her: “Could the Community of Madrid have imposed any kind of measure on the Delegation?”.
Franco’s answer points with one hand to the President of the Community of Madrid while with the other indicates that it is not his intention to target any public institution. “Having the sanitary competences, the people in charge of the community could have made us some recommendation. They could, but I don’t want to divert responsibilities to any Administration. It is not my style and I will never do it, “says the delegate in his statement.
The 8-M judge files the case by not seeing sufficient evidence against the delegate
The resolution also indicates that the person under investigation “did not receive a communication or health instruction on this matter, nor did he collect it ex officio from any competent authority in the health field”
The delegate assures that, in general terms, he did not learn of any measure on the covid-19 by the Ayuso government until Wednesday, March 11, and that if they were taken, it was because they were suggested by Salvador Illa. “That day I am aware of some restrictions that the community makes, I believe that they were induced by the Ministry of Health, in the sense of limiting closed spaces, by the way, not outdoors, where it is prohibited for more than a thousand people to accumulate ( …). Furthermore, I am aware that the community makes the decision to close schools. ” Frank He assures that he learns from the press on March 10 that the community has decided to close the centers educational. “But it was on the 9th when the media announced that the community was going to close the schools!” Says the head of the court. Franco’s response reveals that the delegate, in the midst of the coronavirus crisis, was not aware of the current situation: “Well, I found out a day later. Maybe he was late. ” And later he adds: “I had no obligation to know anything [sobre el coronavirus] before 9/11, which was when the pandemic was declared. ” It doesn’t stop there. Franco explains that since the Delegation does not have any competence in health matters, its “obligation was not to be aware of what was happening in health matters”.
The key date: March 11
Another key date in the statement that he is making as a defendant is March 11, the day the World Health Organization officially declares the pandemic. “What measures do they take in the Government Delegation from that moment?” Asks the instructor. “After attending the acts of tribute to the victims of 11-M, which occupied me all morning, I had an informal talk in the delegation with Mr. Correas [director de Seguridad Ciudadana] and the head of my cabinet. We agreed to suggest to the organizers of the demonstrations that they stop it. It was common sense. ” The judge, who knows the investigation to the millimeter, does not miss a detail and says: “But, let’s see. You signed the same day on March 11 [es como autorizarlas] of six calls for demonstrations ”. The magistrate is surprised because a few seconds earlier she has heard Franco say that they decided to call them off that day. The contradiction is obvious.
Franco tells the judge that he did not receive the email asking for the staff to be distanced
“There was no recommendation at that time that led the government delegation to prohibit the exercise of a fundamental right,” said the delegate upon leaving the court.
The manifestly uncomfortable delegate denies having signed these ‘permits’ in the afternoon, and suggests that he should have done so in the morning, before the informal meeting. “And how did he do it? Wasn’t he at the events of March 11? ”, Asks the magistrate. “She may have signed them on her cell phone, while she was in the acts of tribute to the victims of the attacks of March 11,” Franco replies. The judge finds this way of working strange, attending to the mobile phone during the events of the 11-M attacks: “I understand that you read the reports before signing them, don’t you?”. “Of course,” responds the delegate.
Franco, before concluding his statement, leaves two more pearls. Days before the 8-M demonstration, the head of labor risks of the Delegation sent a document to the workers warning, among other things, against the crowds of people: “I did not receive that email”, clarifies the delegate, “But if I had, it would not have changed my decision about the 8-M celebration either.” In addition, during his judicial declaration, the delegate he intended to remove his mask and had to be warned that he did not: “After you, others will come and the bus is a source of contagion.”
– .
