Comments on: A Murder Foretold

A Murder Foretold

vidur — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:27:32 -0800

"My name is Rodrigo Rosenberg Marzano and, alas, if you are hearing or seeing this message it means that I've been murdered by President Álvaro Colom, with the help of Gustavo Alejos." Rosenberg went on, "The reason I'm dead, and you're therefore watching this message, is only and exclusively because during my final moments I was the lawyer to Mr. Khalil Musa and his daughter Marjorie Musa, who, in cowardly fashion, were assassinated by President Álvaro Colom, with the consent of his wife, Sandra de Colom, and with the help of . . . Gustavo Alejos."

By: shothotbot

shothotbot — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:33:58 -0800

Previously.

By: hal_c_on

hal_c_on — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:38:09 -0800

You were off by 2 years...double.

By: perspectival

perspectival — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:41:05 -0800

"It was this that roused me from my slumber..." to join Metafilter, finally. An astute and precisely-and-immaculately-written study on the human condition in, at least, Central America. A natural-born thriller: highly-recommended.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:41:21 -0800

But nobody can tell it like David Grann tells a story (Lost City of Z, etc..)

By: ZaphodB

ZaphodB — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:48:13 -0800

I don't think this is a double at all - the article here has the whole story, which is very unlike the narrative that the earlier post assumed. And man, what an ending!

By: DU

DU — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:57:53 -0800

hey hey!

By: vidur

vidur — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:58:17 -0800

hal_c_on, not a double at all.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:00:36 -0800

It's a single not a double.

By: philipy

philipy — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:00:59 -0800

How can it be a double when the New Yorker article is dated April 2011? It's telling what was uncovered afterwards, which is pretty incredible and turns the initial story inside out.

By: mosk

mosk — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:16:12 -0800

Question: I'm only familiar with the broad details of this story. Should I start with the "previous" thread, or just read the latest article?

By: warbaby

warbaby — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:17:06 -0800

Wow.

By: sebastienbailard

sebastienbailard — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:18:52 -0800

Start with the "previous" thread. More fun this way.

By: Avenger

Avenger — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:40:19 -0800

If I tried to pitch this story to a publisher as a political thriller it would be rejected as being far too fucking unbelievable. They would literally laugh my ass out of the building. Truth, she is stranger and fiction, no?

By: localhuman

localhuman — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:57:10 -0800

Holy Shit, my life is boring. but less so because of this read, thanks!

By: Mach5

Mach5 — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:06:49 -0800

holy shit, when i got to the answer for whodunnit, i said 'holy shit' out loud. that is quite the story.

By: LobsterMitten

LobsterMitten — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:51:58 -0800

That's great, thanks for posting it.

By: flippant

flippant — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:52:54 -0800

I'm staying the hell out of Guatemala. What a story. And told with great skill and clarity.

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:00:42 -0800

wait, I'm confused. I don't want to drop spoilers, but isn't the story on the ourobosian side, as I recall?

By: rtha

rtha — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:02:06 -0800

Jesus, what a story. Between 2000 and 2009, the number of killings rose steadily, ultimately reaching sixty-four hundred. The murder rate was nearly four times higher than Mexico's. In 2009, fewer civilians were reported killed in the war zone of Iraq than were shot, stabbed, or beaten to death in Guatemala. ---- From June 2010: Four severed heads and two beheaded bodies have been found in the capital of Guatemala. The bodies were left in the open around Guatemala City, including in front of Congress and at a shopping centre. A really depressing story.

By: Reasonably Everything Happens

Reasonably Everything Happens — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:24:35 -0800

"Hello"...! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father prepare to die! (sorry)

By: storybored

storybored — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:35:58 -0800

OMG.

By: carsonb

carsonb — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:41:07 -0800

What a story! If I tried to pitch this story to a publisher as a political thriller it would be rejected as being far too fucking unbelievable. It's so not a political thriller. This is The Name of The Rose crossed with The Illuminatus Trilogy crossed with The Wire. The potential!

By: LMGM

LMGM — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:44:26 -0800

Ack, i couldn't read the whole thing. Both of my parents come from parts of Latin America where this sort of thing was part of everyday life at one point or another and this reads like the stories they told me about every honorable person they grew up with (and saw die).

By: verbyournouns

verbyournouns — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:47:56 -0800

LMGM, there's a twist that probably makes this pretty unlike the stories you know from your parents.

By: m@f

m@f — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:54:43 -0800

Not done reading yet, but... ---- A genteel-looking grandfather, with a silver mustache and birdlike eyes, he was known for making business deals, sometimes with the government, and he owned a clothing shop, in Guatemala City, that catered to a wealthy male clientele. But Mendizábal was no mere entrepreneur. It was whispered that, as in a John le Carré novel, the boutique also served as a meeting place for military-intelligence officers, coup plotters, and death-squad leaders. Mendizábal was Guatemala's most notorious spy. ---- Any tale that includes Garak is fine by me!

By: vidur

vidur — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:55:29 -0800

Let me just say thank you to everyone for keeping their comments spoiler-free.

By: mudpuppie

mudpuppie — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:22:18 -0800

Gripping. And really, really sad.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:03:29 -0800

Holy crap, what an insane story! The world has some pretty fucked-up nations.

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:53:02 -0800

Great post, what a wild story. Spoiler: Gur pnyyf ner pbzvat sebz vafvqr gur ubhfr!

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:01:02 -0800

This was a fantastic read.

By: Wolof

Wolof — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:09:44 -0800

Incredible story. Thanks for posting it.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:19:24 -0800

I look forward to the mini-series.

By: Tacodog

Tacodog — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:01:18 -0800

Wow, that really sucked me in. I wouldn't be so sad now if it weren't true.

By: WalterMitty

WalterMitty — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:05:26 -0800

Tangential, vaguely interesting side note: First Lady Sandra Torres is divorcing President Álvaro Colom so that she can run in the upcoming Presidential election, as current Guatemalan law prohibits close relatives of the current President from running.

By: memebake

memebake — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:37:42 -0800

For the shorter version with spoilers, see wikipedia. <tinfoil>I guess this is an obvious question, but given the lawlessness of Guatemala that is the background for the whole thing, is there absolutely no chance that the evidence finally presented in the article is also phony and the investigation compromised? </tinfoil>

By: molecicco

molecicco — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:10:40 -0800

For the shorter version with spoilers, see wikipedia. Shorter and incredibly dull. I guess this is an obvious question, but given the lawlessness of Guatemala that is the background for the whole thing, is there absolutely no chance that the evidence finally presented in the article is also phony and the investigation compromised? I also wondered this. I don't think the tinfoil tags are really necessary, considering all the information in the article. At the beginning I had wondered with Rosenberg himself had had Musa and his wife killed. I also thought Marjorie's sister had been involved in Rosenberg's death, since she was apparently the only person who knew that Rosenberg was going out on a bike ride. Then I started to think his fishy Mendizábal "friend" was responsible for the murder of Musa (and later Rosenberg), and had been trying to convince Rosenberg it was the president. Then I started to wonder whether there wasn't a kernel of truth to Mendizábal's claim that Rosenberg had gone out thinking he was going to purchase information that proved the president's involvement, only to be murdered by someone hired by Mendizábal. It's just endless spaghetti. How can you trust any of the information? Even if you trust one source, how can you know whether you can trust their source??

By: molecicco

molecicco — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:11:51 -0800

---------------- SPOILERS ABOVE^^^^^^^^^^^^^-------------- (sorry)

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:19:37 -0800

I was in Guatemala around the time that Castresana left the country, and my impression was that a lot of people there mistrusted him and CICIG pretty intensely. For some people it was a specific thing against Castresana, or a friend-of-my-foe thing — they thought President Colom was a crook, so when Castresana's report exonerated him, they decided Castresana must be a crook too. But for many people it was just across-the-board mistrust of authority: "Everyone's crooked. The world is a crooked place, and nobody who's honest could ever have any sort of influence. Why should Castresana be any different?" Anyway, there was definitely a lot of FUD flying around — "Castresana's leaving because he told the truth and is afraid of being killed"; "Castresana's leaving because he's a criminal and he was about to be exposed"; "Castresana's leaving because he doesn't give a shit about the truth, and this whole thing is a hoax to get attention back in Europe." Etcetera. So, yeah, for me too it was weird to read this article where his report is taken at face value. The Guatemalan media certainly didn't take it that way, and neither did public opinion. That said, my impression is that if anyone in this story is trustworthy, Castresana is — if only because he would be much harder to bribe or coerce than the other main players. He doesn't seem to have any interest in building up local power in Guatemala, and now that he's back in Spain (and counting his wealth in Euros, and protected by a reasonably-honest police force), he's a lot more expensive to keep paid-off or afraid for his life. Just because I'm inclined to trust him, that doesn't mean I'm 100% sold on his conclusions. It's possible he was fed bad evidence, it's possible that he's gone off his rocker, and it's possible that he made an honest mistake. But if I had to put money on anyone's account, I'd bet on his, because it seems less likely to be a full-on deliberate lie than any of the other stories that are circulating. SPOILERS ABOVE Uh, guys? This is international politics, not Harry Potter. Anyone who "doesn't want to know how it ends" is missing the point.

By: Laotic

Laotic — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:40:08 -0800

Of course, as for the spoilers... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2qoIELB3A8

By: dvorak_beats_qwerty

dvorak_beats_qwerty — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:50:12 -0800

Wow.

By: molecicco

molecicco — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:04:29 -0800

yeah, i guess the spoiler warning was unnecessary. no need to be snippy though - the story really is a much better read when you don't know what conclusions were made in the end, and given all the brouhaha in meta about people not giving spoiler warnings i thought i would throw that in there.

By: joedan

joedan — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:21:39 -0800

"Botar un pato grande," the voice said. "Knock over a big stick." That's either a typo or mistranslated, because "Botar un pato grande" means "Knock over a big duck."

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:54:00 -0800

Oh, hell, I'm sorry molecicco. I didn't mean to single you out — I just got careless and grabbed the nearest bit of "spoiler alert" talk to quote when I got to the end of the thread. What I should have said instead: Hey, y'all upthread: enjoy the story all you want, but don't tell us we have to keep the discussion 'spoiler free.' You wouldn't put a note saying "No discussing the issues! Don't give away the ending!" on a piece about US politics — even a really grippingly-narrated and suspenseful one. Please remember that there are real issues in this article too that are just as worthy of discussion. Meanwhile, molecicco was discussing the issues, and just wanted to cover his ass against the "no spoilers" folks, so it was really shitty of me to come across like I was calling him out in particular. Sorry.

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:54:38 -0800

That's either a typo or mistranslated, because "Botar un pato grande" means "Knock over a big duck." Yeah, I think it musta been "palo."

By: molecicco

molecicco — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:47:21 -0800

no offense taken nebulawindphone! but after your post i did realize the capital letters was kind of overdoing it. but getting back to the issue, i completely agree - castresana is the one person who i would presume has no ulterior motives, and is not being paid by anyone. but i would still be a bit concerned that he wouldn't be able to sort out the different levels of disinformation. and the more i the whole situation over, the crazier it all seems. i mean, even if you are one of the very-corrupt and are contributing to the disinformation, you've gotta always be unsure about what is and is not true. it's seems like a world where truth is whatever you accept to be the truth. you might even give up on the idea of being able to know with any reasonable degree who did what and why, even among your own colleagues. how exhausting.

By: vidur

vidur — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 20:23:51 -0800

The takeaway for me was to be a bit more skeptical of proof-by-believable-story convictions I have.

By: (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates

(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:00:36 -0800

Such a great article. Thanks for the post.

By: vidur

vidur — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 21:27:05 -0800

"No journalist working today spins a yarn quite like The New Yorker's David Grann."