Background and Context
In a clumsy move, the capital’s authorities have declared the first phase of the Puente de la Concordia tragedy closed. 29 families are in mourning, while nearly a hundred injured individuals have just begun their rehabilitation journey. Initial examinations point to the driver’s inexperience and excessive speed as probable causes of this tragic event.
The incident, which occurred two weeks ago when a liquefied petroleum gas tanker carrying 45,000 liters overturned, affected not only the victims but also 32 other vehicles. False narratives—even perpetuated by capital officials—initially blamed the lack of insurance. Recent events, such as the stampede at the Flow Fest in 2022, a crane collapse during the Bicentenario’s Ceremonia Festival, and the recent fall of stages at a Quevedo concert, have sparked intense debates about possible causes and adherence to civil safety regulations. These mass events raise questions: do profitability and security often clash? And are attorneys exploiting the vulnerability of affected families?
Legal Proceedings and Divergent Strategies
The media-driven controversy does not align with the resolutions in court. The narrative surrounding the gruas’ collapse at the AXE Ceremonia 2025 festival is starting to unravel. During the initial hearing for negligent homicide, held late last week in Doctor Lavista, the differences between the defenses of the two victims—both photographers—became apparent. While Berenice Giles’ family demands that OCESA and security company LOBO be held accountable, Miguel Ángel Hernández’s representation agrees with the prosecution that these corporations had no direct responsibility in installing the collapsing artifacts.
This legal tension presents a dilemma: is justice sought, or are high-profile individuals being targeted? Berenice Giles’ legal team, led by attorney Fermín Alejandro Victoria Rangel, accuses the capital’s prosecution of shielding large corporations and demands that witness status for these entities be changed to implicated parties. Conversely, Miguel Hernández’s defense believes there are no elements in the 15-volume case file linking them to gruas’ operation.
Divergent Strategies and Their Implications
Berenice Giles’ lawyers have scheduled a negligence hearing for September 29, while Miguel Hernández’s lawyers have distanced themselves from this approach and agreed to postpone the initial hearing until October 16. The perception is that the Giles family seeks rapid confrontation, whereas the Hernández family prefers a technical defense supported by Protection Civil and investigative reports from both the Miguel Hidalgo Alcaldía and the Fiscalía General de Justicia de la Ciudad de México, which state that OCESA was neither responsible, promoter, nor organizer of the event. The authorization and permits for the overturned tanker’s access were managed directly by unrelated third parties.
The dispute between families, beyond the shared grief, threatens to fragment the pursuit of justice and allow implicated parties—three companies and eight individuals—to prolong the case. The legal deadline is approaching, and differing strategies risk diluting collective demands through cross-lawsuits.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the main issue in this tragedy? The primary concern revolves around determining responsibility and providing appropriate compensation for the victims.
- Who are the main parties involved? The main parties include OCESA, LOBO security company, and three other companies along with eight individuals.
- What are the differing legal strategies? Berenice Giles’ family seeks rapid confrontation, while Miguel Ángel Hernández’s family prefers a technical defense supported by investigative reports.
- How might this dispute impact the pursuit of justice? The differing strategies and potential prolongation of the case risk diluting collective demands through cross-lawsuits.
