Attorney for the Defense

Your honors:

I am here representing the government of the United States of America in its defense against charges that it had a subversive role in the 1973 coup in the country of Chile and that it was complicit in the death of an American citizen living there, one Charles Horman, originally of the city and state of New York. A brief summary of this defense, based on evidence at hand, follows:

I would first argue that the notes of Charles Horman, presented as evidence for the prosecution, have no bearing without their author's verification, and, unfortunately, Mr. Horman is deceased. Mr. Horman was a creative young writer, taking copious notes on everything that surrounded him. He also drew cartoons and illustrations, showing an imaginative mind. He was also known to be aware that the country in which he was living was unstable as to its government. Further, he had made a choice to live in that country rather than the one where he was born, raising conjecture about his feelings toward the United States. One could make a logical assumption that his notes might reflect an exaggerated imaginative belief that he had uncovered a covert plot in which there was US involvement in the 1973 Chilean coup. His notes, however, do not constitute facts without his direct testimony. Words of implication on paper do not attest to the truth of the larger situation at issue here, and we do not accept the testimony of his companion as anything but emotional and subjective hearsay, particularly since no one has been able to locate the person to whom Charles allegedly spoke. I'm withholding that person's name here until we are able to find and subpoena him.

Second, I would argue that it was logical for the ambassador of the American embassy and his staff to presume that Charles would more likely be in hiding than be missing for any other reason. While known as a creative person, Charles also contributed his art and writing to a leftist publication known as "Fem." According to Mrs. Beth Horman, his wife, he was known to have spent as many as 18 consecutive hours at a time helping to get the paper published. While his friends and family attest that Charles was not himself a political activist, his mere association with this publication would, of course, knowingly make him a target of the new government, causing him to do the logical thing during the turbulence following the coup: to flee. It follows that the logical view of our staff there would pursue that possibility first, since others were known to have fled and later returned to their homes.

I would add that the ambassador and his staff, all available for first-hand testimony, will tell you that they did everything possible under those trying circumstances to find out if the body of Charles Horman was among the thousands of victims of the coup. Given that the Hormans aren't the only family adversely affected at the time and place at issue, I will be arguing that they did recieve what could be called preferential treatment at the expense of other American citizens who needed the embassy's assistance, due in large part to Mr. Edward Horman's political connections as a wealthy businessman.

Finally, and most important, we will address the egregious charge that our government was somehow complicit in the death of Charles Horman. Your honors, our embassy staff exists to help--not harm--our country's citizens. Charles Horman wasn't a minor player in what went on in 1973--he wasn't a player at all. You will not find in any of the prosecutor's so-called "evidence"--meaning the notes mentioned before that cannot be construed as any type of evidence--anything that ties our government to a role in the death of Allende and the installation of Pinochet in order to benefit our country. That is not the American way. We are a democracy. Unfortunately, in the chaos that ensued in Chile in 1973, we could not keep track of--much less protect--all of our citizens, and young Charles Horman was executed without our knowledge, much less--and here is where the accusation becomes truly outrageous--our approval. Why would we aprove of the execution of this young man, your honors? Why? While we grieve for the Horman family in the loss of their only child, justice demands that we absolutely refute their allegation that Charles, as an American, could not have been executed for knowing too much about our government's activities without the approval of our government. This the conjecture of a grieving family, your honors, and the government of the United States of America will argue, through the first-hand testimony of our representatives who were present during Edward and Beth Horman's search for their son and husband, that their concern was properly directed toward finding Charles, not killing him. This, then, is the summary of our defense.