The Anna Cook case seen by Trinidad Piriz

Performer and director of Podium Podcast Trinidad Piriz is the woman behind Who killed Anna Cook? the series of true crime number one on Spotify in Chile. After five years of research and more than 400 pages of court records, the audio documentary in eleven chapters written by Rodrigo Fluxa addresses the death of the Chilean DJ Anna Cook a young woman who in 2017, according to the Forensic service died of drug addiction, but whose mother and relatives insist she was murdered.

Some irregularities in the case and the suspicions of two men who were with Anna that night led a group of feminist activists in 2018 to label her death a lesbian hate crime and blame the alleged suspects and the justice system. Social networks and the streets of Santiago were filled with the question Who killed Anna Cook?, demanding justice. Five years later, the podcast that focused on this same question about the feminist struggle, has completely distanced itself from the lesboodio theory to propose that justice was right.

Here, podcast producer Trinidad Piriz recounts a journey that she says challenges the boundaries between truth and justice.

How did you come to the Anna Cook case and why did this story prompt you to make it a podcast?

As director of Podium, I was interested in creating a grid that had sound documentary as one of its axes, and it seemed to me that working with Rodrigo Fluxá was completely safe with an investigation that was going to be rigorous, professional and well done. We spent time going through cases and finally it seemed to us that this one, which was already accompanied by an investigation led by Valentina Millán and him, was without doubt the most interesting case. Ana’s story as an artist and as a DJ was ideal for the format and she was able to engage with the medium, which is something that matters to me. Who killed Anna Cook? This is also an issue that many people have seen on the street and that no one has taken care of. It was a cause that I had also taken up, not as the director of Podium, but as a woman.

What was the hardest thing about working on this case?

It was a super difficult exercise for a number of reasons. First because it was long, it was sad and it was painful. We are touching on a delicate subject, we are talking about a person, a human being. It has also been difficult in the professional field; produce the chapters, that the sound design is really about Anna and who she was, to be able to merge her music and the stories that are told about her. Because it’s not just the investigation that matters to us, we also care about the medium, and I want the audience to understand the dimension of a human being not only through the scripts, but also through the sound.

Why do you think the podcast and the survey generated so much discomfort and debate?

The problem is that people want the truth as long as it matches what they want to believe, and that’s super dangerous. It was a case that needed visibility, we made it visible, but not in the way that suited the cause. Think that this is a case that we have all known a year after it happened, through social networks, by Anna’s mother and by the Anna Cook collective. Personally, when I saw it on the networks, I consumed it without a doubt, I blindly believed everything that was said to me on the social networks, without any exercise in understanding what justice says, which is the minimum to be able to believe something or understand something. It could have been true or not, that’s not the problem: the problem is when I decide to believe something arbitrarily and with little information, because we start to create a story together that starts to strengthen. With Anna’s case, a very well-armed public trial began to develop, also taken up by the lesbian-feminist cause, and we all began to blame the people who were in that house that day and put it all over the place without due process of law. At no time do I want to go against the cause, I don’t even have a lawsuit against the movement. I am a woman, I am a feminist and I understand that movements help to make visible things that justice often does not take. But this case is taken by the movement with a lack of evidence, unfortunately. In the podcast, each of the topics is profoundly well covered with more than one source from different disciplines to prove it.

The podcast is narrated by two actresses who embody the different positions on the case. Was this decision due to the controversy of the case?

The exercise of having two narrators is an exercise that has been thought out, it is not arbitrary. This is a case that has been very polarized, which has very clear antagonists. Within the same research team, in fact, there was a break for the same reason and then when it arrived at the Podium and we had to edit the scripts in the editing room, we were all a bit like the journalist and the editor… It seemed to us that this way of putting these narrators or this idea of ​​fictionalizing these two roles embodied the crisis we are facing in relation to this cause or in relation to the idea of ​​truth and the idea of ​​justice. These are two roles that embody generations, concepts, themes, beliefs. Through these two people, we can take a journey, which is a social journey.

What were the reviews about the podcast that bothered you the most?

Especially since people with little material, with little information can come up and say conclusions that go against everything that a lot of people and experts are saying. The Institute of Public Health, the PDI, the Police, the Legal Medical Service… Let them postulate that there is almost a conspiracy between the justice system and the health system and the police against this particular case. It’s really putting the bad out there, like there’s something in this whole world that’s mean and bad and wants to attack me.

One of the criticisms that the podcast has had is that the investigation does not have the approval of Anna’s mother, has there been an approach with the family and relatives to carry out this investigation?

Yes all the time. The first investigation was to try to rearm Anna’s world through her loved ones; of course, the mother and a high percentage of Anna’s relatives were part of the investigation. In fact, we have a respectful, cordial and honest relationship with Anna’s mother, of whom we have 12 hours of interview. It has been a regular and ethical process. I know it has been criticized from some small circles, but we did this investigation from a platform, from a media, there are lawyers who advised, there are letters signed, everything was done legally.

What was the biggest surprise you had after the podcast aired?

I think I realize the role of journalism. It seemed very interesting to me. Everyone who listens to Anna Cook’s podcast is fighting it, discussing it. It is an active public, which thinks, reflects, chews and makes up its own mind. I realize that this affair makes us dialogue or obliges us to listen to the other and to vary our positions. Having to go read and turn around and think and talk again, because it’s a case that talks about subjects that upset us or make us think and change our minds.

How do you think your investigation will influence justice… Do you think it will mobilize something?

We tried to contact the lawyers several times and they didn’t want to be involved, they literally told us that the investigation we were carrying out was not going with their thesis…. I think that speaks for itself. The commitment of our investigative journalism is to clarify the truth. Justice already has the data and that’s all we can do, we can’t do more. The podcast is there, take it or leave it.