so letelier died almost immediately. and then came the tragic story of ronni moffitt. she was not targeted but she happened to be in the car with him. she stumbled out of the car and her husband was in the backseat. he suffered just minor cuts. he looked at her and she was stumbling away so he figured she must be okay. i'm going to go help orlando who's in the driver's seat and clearly is dying. and so he went around the front, tried to get orlando out and couldn't do it. there was, you know, jagged metal pieces everywhere, broken glass. and he simply couldn't -- the car had essentially imploded onto itself. he couldn't get the body out. eventually he went to see his wife and he realized at that point that a piece of shrapnel had exploded from the driver's seat and had cut her carotid artery and she was essentially drowning in her own blood even though that was her only injury. and so both victims were immediately brought -- within a few minutes there were police vehicles and ambulances all over this circle. we're just a few blocks away from dupont circle and so a lot

to put the hit on letelier.e never says the words "pinochet did it," but he says things like, "everything i did, i did because el jefe told me to do it. everything i did as the head of d.i.n.a." at some point, they even have a shouting match against this. pinochet saying, "no, no, no, i just gave you general directions to deal with subversives. i did not tell you to kill anyone." so it is not absolutely clear from those conversations and those shouting matches what contreras really meant. contreras' explanation for this particular crime was always the same. until he died, he said the cia did it, and michael townley was an agent of the cia, right? because that is a lie that anyone in south america would believe, either on the left or on the right. they would believe the cia is able to do these sorts of things, and of course, it is able to do it, and townley is an american, so it seems to make sense. but it does not make sense. it is not true. >> i have one last question. i just wanted to know what your personal c

he was talking about the letelier assassination. on one hand, carter meant that such a brazen attack on the chilean dissident on u.s. soil was unacceptable to the u.s. policy-making apparatus, whether republican or democrat. it made the united states look unable to police its own borders. it made the cold war seem out of control. on the other hand, foreign policy makers were careful of pushing too hard. we were not against the chilean government. we were not against what the military had done, which means the overthrow. we were against the abuse of it and the terrorism that had been performed its in name. so it was often up to regular people like isabel letelier, michael moffitt and human rights organizations to pressure carter officials against the chileans. first to expel townley from chile, which proved successful, and second to extradite contreras and other chileans, which proved a failure. when pinochet once travelled to washington, carter met him in the oval office and brought up human rights, and his -- carter's determination

on october 4, an unknown male called letelier's aunt. maria, maria, maria, maria he said, talking to the fbimaria, condescendingly, talking to the fbi won't help you. your legs have been spread lewis like orlandos. then he hung up. in late november, a fight answer the ant was standing at kennedy airport rifling through her purse for a key to an airlines office. suddenly a man grab her arm and yanked her around. you tell your friend larry to keep his nose out of chile's business or you won't be so pretty anymore. boom boom, do you know what i mean? this happened over and over again in the investigation. two of the fbi, the lawyers, to the uj js and everybody who would talk to the fbi. if they could do this and gotaway with it under the easy no of the cia and the fbi said president-elect jimmy carter, then no president can govern. he was talking about the assassination. on the one hand -- it made the united states make unable to police its own borders. it made the cold war seem out of control. on the other hand foreign policy makers were c

that was put here by the institute for policy studies to memorialize the assassination of orlando letelier. at the same time, ronni moffitt,

morales and it made my stomach turn because conservative and liberal use papers painted a composer letelier deceptive picture all events in bolivia a betrayed president morales as almost too radical as someone who falsifies election results and that is no surprise let me tell you this between 2007 i was a writer on tribune and the editorial line of the tribune about time was one of jubilation at how latin america had largely speaking i let it socialist governments which wanted to really gain their political economic and cultural independence from america and who also wanted to forge close relations with russia now in 2007 i was the right it at the success of socialist parties across latin america i was a little bit more pessimistic or realistic because my opinion was that one day the american empire will shreiking back america merican knows the u.s. knows latin america like i know my at chance the american the americans are playing the long game in latin america they have penetrated into the institution in free country or even decades on that council and they know this peter that yes they c

that was put here by the institute for policy studies to memorialize the assassination of orlando letelier.