What is Nascimento testifying against?


The trial at the end shows Col. Nascimento in court testifying against corrupt politicians and bringing some of them down, when in reality he never actually witnessed any illegal activities by the politicians, so he is not a witness. It's just conjecture and accusations he cannot actually prove.

The only (weak) proof that ties them to the crimes is the phone tap which he had already passed to Fraga, so his contribution to the investigation ended there. Conjecture coming from a high ranking official would surely sell a lot of newspapers but would not be allowed in a court of law.

Good movie but the last 5 minutes try to tie things up nicely with this "sort of" happy ending.


reply

probably a fair criticism. i felt the same way while viewing.

perhaps we may infer that between Fraga's 'dossiers' and the journalists prior work -based- upon receipt of those dossiers, there was more to document the allegations which a high-ranking official publicly corroborated.

the film definitely glossed over the actual body of evidence to support the allegations we heard Nascimento make before the committee, such as accusing all but 7-8 of the congress as being bent, however true that may have been.

reply

I'm not sure the last scene was a trial. It seemed to be some sort of Congressional hearing.

My brother was eaten by wolves on the CT Turnpike

reply

As already been said, it was not a trial. It was a "CPI", an investigation carried out not by the courts but by the legislature and was referencing the "CPI das milicias" that created the legal support to investigate and prosecute these corrupt policemen. Before that, militias was not a problem by the eyes of state.

You can understand more on this article.

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comiss%C3%A3o_Parlamentar_de_Inqu%C3%A9rito

reply