Feijóo's Timeline Confusion: A Question of Memory

The concept of real-time information is critical during any crisis. It implies immediate awareness, allowing for swift and informed decision-making. However, in the aftermath of a devastating natural disaster, the clarity of that timeline has become a central point of contention.

What began as a statement of readiness has since unraveled into a complex sequence of events. A prominent political figure has now acknowledged a significant error in his recollection of when he was first alerted to the unfolding emergency. This admission raises fundamental questions about memory, accountability, and the narrative constructed in the immediate wake of tragedy.

The sequence of events centers on a catastrophic weather event known as a DANA (a high-impact, short-duration rainfall event). In its immediate aftermath, a political leader made a definitive public statement about his awareness of the situation. He claimed to have been informed “en tiempo real”—a direct translation of the English term real time—by a regional counterpart.

This awareness, he asserted, began on the day prior to the disaster, Monday, October 28, 2024, and continued throughout the following day, Tuesday, October 29. The statement was made just two days after the event, which resulted in 230 deaths. The implication was clear: he had been fully apprised of the escalating situation as it unfolded.

He claimed to have been informed “en tiempo real” by a regional counterpart.

During testimony before a judge, the political figure retracted his initial statement. He acknowledged that his claim of being informed in real time was incorrect. The reality, as he now described it, was far different from the picture he had initially painted.

The corrected timeline reveals a critical delay. Instead of being alerted on Monday, he was not informed until Tuesday, the day of the disaster. Furthermore, this notification did not occur until after 20:59, a point in time when the death toll had already surpassed 150 people. The period he had described as “tiempo real” was, in fact, a period of significant delay.

• Initial claim: Informed on Monday and Tuesday.
• Corrected timeline: Informed only on Tuesday.
• Time of notification: After 20:59.
• Context: Notification occurred after 150+ deaths.

The discrepancy is not merely a matter of hours, but of days. The leader’s initial statement placed his awareness at the very beginning of the crisis. The corrected timeline places it deep within the disaster's most tragic phase. This shift in the narrative is stark.

The error was made just two days after the events in question. Such a short interval makes the mistake particularly notable. It suggests a profound confusion about the sequence of events that led to one of the region's worst natural disasters in recent memory. The term real time was used to convey a sense of immediacy that, according to the corrected testimony, did not exist.

When one is confused about such a fundamental timeline, it can be difficult to recognize the confusion at all. What begins as a simple mistake in recollection can, over time, take on the characteristics of a deliberate misrepresentation, especially when the stakes involve public safety and governmental response.

The core of the issue lies in the memory of a political leader. The events in question occurred in late October. The initial claim was made in early November. The correction came in January of the following year. The timeline itself is not distant, yet the recollection appears to have been fundamentally flawed.

This raises a critical question about the capacity to govern effectively. If the memory of a recent and catastrophic event is so malleable, what does it imply for the understanding of the event itself? The leader’s admission that he was mistaken suggests a significant cognitive disconnect.

“Se había confundido al decir que estuvo informado ‘en tiempo real’”

The admission itself is a matter of public record. It is a direct acknowledgment of error. The focus now shifts from the initial claim to the implications of the error itself. The question is no longer about what happened, but about how it is remembered and by whom.

The timeline of the DANA disaster has been clarified, but the questions it raises remain. The admission of error by a key political figure is a significant development in the ongoing investigation into the government's response to the crisis.

The focus will now likely turn to the broader implications of this timeline discrepancy. It serves as a stark reminder of the importance of precise memory in leadership, especially during moments of public crisis. The public record is now set, but the narrative of what happened, and who knew what, continues to evolve.