
Siblings torn apart by Argentina's dictatorship find each other
Patricia, a 25-year-old student in medical school, was 8-months pregnant at the time, and gave birth in one of the military's clandestine death camps known as ESMA, the Navy School of Mechanics. Before she was killed, she named her baby Rodolfo.
In 2000, 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon reported on Mariana and her grandmother Rosa's decades-long search for Rodolfo. He was one of an estimated 500 babies born in death camps to mothers who were kept alive only long enough to give birth before being killed.
A systematic campaign to snatch babies
The babies, in a systematic campaign, were then given to childless military couples. The Argentine government and human rights organizations estimate that between 15,000 to 30,000 people were killed or "disappeared" during the junta's dictatorship that lasted from 1976 to 1983.
Miriam Lewin, an Argentine journalist who was kidnapped in 1977 when she was a student activist and later taken to ESMA, remembered Patricia Roisinblit after she gave birth to her son.
"He was a beautiful and healthy baby boy, almost blond, and she told me, 'His name is going to be Rodolfo,' and she was smiling," Lewin told Bob Simon in 2000.
The Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo and the search for Rodolfo
Patricia Roisinblit was never seen again, nor was her husband. Her mother, Rosa Roisinblit, together with Mariana, spent years searching police stations, hospitals and orphanages for baby Rodolfo but never found him.
Rosa, now 105, became a founding member of the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a group of women who spent years demanding answers about their missing grandchildren. The group has found over 130 appropriated babies since the 1980s.
When Bob Simon asked Mariana about her missing brother in 2000, she said: "I have a lot of hope that he comes to realize that he's been living a lie and that he would come looking for me."
A tip that leads to finding her missing brother
Just days after that interview with 60 Minutes, Mariana received a promising tip about a young man that might be her brother. His name was Guillermo Gomez, and he worked at a fast-food restaurant.
"At that moment... I felt, I felt dissociated," Mariana recalled during an interview. "I had a feeling of peace and relief and that everything would be OK."
She passed him a note that read: "My name is Eva Mariana Pérez, I am the daughter of desaparecidos. I'm looking for my brother. I think he might be you." Along with the note, she left him a photo of her parents.
Guillermo was stunned when he saw the photo of Mariana's father, José.
"It's like in a science fiction movie when you see a picture of yourself in the past," he said. "It was a picture of me in the past. I didn't feel that Mariana's father just looked similar, but identical."
A photograph of a man that looked like him was one thing, but only a DNA test could confirm his real parentage. "I was very afraid," Guillermo said. "At that moment, I didn't know who I was."
Reckoning with a new identity and family
The test results were conclusive, he was Mariana's brother. But there was another truth to face: the couple that raised him, Francisco Gómez and his wife Dora Jofre, had not only appropriated him, but the man he called his father was likely involved in his real parents' kidnapping and deaths.
"I was born in captivity like a zoo animal," Guillermo, who changed his last name to Pérez Roisinblit, said in an interview. "My mother was also kidnapped. I was separated after three days. I disappeared for 21 years. I am a contradiction because I am a disappeared person alive. I am a person who was missing without knowing I was missing."
Guillermo said Gómez was abusive, and he had an unhappy childhood. He felt differently about Jofre, who he said always tried her best to take care of him.
"I grew up being afraid of him, running away from him," Guillermo said. "And she, for a long time, was practically my whole world. She was the person I called mom."
His relationship with his mother was a source of conflict with his newfound sister Mariana and grandmother Rosa. Guillermo didn't want Jofre to go to jail. But his sister and grandmother said it felt like a betrayal. They wanted consequences.
"Every day, every morning, she knew she had stolen someone else's son," Marian said. "And I don't forgive that. They stole my brother and they stole him from me for the rest of my life."
Jofre was tried and sentenced to three years imprisonment for Guillermo's abduction.
In 2016, Guillermo faced Gomez, the man he once believed was his father, in court. When he took the witness stand, he made one final plea.
"I told him I needed to stop being in constant mourning for the death of my parents and that I needed to know when it happened, who had been responsible for their deaths and where their remains are," Guillermo said. "And he chose to say nothing."
Gómez was sentenced to life in prison.
"I wish this had a happy ending."
After the trial, the siblings presented a unified front with their grandmother Rosa, but their relationship floundered. They had little in common, apart from DNA. They were, after all, separated for two decades. There were also struggles familiar to many siblings: jealousies, resentments and issues with money.
"Life isn't a movie. I wish it was a Hollywood production and this had a happy ending," Guillermo said. "Having been raised separated, not living together, we could never get over that distance between us.
Guillermo is now a human rights lawyer and working with the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo, taking up his grandmother's work to help find children who were stolen and appropriated during the dictatorship.
Mariana is a writer, playwright and academic. Despite her difficult relationship with her brother, she's never regretted finding him.
"What happened broke everything, so what's broken is broken," she said. "It's very difficult for us as a society to accept that it's broken forever. But it's always better to know the most painful truth than not knowing the truth at all."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Welcome to the Mafia Presidency
Theoretically, it's illegal for the president to accept or solicit bribes. The plain language of the statute is perfectly clear: It is a crime for a public official to seek or receive 'anything of value' in return for 'being influenced in the performance of any official ac t.' The prohibition applies whether the public official seeks or receives the bribe personally or on behalf of 'any other person or entity.' As I said: theoretically. On Tuesday, the media-and-entertainment conglomerate Paramount announced a $16 million payment to President Donald Trump's future presidential library. The payment settled a lawsuit that Trump had filed against the Paramount-owned broadcaster CBS because he was unhappy with the way the network had edited an election-season interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump's lawsuit was about as meritless as a lawsuit can be, for reasons I'll explain shortly. If CBS were a freestanding news organization, it would have fought the case and won. But like the Disney-owned network ABC, which also paid off Trump for an almost equally frivolous lawsuit, CBS belongs to a parent corporation with regulatory business before Trump-appointed agencies. Paramount is pursuing an $8 billion merger that requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission. In November 2024, then-incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr warned that merger approval would depend on satisfying Trump's claims against CBS. Carr told the Fox News interviewer Dana Perino, 'I'm pretty confident that that news-distortion complaint over the 60 Minutes transcript is something that is likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of that transaction.' 'News-distortion complaint?' What's that? Nearly a century ago, in 1927, Congress empowered a new Federal Radio Commission to police the accuracy of news broadcasts. In the preceding decades, the airwaves had become a chaos of transmissions interfering with one another. The right to use any particular frequency was a valuable concession from the federal government, the owner on the public's behalf of the nation's airwaves. Congress felt that it could impose conditions in return for such concessions. One condition was a duty to meet public-interest standards in broadcast content, which included giving equal time to opposing political candidates in an election. In 1934, the Federal Radio Commission evolved into the Federal Communications Commission. As television technology spread, so did the FCC's ambition to police the new medium, resulting in 1949 with its power to compel the fairness doctrine on ' all discussion of issues of importance to the public.' The fact that opinions can differ about what counts as 'accuracy' and what counts as 'distortion' rapidly became obvious. Government efforts to police the boundary between fair reporting and unfair scurrility create conflicts with First Amendment rights. For print media, the courts have been very clear: Editing, even arguably unfair editing, is protected free speech, subject only to the laws of defamation. In the 1960s and '70s, the FCC groped its way toward a similar rule for broadcast media. Interestingly, some of the crucial milestones involved CBS News. In the early days of color television, CBS News pioneered the use of aggressive editing to tell powerful stories in dramatic ways. In 1971, for example, CBS broadcast a documentary, The Selling of the Pentagon, that accused the Department of Defense of manipulating public opinion. To amplify the argument, the producers cut and reassembled questions and answers. Some of the affected individuals filed complaints against CBS, and the matter was taken up by members of Congress. Yet the FCC declined to get involved in the case on free-speech grounds. Before the end of the first Nixon administration, the FCC had generated a series of precedents that more or less nullified the agency's Calvin Coolidge–era status as a monitor of broadcast accuracy and a potential censor. The whole issue soon became moot, because the FCC had no jurisdiction over cable television or the internet. As Americans drew more of their information from sources outside the FCC's domain, the very idea of content regulation by the agency came to seem absurd to all parties, including the FCC itself. Who would think of invoking a doctrine that originated in 1927 to police speech in the 21st century? Then came Trump and the loyalty-above-law appointees of his second term. Evident from the Trump legal filing against CBS is that not even the president's own lawyers took his complaint seriously. Three whopping clues give away the game about the filing's farcicality. The first is where the lawsuit was brought: the Amarillo division of the U.S. district court for the northern district of Texas. CBS is not domiciled in Amarillo. Neither is Trump or Harris or any person significantly connected with the 60 Minutes segment. What is located in Amarillo is America's premier pick for right-wing forum-shopping, a practice criticized not only by liberal counterparties but also, at least implicitly, by The Wall Street Journal and National Review. Amarillo is the court where a partisan-conservative plaintiff goes with a case that would be summarily thrown out elsewhere. The next clue is the language of the filing, which reads like direct dictation from the president: As President Trump stated, and as made crystal clear in the video he referenced and attached, 'A giant Fake News Scam by 60 Minutes & CBS. Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE. Election interference. She is a Moron, and the Fake News Media wants to hide that fact. AN UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL!!! The Dems got them to do this and should be forced to concede the election? WOW!' See President Donald J. Trump, TRUTH SOCIAL (Oct. 10, 2024). And so on, through 65 paragraphs of irrelevant name-calling and Trump-quoting obsequiousness. The final clue lies in the carelessness of the complaint's quoted sources, two of which actually argue against the Trump claim. A cited law-review article concluded that 'the reinvented news distortion doctrine would undermine the very democratic norms marshaled in its defense.' Similarly, an FCC decision referenced found against taking action (in another case involving CBS)—explicitly on free-speech grounds: 'In this democracy, no government agency can authenticate the news, or should try to do so.' One has to wonder whether Trump's lawyers even read the texts they cited. The complaint's flimsy legal basis—including Trump's claim of standing under a Texas consumer-protection law—indicates its pure-nuisance quality. And yet, Paramount paid $16 million to settle a case that it could almost certainly have won for a fraction of the price. U.S. law forbids both accepting a bribe and soliciting a bribe, yet they're not exactly the same offense. There is an important difference between a police officer who takes money to let a criminal escape and a police officer who uses the threat of arrest to extort money from an innocent citizen. Paramount did not come up with the idea to pay Trump $16 million; Trump decided to squeeze Paramount for the money. What's going on here is extortion—and it does not get any less extortionate for being laundered through Trump's hypothetical future library. A systematic pattern has emerged: shakedowns of law firms, business corporations, and media companies for the enrichment of Trump, his family, and his political allies. Every time targets yield, they create an incentive for Trump to repeat the shakedown on another victim.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Brazil's Lula vists Argentina's Kirchner, under house arrest
Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva visited left-wing ally Cristina Kirchner on Thursday in Buenos Aires, where the former Argentine leader is under house arrest, wishing her "the strength to continue fighting." Lula arrived at Kirchner's home to the cheers of around 100 supporters of the former president. He emerged almost an hour later, but did not speak to the crowd. Kirchner, the standard-bearer of the Argentine left for over two decades, was convicted of "fraudulent administration" while president between 2007 and 2015. The 72-year-old began serving a six-year sentence last month after losing a Supreme Court appeal, and has also been barred from holding public office again. Lula found Kirchner "in good health, strong and determined to fight," he said in a message on social media platform X. "In addition to expressing my solidarity with her for everything she has been through, I wished her all the strength she needed to continue fighting, with the same determination that has characterized her career," he wrote. Kirchner hailed the visit as "much more than a personal gesture: it was a political act of solidarity," in her own message on X. She drew a parallel between her fate and that of Lula's, describing how he also was imprisoned -- in his case, for bribe-taking and money-laundering -- before being voted back into office. The meeting took center stage on Thursday at the biannual summit of the Mercosur regional bloc, made up of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia. There, Lula was the guest of Argentina's libertarian President Javier Milei -- who has made no secret of his disdain of the leftist leader, previously branding him a "Communist" and "corrupt." The two had no bilateral meetings on Thursday. Lula took over the rotating presidency of the bloc from Milei at the end of the summit. mry-pbl/ial/st/acb
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
CBS News Legend Dan Rather Blasts Paramount for $16 Million 'Sell-Out' to Donald Trump: 'Sad Day for Journalism'
Dan Rather accused executives at CBS News' parent company of bowing down to extortion from Donald Trump as they attempt to complete a merger 'It's a sad day for journalism,' the 93-year-old remarked in reference to Paramount's $16 million settlement Trump previously sued 60 Minutes for $10 billion in October, accusing them of deceptively editing an interview with former Vice President Kamala HarrisDan Rather blasted executives at CBS News' parent company, Paramount, over their decision to settle a lawsuit with President Donald Trump. The 93-year-old journalist, who had an iconic run on the CBS Evening News and frequently appeared on 60 Minutes, spoke out on Wednesday, July 2, following the news that Paramount had agreed to pay several million dollars to settle a lawsuit with the president. Trump sued CBS News and accused them of deceptively editing former Vice President Kamala Harris' 2024 campaign trail appearance on 60 Minutes, according to reporting by Reuters. After months of back and forth, Paramount agreed on Wednesday to pay $16 million to Trump's future presidential library. The lawsuit initially sought $10 billion in damages, and brought grave concerns about the precedent Paramount would set for all media companies if it ultimately gave into Trump's demands. Notably, a representative for Paramount told Reuters in a statement that "the settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret." As news of the settlement broke, Rather spoke to Variety and delivered a blistering condemnation of what he described as "distortion by the President and a kneeling down and saying, 'yes, sir,' by billionaire corporate owners." 'It's a sad day for journalism,' he said, adding, 'What really gets me about this is that Paramount didn't have to settle.' The reporter noted that settling a lawsuit implies an admission of guilt. CBS News already released an unedited transcript of the Harris interview, and according to Rather, the evidence showed there was no guilt to be had. Additionally, he noted, "Lawyers almost unanimously said the case wouldn't stand up in court.' 'I was disappointed, but I wasn't surprised,' he admitted to the outlet. 'Big billionaire business people make decisions about money. We could always hope that they will make an exception when it comes to freedom of the press, but it wasn't to be." Rather branded the parent company's decision as "a sell-out to extortion by the President," further asking, "Who can now say where all this ends?' 'Trump is now forcing a whole news organization to pay millions of dollars for doing something protected by the Constitution — which is, of course, free and independent reporting," he added. Rather said that it wasn't just media companies that were giving in to Trump. He singled out universities and law firms as other examples, saying, "Now he's extorting what he wants out of news organizations. So when I say, 'Where does this go?' What are the effects on journalism as a whole?' The journalist didn't think all was lost, saying that "Journalism has had its trials and tribulations before" and that, "It takes courage to just soldier on." "I know the people at CBS News, and particularly those at 60 Minutes, they'll do their dead level best under these circumstances. But the question is what this development and the message it sends to us. And that's what I'm trying to concentrate on,' he said. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. Rather's scathing attack comes a few months after executive producer Bill Owens retired from 60 Minutes in April over similar frustrations with Paramount. Correspondent Scott Pelley addressed Owens' departure in a shocking segment on 60 Minutes that month, implying that the loss came as Paramount was allegedly attempting to soften coverage of controversial topics to gain Trump's favor. The company is in the midst of a merger with the entertainment company Skydance, which will require sign off from Trump's administration to become a reality. 'Bill made sure they were accurate and fair. He was tough that way, but our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it," Pelley said. He continued, adding, 'Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways. None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he had lost the independence that honest journalism requires.' Read the original article on People