The prosecutor Albert Nisman was investigating the responsibility of the Argentine government and Iranian officials in the attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) when, hours before presenting evidence of that pact, he was found dead.
Tomorrow Saturday 22 at 17:45 at the Multiplex Lavalle (the first of the three scheduled performances). Nisman, victim 86 in the context of Bafici. It’s a documentary that takes me into the bowels of that rebus that the prosecutor left behind on the day of his death. The film, which contains a wide variety of voices, seeks to bear witness to an era.
Nisman, a man of justice supported by then President Kirchner, is a key figure in recent Argentine history. The film doesn’t extol him.
The Festival press release states that the documentary underlines the “obstinacy” in finding the culprits, even when the investigations run aground.
he directed it Paul RacioppiDirector of empty Olympus (Bafici ’13), The dialogue (Bafici ’14) e Jujuy unheard (2021). One of the producers is Waldo Wolfformer deputy and current Secretary of Public Affairs of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires.
With Nisman’s death, he is known to have tried to establish that it was a suicide. Little by little irregularities began to appear: the certainty of the previously cleared area, a mysterious fire, a friendly weapon, clumsy crime scene investigations and a quantity of evidence, some of which allowed the Justice to conclude that no was he experienced an accident. Not a suicide.
For Wolff, who acts as producer of the documentary in this case, “our goal is to leave testimonies through multiple referents, actors, journalists, politicians, communicators and experts on what they had to live”.
With testimonials
“The testimonies collected – he adds – are looking for those who want to know what happened, to have our testimonials with real facts, with documentation and with a plot showing the connection between the Embassy, the attack on the AMIA, the signing of the memorandum with Iran, the geopolitical change and the death of Néstor”.
Furthermore, he says, “the turn that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner makes, the brawl in the services, the interference of politics and, among other things, the responsibility of the governments in power for not clarifying the attack… From this it is on the tell our story in a friendly way so that someone can sit down and learn about a part of the story they didn’t know.”
Why “victim 86”? racioppidirector of the documentary, says: “In the experience of making documentaries, certain titles always appear during the shooting or editing process. In fiction, this is rarer because the script of fiction generally has a title that closes with the story. In this case we interviewed the mother of one of the 85 victims of the AMIA bombing and she, at one point, says that Nisman was the 86th victim.”
“At that moment -continues the director- I thought it was a good title and I ended up corroborating it by searching for articles, doing archival work, and finding clarion a text called “Nisman, Victim 86”, written by Alberto Fernández, where he claims Nisman. There I had no doubts. I proposed it to Waldo Wolff, who had already started working on the subject and had also written a book about Nisman. I want to clarify that this audiovisual is not my idea, but his.
-Differences and similarities with the Netflix documentary series?
-The differences? To begin with, the Netflix series has an industrial character due to its budget and distribution. This is a low budget documentary, made with the lungs and in an almost artisanal way, with a very small team of people. Another difference is that that documentary leaves the two hypotheses open: murder and suicide. It ends nowhere.
Another difference is that in our work the idea is to understand the framework that led to the memorandum, the memorandum to the denunciation and the denunciation that led to the finding of Nisman dead. I, the truth, do not finish clarifying what was the motivation of the Netflix documentary. I don’t know for what purpose it was done. If it was a commercial goal or if they wanted to install something, leaving the hypotheses open…
-Do you work in particular around one of the two theories?
-Waldo Wolff has written a book based on the amount of evidence that Nisman did not commit suicide. I have taken some irrefutable and non-questionable evidence for the strength of him: the position of the body and the position of the weapon: the weapon could never appear where it did if he had shot himself in front of the mirror, as the suicide hypothesis maintains .
The goal is to make it clear that there is sufficient evidence, that there is an opinion of justice to say that the suicide hypothesis is not valid. Nisman was killed. Who, how and why will probably never be known.
Source: Clarin
