Podcast Summary: Más de uno (Onda Cero) – “Tertulia: La ley del silencio”

Date: January 23, 2026
Host: Carlos Alsina
Panelists: Mamen Mendizábal, Rubén Amón, Paco Marhuenda, Joaquín Manso
Main Theme:
A detailed dissection of the aftermath and handling of the Adamuz train accident, focusing on the technical investigation, political management, public communication, and the controversy regarding the so-called “ley del silencio” ("law of silence") allegedly surrounding the incident.

Overview

This episode’s roundtable centers on the recent Adamuz train accident, which resulted in significant fatalities and injuries. The panel reviews both the emergency response and the technical causes under investigation, and scrutinizes political reactions—especially accusations of a “law of silence” inhibiting criticism of the government’s handling of the crisis. As always, the tone blends serious analysis with occasional biting humor and lively debate.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Political Landscape and Context (00:00–06:33)

• Election news: Alsina opens with a satirical take on the new campaign in Aragón and coverage in major Spanish newspapers.
• Adamuz accident: The media reviews highlight perceived government lethargy and communication gaps post-accident, especially regarding the time it took for authorities and emergency services to detect the scope of the disaster.

“Las conversaciones entre ellos durante la sesión fotográfica fueron tan amables como insustanciales, con gestos a mitad de camino entre el afecto y la gelidez glacial.”
—Carlos Alsina [00:39]

2. Chronology and Communication Failures (13:28–32:46)

• Eyewitness account: José María Galán (passenger on the Alvia) describes confusion following the crash:
  • Passengers self-organized to escape through broken windows and assisted each other.
  • Multiple passengers called 112, but emergency services didn’t realize there were two separate trains involved.
  • Galán personally walked down the tracks, encountering dangerous debris and cables, before finally finding a Civil Guard agent—realizing only then that the accident's scope was much wider.
  • Communication blackouts delayed rescue and contributed to victims’ sense of abandonment.

“Nadie de los que estábamos allí… no teníamos ni idea que nos habíamos dado con otro tren. Entonces, a partir de ahí surgen dos contactos…”
—José María Galán [16:46]

“No existíamos, literalmente no estábamos en ningún plan, estábamos fuera, totalmente de rango…”
—José María Galán [26:20]

• Timeline confusion: Hosts and Galán attempt to reconstruct key timestamps. Galán’s photos put his journey toward help at 20:20, suggesting a lag compared to the official government timeline.

3. Technical Causes and Investigative Focus (39:39–55:53)

• Likeliest cause: All panelists agree, based on ongoing reports and data, that the working hypothesis points to a critical fracture in the rail—possibly an internal fissure undetectable by current systems.
• Ultrasonic tests: Questions arise about the adequacy of maintenance, particularly the efficacy of ultrasonic inspections, and whether the existing detection protocols need urgent revision.

“Si esta vía tenía una fisura interna y ha pasado los test de seguridad, es que los test de seguridad que utilizamos hasta ahora no valen para este tipo de…”
—Carlos Alsina [55:01]

• Statistical and procedural context: Marhuenda invokes the Bird Pyramid theory, underscoring how small undetected incidents can, in rare cases, culminate in catastrophe, and points to the challenge of monitoring 16,000+km of railway.

4. Public Perception and Trust (50:33–54:29)

• Crisis of confidence: There’s consensus that public trust in the high-speed rail system is shaken—not just by the technical failure, but by erratic and sometimes contradictory government messaging.

“Si hay que reducir los trenes a una velocidad de 120, yo creo que, señor ministro, somos una sociedad lo suficientemente madura como para asumir eso. Pero para asumir eso con explicaciones razonables, no con idas y venidas…”
—Mamen Mendizábal [50:34]

5. Political Debate: “Ley del Silencio” and Calls for Accountability (59:39–71:36)

• Ayuso’s critique: The panel argues fiercely around Isabel Díaz Ayuso’s comments on a supposed “law of silence” preventing criticism and the suggestion of governmental opaqueness.
• Institutional response: They contrast Ayuso’s stance with Andalusian president Juanma Moreno's more measured tone, noting that public officials often appeal for “mesura” in the face of tragedy—regardless of political party—until investigations conclude.

“La ley de silencios se malogra en la medida en que hubo una comparecencia de dos horas y veinte, dos horas y media, y que Puente… ha hecho un esfuerzo por contar a la sociedad lo que está sucediendo y eso elimina el criterio de la ley del silencio.”
—Rubén Amón [59:54]

• Double standards: Alsina points out the tendency for politicians of all stripes to expect prudence when criticism is directed at them but to quickly dispense with caution when attacking others, highlighting a fundamental hypocrisy in political discourse.

“Esto es lo de siempre. Exige sal de enfrente lo que luego tú no eres capaz de hacer cuando te toca a ti…”
—Carlos Alsina [66:47]

• On responsibly calling for resignations: The group discusses under what precise conditions a minister should resign after a tragedy—debating the thresholds of accountability versus waiting for complete investigative clarity.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• The sense of abandonment:
  “No existíamos, literalmente no estábamos en ningún plan, estábamos fuera, totalmente de rango y sin posibilidad alguna de que llegasen hasta que nos descubrieran…”
  —José María Galán [26:20]

• On Ayuso and the “law of silence”:
  “Ahora sólo falta que los chihuahuas dirijan Onda Cero.”
  —Paco Marhuenda, humorously after being called a chihuahua for his partisan loyalty [71:41]

• On responsibility and double standards:
  “Se exige sal de enfrente lo que luego tú no eres capaz de hacer cuando te toca a ti…”
  —Carlos Alsina [66:47]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Introduction & Press Review – [00:00–06:33]
• Eyewitness Account (José María Galán, pasajero Alvia) – [16:19–32:46]
• Panel Discussion: Technical Investigation & Maintenance – [39:39–55:53]
• Discussion: Trust, Public Perception, Systemic Confidence – [50:33–54:29]
• The Politics of Silence, Responsibility & Public Debate – [59:39–71:36]

Flow & Tone

The episode moves fluidly between technical explanation, reportage, and heated political debate. The panel uses direct language, often colored with irony and dry humor. While serious and compassionate when discussing victims, the roundtable doesn’t shy away from contentious exchanges, especially on the question of political accountability and media narratives.

Conclusion

Listeners are left with a nuanced and sometimes conflicting portrait of the Adamuz tragedy’s aftermath. The discussions highlight real uncertainties—both technical and political—and question the efficacy of communication, response, and longstanding maintenance protocols. Woven through is a recognition of the human toll and the need for rigorous, transparent investigation—discarding both sensational accusations and defensive silence.

If you missed the episode, this summary offers both a factual roadmap and a sense of the lively, at times fractious, exchange of perspectives that characterized this tertulia.