Infobae

Remember Natalia Fernández, the 26-year-old waitress who was selected as a witness by the Prefecture and had to stay up all night alongside forensic investigators inside prosecutor Alberto Nisman’s apartment the day he died? Remember how she described that the crime scene was a mess and everyone was eating medialunas and leaving traces of DNA everywhere?

Remember how prosecutor Viviana Fein, currently investigating Nisman’s death, said her statements were a total lie and she would have to testify in court?

Well, testify she did yesterday. And according to Fein, the witness “rectified her statements” before her. and by “rectifying”, of course, she means she completely changed her story.

For instance, sources in the prosecutor’s office said:

  • Fernández denied seeing (Fein) holding a bag of bullet casings.
  • She said that Nisman’s body had been removed from the apartment at 5:30 AM, not at 3:30 PM as she had originally told the press.
  • She denied seeing people eating medialunas. She said she only heard people mentioning they felt like eating medialunas, but didn’t see anyone actually doing so.
  • She changed her story about using the bathroom in Nisman’s apartment. She now said she was only allowed to use the maid’s bathroom (not the one where Nisman was found) after the Scientific Police had scanned the apartment for evidence.
  • She never “walked around the apartment”. Sources say “she was always sitting, first on the stairs and then on a couch alongside other witness. They were both being watched a Prefecture official”.
  • She made a mistake when she said she saw people “scribbling over documents that Nisman had left on the table”. Sources say investigators were simply “classifying the material”.

Fernández was questioned by Fein in the presence of attorneys representing Diego Lagormarsino and Sandra Arroyo Salgado (Nisman’s friend and former partner respectively).

So according to the prosecutor’s office, everything she told Clarín three days ago – and outraged a large portion of the population – was inaccurate.

Some theorize that it was a stunt to make people angrier so more would decide to join the “silent march” that took place on Wednesday at the last minute and that she was just a pawn in Clarín’s game. Other say she was “pressured” into changing her story or that the Fernández de Kirchner administration used her to create doubt and skepticism on Fein’s investigation.

Remember when we told you to trust no one?

We were right.