6. “. . . some press publications with information, unsubstantiated of course . . .” There is no proof that it was unsubstantiated.
7. “This individual Rizzoni is the one who was providing the newspaper . . . with information . . .” Partially false, see subheading 3.
8. “. . . to the newspaper Revolución Nacional, which is publishing . . .” False. Revolución Nacional stopped being printed a while ago, and is therefore not publishing anything at all. Published.
9. “. . . which is publishing several articles entitled ‘Operation Massacre’ . . .” False. Revolución Nacional never published articles entitled “Operation Massacre.”
10. “Marcelo Rizzoni—who . . . signs his contributions to a newspaper . . . ‘Mr. M’ . . .” False, and also stupid. Marcelo is a witness, not a journalist. A witness whom I have called M. and not “Mr. M.” A witness who neither writes nor signs contributions to any newspaper of any kind.
11. “. . . a newspaper where he has reported on alleged cases of torture . . .” False and ridiculous to anyone who knows what is being discussed.
12. “He is the leader of ‘Operation Massacre’ . . .” False. It’s confirmed: the person who drafted this version is mentally disabled. The indisputable leader of “Operation Massacre” was Lieutenant Colonel Fernández Suárez.
Earlier I showed that Fernández Suárez lied, statistically speaking, every other line. Now, with the help of my colleagues in the press, he has beaten his own record.
Fernández Suárez tries to discredit everything I have published, making it seem like the information I am using as a foundation was supplied by a terrorist. But “Marcelo” is just one witness among fifty, and perhaps the least important one at that. The information, the real information, has been supplied to me by Fernández Suárez himself. He is my chief witness.
Should a civil or military court, intelligence services, or publishers of serious newspapers want to retrace my research step by step, the following are the witnesses and statements I used, by order of importance:
1. Fernández Suárez in his report before the Province Advisory Board on December 18, 1956;
2. Juan Carlos Livraga’s formal accusation, restated before the judge, and his oral statements;
3. Miguel Ángel Giunta’s statement;
4. Horacio di Chiano’s oral testimony; (I have spoken to each of these three survivors at least half a dozen times, thoroughly rechecking every single detail)
5. a statement signed by Norberto Gavino, which I have in my possession;
6. a joint statement signed by Julio Troxler and Reinaldo Benavídez, in my possession;
7. testimony from Vicente Rodríguez’s widow;
8. testimony from Mario Brión’s relatives;
9. testimony from Nicolás Carranza’s widow;
10. testimony from Francisco Garibotti’s widow;
11. testimony from Carlos Lizaso’s relatives;
12. testimony from Juan Carlos Torres;
13. testimony from Giunta’s relatives;
14. testimony from Livraga’s relatives;
15. testimony from Di Chiano’s relatives.
Over the course of four months, I have conducted hundreds of interviews with these witnesses and with more minor ones, the vast majority of whom have not even made statements before a civil or military judge.