Chile: Bombs case political trial update February 20 to March 2


from solidaridadporlxpresxs, translated by waronsociety:

Once having finished reviewing the site of the same event of the comrade Mauricio Morales’ death, it’s worth saying photographs, experts, police witnesses who came to the scene, they began to present evidence of the supposed “links” with this attempted attack which the prosecution wants to accuse the comrade Felipe Guerra of.

Prosecution retires 216 witnesses

During the first days of this week, the prosecution decided to withdraw 216 of their own witnesses, pulling all the ones who spoke about other attacks.

Even so, this “liberation” of 216 witnesses does not guarantee that the trial will end soon; the prosecution continues showing and reading different pieces of evidences or even managing to bore their own witnesses. Thus this case is already breaking records in terms of the duration of the process.


An entire week was the amount the prosecution decided to use to speak about the “La Idea” squat, with the gunpowder attributed to Cristian Cancino again being mentioned endlessly (gunpowder for which Cristian was already sentenced and which has no link with those who are now on the bench of the accused, if we remember that Cristian had his case dismissed already several months ago)

Every day the police and expert witnesses testify about where they found the gunpowder and what its chemical composition was, to then go on speaking about the rest of the evidence they found, nothing new here: sweatshirts, books, posters, music CDs, etc.

Searching for “anarchist” elements, they came to the book Fuente Ovejuna by Lope de Vega, a classic work of literature and as everyone knows source of the subversive dialogue: “Who killed the Commander?” “Fuenteovejuna, Señor.” “Who is Fuenteovejuna?” “The whole people, Señor.”

The police comment on the “statements” of those who lived in that house, but are not able to respond clearly in what capacity did those persons make those statements–accused? arrestee? interviewee? witness?

Some members of the Investigative Police (PDI) ended by concluding that there were statements taken as “Witnesses,” but these witnesses appear to have a special treatment: They are arrested, handcuffed, taken in police cars to headquarters, reviewed and kept in the same headquarters. Other functionaries try to be more astute, responding with the eternal joke of this trial: “I don’t remember.” They remember the whole statement but not if the witnesses were arrested or not, if they were handcuffed or not, if they came in on foot or the police brought them.

To remember something, here are the “witnesses” on their way to make statements voluntarily: (see photos)

In spite of everything, there is something that cannot be passed over: It is not possible to make a statement, speak to or give information to the police, without understanding that these are the ones who are paid to find or create suspects.

Doing this can only serve them and their interests of persecuting and fabricating guilty persons, whatever the case may be, it would be difficult and improbable to be able to deny their inventions or attempts to accuse another person.

Raids of the Sacco and Vanzetti Occupied Social Center

On December 11, 2009, there was a new day of massive raids on different squatted and particular houses. The ERTA tactical team of the PDI entered the CSO Sacco and Vanzetti, met with resistance from those who were inside, for which the comrades were arrested.

If the comrades had been detained for another crime (that had nothing to do with the anti-terrorist law nor with this trial) and supposedly couldn’t mention anything about that process in this trial for legal reasons, this “rule” is ignored and the police continually speak of this “aggression” almost as part of the terrorist behavior. It is worth mentioning that of the 4 arrested from that day only one is on trial.

As to this point, some brilliant witnesses respond to the prosecution’s question, “What did you find,” with “Cartridges.” What the police grossly omit, they remember when the defense asks them to clarify, saying that they were the cartridges uses by the tactical group in order to “dissuade” shooting at the house.

Personnel from BIPE (Special Police Investigations Brigade, section in charge of the “bombs case” within the PDI) began to testify, speaking about what was seized. Yet again they bring out posters, books, bicycles, texts, newspaper clippings, funzines, magazines, computers, flash drives and like so a long and endless etcetera


An expert comes to testify about some supposed particles of something that could perhaps turn out to presumably be remains of gunpowder found in some pieces of evidence. At first the expert appears solid and indicates that he analyzed in order to detect these 4 particles (nitrite ions, nitrate ions, carbonate particles, ammonia) that according to his “expertise” would preliminarily indicate the possible presence of gunpowder.

In strict rigor, this person makes a preliminary expert report to then decide which pieces are not sent to the laboratory and just then makes a somewhat more “serious” analysis. Obviously the samples were sent to the laboratory, but surely the prosecution was not pleased by all of the results, therefore they only present and show the “preliminary” report where they indicated that there could turn out to be something similar to gunpowder. This expert like many begins to deflate as he keeps speaking, to then after the questions of the defense and the tribunal say that really this compounds can be found in almost anything: detergents, insecticides, contact with wood, sheets of paper, soap, aniline, lighting a match or being close to a fire and thus an enormous quantity of other elements used in daily life, if to this we add the clash with the ERTA team where they used everything from pepper spray to rubber bullets and other such tools of repression. The possibilities are nearly infinite.

If many can talk and allude or make fun of these experts, it is necessary to know to evaluate them from a political lens. As these experts are so imprecise, they can justify anything, including opening a judicial case and an extensive preventive prison under the anti-terrorist law, this is the element to emphasize in order to be aware of repression, here nobody cares about scientific evidence, neither the police nor the prosecution. With experts the most imprecise can manage to invent certainties of anything and create a case or links, that is a variable that nothing can control or take into account, equal to repression’s phantasies or deliriums.

Books, computers, “security manuals,” press clippings

As evidence they present all the material found and seized in the house, readings are given of “security manuals” that make reference to themes of animal liberation. Little matter that no attack has the slightest relation to this theme, to the prosecution it seems important to present and read a manual that instructs how to liberate an animal from a farm. Extensive expert’s reports about computers. Computers that are not attributed to any one of the accused (attributed to some with charges dismissed or to others who were never even charged) or some clumsy experts who end by concluding that the computer had no hard drive, it was just the shell.

Readings are given of press reports found in the library, which no could figure out what they intended to prove?

They will continue with the presentation of evidence, witnesses about the CSO Sacco and Vanzetti, considering that this was subject to 3 raids (11 December 2009, 14 August 2010 and a final raid a couple of days after the eviction of the house), plus the raids on the other particular residences of those who participated in that space.

Hinzpeter Keeps Whimpering

We believe that sometimes it is possible to lose the essence of the critique of power when one focuses on the personalizations of repression. But in this particular case, it is he himself who continues “updating” his statements about the case, we refer to the Minister of the Interior Rodrigo Hinzpeter.

In a radio interview, the minister of the interior tries to grossly lower his profile, saying that “in the ‘bombs case’ the only thing that I have done is to file complaints when there have been bombings, the decisions of preventive prison or freedom are always taken by the judges.”

Then he starts to get upset about the critiques that have been made of the trial, attributing responsibility solely to the prosecution, forgetting all of his own.

“Put that question to the public minister not to me? The only thing that we do is to file complaints and support the work of the investigation…, here there are some people who have tried to instill the idea that there are imprisoned people because a crazy minister of the interior made them prisoners, as if there were not tribunals.”

“At times they make one lose patience. How has anyone come to think that there are some people in Chile arrested because the minister of the interior occasioned it?

“This hurts me very much, because at the end of the day the only thing one tries to do is one’s work for the good of Chile, because one is not to do silly things (…) creating the idea that the only thing that matters to us is repression, when what matters to us is the solution to the problems left to the Government to govern

“The critiques hurt me and they affect me, but find the strength to keep working, because when one is minister of the interior, one has to be inspired in how to ensure that the Chileans have a better life. One must guard one’s feelings.” 

If it interests you, listen to the complete interview here in Spanish

For those who have fragile memories, here is a recording of the first statements:


(Look for the 1,000 differences, with special attention to 07:46, when he subtracts 4 years from the history of the CSO Sacco and Vanzetti, in addition to renaming it as Vaco and Zaneti)

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.