Case against the US Embassy in Chile by the Harmon Family

The opening arguments in the case of Charles Harmon vs. the American embassy in Chile were heard in the Supreme Court today. The following is a brief outline of the points brought by the attorney representing the Harmon family:
1. The American Government believed that Charles Harmon was in possession of information implicating the US military in the coup of 1973. Harmon was seen by several witnesses writing down pieces of conversations he had with the American military personnel he met in Vina del Mar. Although he never showed the contents of his notebook to the aforementioned American military personnel numerous witnesses saw him jotting down notes moments after speaking with the personnel in the dining room, at the front desk and in the entryway to the hotel. Harmon’s companion at the hotel was Terry Simon, a family friend. Simon did not take any kind of notes at any time during their stay at the hotel. The photographs she took consisted of typical tourist fare. Upon her return to Santiago, she was allowed to leave the country. It seems clear that Harmon’s notes played a pivotal role in his subsequent arrest and murder. Harmon and Simon were both in the same environment, both speaking to the same Americans yet Simon is allowed to return to the states and the Harmon is murdered. It is the notebook that separates the government’s perception of Harmon as a guilty party to their perception of Terry as an innocent. The notebook is a recorded document of conversations Harmon had with military personnel in which they freely admitted that they were in Vina del Mar to orchestrate the coupe.

2. The involvement of the American government in cover-ups is evidenced in the murder of Frank Teruggi. Not only was his death not recorded but the government delivered a lot of misinformation about Teruggi as well. One embassy worker suggested that he was on a plane home or already at his parents’ home or simply hiding. The government made no effort to further explore these claims, seemingly satisfied with their conjectures. The fact that the government would avidly pursue a course of misinformation concerning one American makes it likely that the same course of misinformation was used in their dealing with Charlie Harmon and his family. Harmon and Teruggi were not only friends but work colleagues as well. They were both known for writing many articles critical of the Chilean government and of American involvement in Chilean political and economic affairs. The lack of records regarding Teruggi’s death also points toward a cover-up by the American embassy.


3. The American government did little to help the Harmon family discover the fate of their son and, in fact, often blocked information from getting to the family. The information regarding Harmon’s death came from the Ford Foundation and not the embassy. The embassy repeatedly put the Harmon’s questions aside with promises of speaking to Chilean generals “Tomorrow”. No effort was made by the embassy to search hospitals and the stadium for Harmon until pressured to do so by the Harmon family. It is clear that the government did not search for Harmon because they already knew he was dead. There is an eye witness report from a Mr. Gonzalez who states that he saw Harmon and a group of Americans in the embassy office. He observed Harmon being beaten but does not know what happened to him later.

4. Additionally Harmon’s body was shipped to America seven months after Ed Harmon left Chile. This is 6 months and 3 weeks later than originally promised. This delay made it impossible for an accurate autopsy to be preformed. If the embassy had nothing to hide than the body would have been shipped in the promised three days.