"Missing"

As an attorney for the Horman family bringing a case against the US government for its alleged role or complicity in the death of Charles Horman in Chile in 1973, I would argue that it was the responsibility of the US government to be aware of what was going on as well as to protect its citizens. The US stated that they weren't aware of what happened to Charlie, yet witnesses placed Charlie with US officials who stated that he needed to be "taken care of " because he knew too much. Officials were unable to give the Horman family leads or information as to where Charlie may be or if he is alive. They stated that they had good reason to believe that he was alive and safe, however, had no means of backing up their statements. It took little time for other people to learn the true story. If ordinary people were able to find clues and track down potential witnesses then it would be reasonable to believe that government level officials would have been aware of exactly what had happened before others would. The government felt that the the sensitive nature of what Charlie knew was more important to protect than saving the life of an American citizen. This that got too close had to be killed to protect the larger issue. My main focus in representing the Horman family would be to use every reliable source to testify about the interactions that took place between government officials and Charlie when he was arrested.