“It is mindless to suppose that now they’ve any validity in opposition to me or in opposition to the federal government workforce,” says the mayor, who additionally needs to “make it clear” that she is not going to be “daunted” by such a strain with out “truthfulness.”
He has had an impression, as he did in his first public look after the kidnapping, on the “impeccable” and “clear” work of the City Council in the course of the 16 years that he has been within the authorities workforce with totally different duties, and has recalled that he has already supplied within the judicial subject to analyze not solely the paperwork that the councilor had in her automotive on the day of the kidnapping, however all, from 2007 to the current day.
Regarding Romero, who presently holds the Maracena 2030 Councilor’s Office though he beforehand assumed different areas of higher weight within the municipal authorities resembling Urban Planning, he admits that he was not going to repeat on the lists, like different “ten or twelve colleagues”, and that though he didn’t he had formally communicated it, it was one thing “seen”.
Of the councilwoman, with whom she has not but been capable of communicate after what occurred, though she has together with her household, she says that she is a “very legitimate” colleague with whom she had a “cordial, regular, strictly work” relationship, and admits, typically , “moments of best rigidity” with the preparation of the lists.
She is conscious that Vanessa Romero has had “aspirations and claims” to be mayor, one thing that she considers “regular and lawful”, though within the ordinary major course of, she says, the one one who introduced a candidacy was her.
The mayoress maintains that it’s “loopy” to suppose that she may have had one thing to do with the kidnapping: “No one needs hurt to a associate, I condemn any sort of violence.”
And relating to the doable motivation of his then associate, with whom he had a relationship of virtually two years with out residing collectively that he broke off as quickly as he discovered the details, it impacts the psychological well being issues -a deep depression- that he suffered and that led him to be in psychological and psychiatric remedy.
The “solely clarification” he finds is that his then associate, already in jail with out bail, may have heard him speaking to his colleagues in tense phone conversations and that this led him “to confuse and misread a foul dialog, a foul name, and provides rise to this with the remedy he had.”