'The 11 of Raval': there are the proofs, but the whys are missing

The 11 of Raval, which TV3 premiered on Tuesday on Nits sense ficció, awoke many expectations. A well-defined and ambitious investigation into the dismantling, in 2008, of a jihadist cell that intended to attack the Barcelona metro. The documentary delves into the role of an informant, known as F1, who became a protected witness. You can find it again on the 3Cat platform, in the format of a four-episode series. However, linking them to be broadcast as a single documentary had consequences for the effectiveness of the narrative, with repetitions and lengthy narrative arcs.Despite everything, journalistic work is very interesting. It demonstrates irregularities in both the investigation and the trial, has access to very relevant primary sources, recognizes the work of the two journalists who identify the protected witness, and constructs its own perspective on the events and the vital outcome for the detainees. Formally, the graphic design of the names and positions becomes excessively cloying: the visual preponderance of the labels ends up being bothersome due to simple repetition. However, the structure and ordering of the facts are impeccable and allow for a very good understanding of the dynamics and irregularities of a complex trial, especially thanks to the explanatory capacity of the defense lawyer Benet Salellas.The documentary has a very subtle, but relevant, aspect: the editing observes with special attention the gestures and microexpressions of the protagonists, especially when their interventions highlight the most dubious aspects of the case. For example, when Javier Gómez Bermúdez, then president of the criminal chamber of the National High Court, has to admit some negligences in the process, the camera focuses on his subsequent silence and the discomfort becomes visible on his face. Also the attitude of the lawyer of the Association of Victims of Terrorism, José María Fuster-Fabra, lighting his cigar and showing off in front of the camera. They are details that communicate beyond the facts.The most fragile aspect of the documentary is its excess of ambiguity when providing concrete answers. This is already evident at the beginning, when the then director of the CNI, Alberto Saiz, explains that in the 11-M attacks, “the CNI’s information did reach the police, but the police did not act, for whatever reasons””. Perhaps it would have been interesting to clarify them. Also when one of the expert journalists on the case leaves suspended the reasons for the protected witness’s conduct: “You can draw a hypothesis as to why he did what he did””, without being more explicit. The documentary falls short in clearly defining the whys: why Asim Iqbal, F1, acts as he acts. But also why Gómez Bermúdez tolerates an investigation and a trial with so many irregularities. Beyond implying an abuse in the preventive fight against terrorism, motives are lacking. You have the feeling that in the answers we would find arguments related to dark political and judicial points that are still relevant.