The fish dies by the letter

ENRIQUE DEL RISCO

New Jersey, USA

On 13 July and be twenty years after the sinking of the tugboat "13 de Marzo" and the death of 41 of the 72 people who sailed on that boat while trying to escape the island (among those killed ten children aged which they ranged between 5 months and twelve). Saying "the facts are well known" carries ignore that the vast majority of the inhabitants of the island had no other information than the official version and then twenty years of silence. Discuss whether it is an accident or a crime should state only the obvious culprits. It should, however, review those official versions, these fallacies tried to present as fact and added further insult to the crime of lying.

The first note appeared unsigned one day after the events, on July 14, 1994 in the Granma newspaper, page 2:

As it is seen the number of survivors mentioned, the dead allude to the formula of "an undetermined number of missing" and the fact itself refer to a terse "capsized". The sinking of the boat and the "disappearance" of people is summed up as "this unfortunate incident" while as culprits brought to those who committed "this irresponsible act of piracy" which in turn were stimulated "by counter - revolutionary radios, most reactionary elements of the worms in Miami and the usual breaches of the migratory agreements the US government "too much anger in a rather dispassionate note that attempts to describe an" unpleasant incident ". It is the only discordance. The rhetoric routine Granma maybe us not see how it can be described as "anti- social elements" persons of which the writer of the note does not seem to know either the name, much less the number of deaths but it is striking that elapsed almost 24 hours of the event is not an approximate number of missing is not even.

Granma July 16

Two days later, on July 16, it appears a new note this time by "the Ministry of Interior", again in the discrete page two, along with a report on a manufacturer of metal pails. There the incident "disgusting" ascending to "regrettable" and for the first (and I think only) time it is recognized that the sinking of the ship "took place during a collision between this boat and another tug of the same entity that was to catch up . " Then add what constitutes the axis of the official version appeared days later on television: the tug was in disrepair and that was the cause of its sinking. "This naval medium was reported with a breakdown that favored a waterway, which was known by the direct authors of the plan still irresponsible, did not notice consummating the fact , " says the anonymous writer of the Ministry, claiming that the criminal irresponsibility of the authors of the kidnapping defeat the recognized fact in the first paragraph of the tug sank because of a collision with one of the boats that were chasing him.

Remember the interviews with some survivors who later provided to corroborate the official version (of the tug sank because it was in poor condition and not because of a collision) you will be surprised at the naivete of this note. However it should beremembered that the note on Saturday July 16 and appears when other survivors, through phone calls to the United States, had given details of what happened the morning of 13 and their testimonies were being broadcast by Radio Marti.

Two short paragraphs describing the circumstances of the sinking are essential to understanding what happened --if well whatthe intent is just the opposite. "To try to hinder the action of --dice-- robbery, three boats MITRANS attempted intercept, and the maneuvers executed to meet this objective came the unfortunate incident that wrecked the ship." In other words, it insists that mere employees were trying to prevent a robbery and were they who unwittingly sank the ship fugitive. In other words, theywere assuming the role of authority, something that perhaps could explain the absence of the royal authorities. But no, then he tells us note that two units of Border Troops were on patrol missions, which immediately came to the aid of the castaways "In the vicinity of the area, also joining the rescue the three vessels of MITRANS ".

Ordinary workers exercising police duties while authorities are dedicated solely to perform the rescue and first aid. Everything fits perfectly in the universe designed by the Castro regime. As in the famous acts of repudiation, the people spontaneously comes to the task of defending his government while authorities make an appearance just to avoid excesses. You never can be calculated rage that can react with an enraged people when provoked.

Contrary to the rather mild conditions describing the weather forecast appearing just below the note of July 14 at 16 we are told that "Given the sailing conditions and the rough seas (Force 3) in those first hours in the morning, only 31 were rescued alive people, who were taken to the mainland and medically underserved. the rest of the individuals composing the group disappeared ". Insist not know even calculate the death toll. In the five boats gathered at that point (three civilians, two soldiers) could not rescue the corpse of one of the 41 victims.

The questions that many were twenty years ago remain unanswered. How it was that 72 people planned to be the tug, moved to the port and took him away without anyone to stop? How, though, to leave the bay magically appeared first three ships and then two more willing to intercept them ? How is it possible that employees were available MITRANS so freely of their ships to recover the stolen tug and so little ability to do so? However, any concern that these employees have turned - policemen on their own would be dissolved in the sympathetic gesture Cuban head of state:

"The behavior of the workers was exemplary, can not say no, because they tried not to steal their boat. What we say now, let them steal the boats, their means of work? What are we going to do with those workers who did not want them to steal their boat, who made ​​a truly patriotic effort, we might say, to stop them from stealing the boat? What would we say? "

Rhetoric aside, from the beginning it was outlined very clearly in the silence of the official account what actually happened. They must I have learned with time an escape plan with so many people involved but chose to do nothing to prevent it . They preferred to give string and prepare its own plan: wait for the fugitives with three boats off the bay and follow offshore to act without witnesses. Away from the coast the sink with civilian ships to better represent the farce of the people outraged to rescue their tools. Maybe they did not have the speed and the courage with which some survivors revealed what had happened that morning. Or maybe. It was little fear that they would instigate in those months in a village maddened by hunger and despair.

Enrique del Risco

New Jersey