Marie Samuels - New Version

 Preface

The objective is to reflect on the concept of the Doppelgänger in Freud and its subsequent reactions of strangeness within oneself. Concurrently, we will follow the character Marion Crane and her duality (Doppelgänger), Marie Samuels, towards the realization, during the dinner with Norman Bates, that hasty behavior can manifest as "madness" – a reminder that we all might experience moments of going "crazy" or exhibiting psychotic tendencies.

The purpose of this work is purely educational and academic. It entails a thorough analysis of the film, accompanied by selected images from the 1960 movie "Psycho," directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

The copyright owner of the film is Paramount Pictures. From 1960 until 2017, the copyright was held by the studio. As we are in 2022, the film has entered the public domain in the United States of America. This explanatory note about copyright is included due to uncertainties regarding the film's copyright status in Brazil.

This present essay is dedicated in memoriam to Alfred Hitchcock and all those friends who are no longer with us.

Summary and "Psycho-Analysis"

In a Phoenix hotel room on a Friday afternoon, December 11, at 2:43 PM, Marion Crane and her out-of-town boyfriend, Sam Loomis, seem to have concluded an intimate relationship. She lies on the bed in her bra, while he stands shirtless, ironically asking if she has had lunch. Marion desires to marry Sam, yet her father's inherited debts and his child support payments, along with alimony, hinder him from providing the financial support she wishes for.

Marion encounters Sam Loomis during her work lunch break, affording little time to address their seemingly unconventional relationship. She yearns to marry him, transcending their sporadic encounters and gaining societal approval. When Sam jests at Marion, she gets out of bed to fasten her shirt in front of the mirror. The first semblance of the Doppelgänger emerges in this instance.

Doppelgänger

The initial notion of a dual self is observed in this foundational scene as she converses with her boyfriend while simultaneously observing her alter ego within the mirror. The concept of the Doppelgänger recurs throughout the narrative, with this moment being particularly poignant due to the mirror's orientation, directed away from the viewer and towards the character during her actions.

Although Marion Crane aspires to marry Sam Loomis, her decade-long role as a secretary hasn't amassed adequate savings. Conversely, Loomis inherited his father's debts and is obligated to pay alimony to his ex-wife. The couple's financial dilemma is deliberated before the mirror, wherein the dual aspects of Crane and Loomis coexist.

Modern society divides individuals within themselves, causing subjects to conflate with objects. The ensuing discomfort with the environment and life becomes insufferable. The predicament of two honorable individuals who've toiled and struggled yet lack the means to solidify their love is pondered.

Eventually, Crane realizes her tardiness for work, providing a foundation for our argument concerning the Doppelgänger present in her character.

Our protagonist, Miss Crane, returns to her role as a secretary in a real estate office. She arrives before her boss, Mr. George Lowery, and her client, Mr. Tom Cassidy, who purchases a Lowery house with $40,000 in cash. Lowery instructs Marion to deposit the money in the bank vault by Monday. Citing a headache, Marion requests the remainder of the day off after her trip to the bank.

This headache serves as the initial suggestion of the dual nature within Marion Crane. The audience is aware that her headache is feigned. In an abrupt shift, the dynamics at the real estate office transform.

Secret rendezvous between Marion and her boyfriend during lunch breaks, a recurring occurrence, do not culminate favorably. Sam Loomis lives far away, and their legal positions preclude them from uniting in marriage, a socially accepted institution. Notably, Miss Crane doesn't adorn any rings on her fingers.

The Doppelgänger's influence intensifies as Cassidy, an oil leaseholder, enters the narrative. He purchases a house with $40,000 cash, undeclared to the IRS, for his daughter's wedding. Cassidy's presence accelerates the Doppelgänger effect within our heroine.

Marion Crane's character arc is simple; a trustworthy, diligent, punctual secretary employed in Mr. Lowery's real estate office for a decade. Oil leaseholder Mr. Cassidy wields power, wealth, and verbosity. Cassidy employs endearing terms like "my sweet little girl," aimed at the secretaries to garner attention, exemplifying manipulative tactics.

Cassidy's dominance is evident when he mentions installing air conditioning in the secretaries' offices with newfound funds, prompting discomfort in Mr. George Lowery, who seems to benefit illicitly. Cassidy's focus on his 18-year-old daughter, devoid of unhappiness, catches Marion's attention.

The superior of the female employees is taken aback by Cassidy's evasion and invites him to a private conversation in an air-conditioned office. Cassidy, believing his status exonerates him, attempts to exploit the secretary without repercussions. Cassidy embodies the first introduced psychotic persona, fueled by his wealth and the notion that money can bend situations to his advantage.

Cassidy's harassment insinuates that Marion should compromise her integrity for solace. This moment amplifies the Doppelgänger effect within our heroine. Her internal duality emerges from Cassidy's attitudes and actions.

Marion's response to Cassidy's query on her happiness symbolizes her resistance against emotional invasion. 

Marion's transformation isn't abrupt; rather, it's built gradually. Factors contributing to her sudden awakening are delineated. Her initial pretext of a headache to secure an afternoon off shifts when Cassidy enters the scene. The emergence of the double-self, the Doppelgänger, is directly attributed to these events.

As we connect the dots leading to the creation of the character Marie Samuels from Los Angeles, California:

a) Marion Crane and her boyfriend share an unhappy and financially unstable relationship. Despite their desire to marry, their financial constraints lead to Marion's dissatisfaction with her current circumstances.

b) Mr. Tom Cassidy's intrusive behavior within the office during working hours further amplifies Marion's turmoil. The fact that Cassidy, who is old enough to be her father, implies that she should engage in prostitution to alleviate his own unhappiness only exacerbates her distress.

c) Tom Cassidy's appearance with undeclared cash amounting to $40,000 underscores his involvement in questionable financial dealings, hidden from the scrutiny of the IRS.

The shift towards estrangement becomes apparent when Marion Crane informs her boss, Mr. Lowery, that she intends to go home to rest after a stop at the bank due to an intense headache. Caroline, a colleague and secretary, offers her an Aspirin. Marion Crane dismisses the idea, asserting that her unhappiness cannot be placated with pills (indicating the influence of Mr. Cassidy's dual persona on her character).

This notion suggests that monetary means can alleviate unhappiness, echoing Mr. Cassidy's statement.

Marion begins displaying signs of a shifting character. Recognizing her lie to her boss regarding the headache and her true intent to travel to California to be with Samuel Loomis, her beloved, marks a pivotal point. Cassidy's manipulative behavior has significantly impacted her transformation. If an oil leaseholder can engage in financial misconduct, can't an employee adopt similar behavior?

The problem of criminal continuity, where one wrongdoing begets another, is explored. As Marion prepares for her journey, her demeanor transforms. A confident and self-assured individual starts to falter, indicated by her hesitance when confronted with the $40,000 on her bed. Her spontaneous packing for California reveals the gradual emergence of Marie Samuels, supplanting Marion Crane.

Marie Samuels represents the inversion of Marion Crane's former self. Once honest, trustworthy, and respected, Marie now embodies passion, impulsiveness, deception, and ultimately, psychosis.

The scene where Marie Samuels readies herself for the trip showcases her anxious breaths and searching gaze. Her internal turmoil is palpable as she comes to terms with the new persona inhabiting Marion Crane's identity. Several instances of the Doppelgänger effect are depicted as Marie dresses, including a childhood picture of herself and another depicting a man and a woman, presumably her parents. She turns away from the mirror, unable to confront this new self, and focuses on the envelope of money on the bed.

As Marie Samuels drives, the presence of another voice within her becomes evident. The Doppelgänger is now actively shaping her thoughts. She uses meta-thinking to anticipate societal perceptions of her theft and how she should evade consequences.

Sam Loomis's voice echoes in Marie Samuels's mind, questioning her actions and behavior in California. Her thoughts are increasingly dominated by this internal dialogue.

As Marie dreams of Loomis, her internal conflict is mirrored by external factors. The traffic light changes, revealing Mr. George Lowery crossing the street and spotting her. The fear is evident as he recognizes her and smiles, but also notes her lie about the headache. Marie's growing apprehension and the tension caused by her transformed identity are accentuated by the soundtrack.

Marie Samuels is marked by insecurity, fear, and an altered demeanor—traits that contrast sharply with Marion Crane's self-assuredness and lack of duplicity. Her physical actions, like supporting her head and biting her finger, mirror her internal turmoil.

Marie Samuels articulates the feeling of familiarity transforming into something strange, a sensation of unease.

The concept of the Doppelgänger is represented through mirrors and shadows in how the main character is depicted. Her clothing shifts from white, symbolizing innocence, to darker colors when she assumes the identity of Marie Samuels.

Marie Samuels's apprehensive behaviors, like biting her lip and looking back suspiciously, exemplify her paranoia, driven by the fear that her intentions have been exposed or that Mr. Lowery might possess supernatural insight into her actions.

The Doppelgänger is unsettling because it mirrors the self while simultaneously embodying a threatening otherness.

The shift in colors from soft to strong hues signifies a transformation in character. The transition from driving during the day to nighttime marks a significant shift in the journey.

Covering a distance of approximately 400 miles, the trip from Phoenix to California takes around 6 hours by car. Marie Samuels embarks on this journey in the afternoon, and as night falls, she decides to pull over and rest by the roadside due to the lack of nearby hotels. A police car stops behind her vehicle, and an officer approaches her window, waking her abruptly.

Marie awakens with a start, panic evident as she gazes at the police officer and hastily attempts to start her car. Her insecurity and uncertainty become palpable. She communicates her unease to the officer, revealing her suspicions and the feeling that something is amiss.

This sense of uncertainty persists when she chooses to exchange her car. Her swift decision-making astonishes California Charlie, the salesman, as she accepts the $700 fee for the car swap without hesitation. The transaction leaves the salesman speechless when she makes a cash payment and swiftly exits the car dealership, leaving behind a stunned policeman and mechanic.

In the scene where Marie Samuels counts the $700 bills in the bathroom, a sense of suspense deepens. The presence of the Doppelgänger is accentuated by the mirror facing her during this tense moment as she organizes the bills to pay for the car exchange.

The Doppelgänger effect intensifies as she continues her journey towards Sam Loomis. She begins to converse with herself, contemplating what questions the policeman or California Charlie might have asked. Her lip-biting and the stolen money in the bag on the passenger seat underscore her growing fear and paranoia.

The progression from fear to paranoia or psychosis is evident as Marie Samuels imagines conversations involving her colleague Caroline and her boss, Mr. Lowery. Her paranoia constructs numerous scenarios for escaping the predicament, considering options like running away and hiding.

During this internal deliberation, Marie envisions Tom Cassidy's potential reactions to the money theft. She imagines his anger and desire for retribution, leading her to sketch a smile on her face—an impulsive reaction that mirrors the impetus behind the Doppelgänger's emergence. This smile foreshadows another Doppelgänger instance, seen in Norman Bates at the film's conclusion. When the mother's Doppelgänger smiles, it mirrors the same ironic expression as Marie Samuels's other self.

It's crucial to note that Marie Samuels leaves California Charlie's car shop during the day, lost in her thoughts about others' perceptions of her. As she delves into her new persona, she smiles and ventures into the rainy night.

Navigating the storm becomes challenging due to heavy rainfall. In this challenging weather, she stumbles upon the Bates Motel, advertised as having vacancies available.

Norman Bates: The Doppelgänger of the Doppelgänger

In the context of analyzing Marie Samuels' journey of self-discovery, particularly her interactions with Norman Bates, the focus will be on her behavior and recognition.

Upon encountering Norman Bates, Marie Samuels realizes her own peculiarity as he himself is characterized by an eerie presence, dominated by a stronger personality—the character of his mother.

This association with Bates, who is similarly controlled by a motherly figure, underscores the concept of the double-double, where the oppressive situation triggers recognition. The hope is that this awareness prompts Marie Samuels to awaken to reality and relinquish her fantasies.

Marie Samuels waits for assistance with an umbrella and luggage, but no one arrives. She then notices an old and decaying house nearby, with a figure resembling a woman appearing in an upper window. The woman's gaze seems to fix oddly on Marie Samuels.

Subsequently, a young man exits the mansion and apologizes for not noticing her due to the rain. As they enter the hotel's office, the presence of the double-double becomes apparent. Images of Marie Samuels and Norman Bates are reflected together in a mirror near the office counter.

Norman Bates explains the hotel's situation, detailing that the recent highway route changes have led to fewer customers. He clarifies that guests usually arrive when they get lost and leave the main road.

Bates offers Marie Samuels a notebook to provide her details. While hesitating about her address, Marie Samuels chooses to write only "Los Angeles." This exchange transpires with the backdrop of the glass reflection, emphasizing her double nature.

Bates opens Cabin 1 for Marie Samuels, expressing that it's stuffy inside. Throughout this scene, the Doppelgänger is repeatedly present, reflecting and unfolding within each shot.

As Norman Bates describes the room options and hesitates with the word "bathroom," Marie Samuels completes his sentence. This interaction underscores his internal conflict.

Norman Bates proposes dinner, indicating he was about to have his own meal. The scene takes place with Marie Samuels standing near the looking glass while Bates stands in front of her, casting a shadow across her back.

Childish behavior emerges in Bates' eating habits as he offers her a sandwich and milk for dinner. Marie Samuels discreetly contemplates hiding the stolen money in her hotel room, wrapping it in a newspaper. Suddenly, she hears an older woman's voice exclaiming, "No! I said no!"

The voice belongs to Norman Bates' mother, who expresses her displeasure at his intention to dine with a woman. She asserts her possessiveness and jealousy, refusing to tolerate such encounters. She describes young men like Marie Samuels and her son as depraved.

As Marie Samuels attempts to apologize, the Doppelgänger is evident in Bates' reflection on the wall glass. Norman Bates explains his mother's altered state, and Marie Samuels politely acknowledges the situation. Bates invites her to dine in the office, but she hints at dining in her room. This moment symbolizes the duality within Bates.

Bates initially steps forward to accept the dinner invitation, then takes a step back. This action embodies the conflict between his desires and his controlling mother's influence.

Despite his initial desire to dine together, Bates ultimately suggests eating at the reception. Marie Samuels's polite acknowledgment contrasts with Bates's polite refusal.

Stuffed birds fill the reception area. Bates comments that she eats like a bird, a remark that takes on added meaning in this context. The conversation continues with Marie Samuels picking up a piece of bread, and Bates comments that she eats like a bird. He then stammers over the word "falsehood" and discusses his hobby of taxidermy. This hobby, he states, involves stuffing birds and other creatures, exploring the theme of passivity and submission to death.

Bates describes how birds are well stuffed because of their passive nature. He associates Marie Samuels with this characteristic, indirectly revealing his perception of her.

As their conversation evolves, Bates discusses his dedication to taxidermy, emphasizing that it is not just a hobby but a full-time endeavor. He explains that he manages the hotel, attends to rooms and errands, alluding to the control exerted by his mother. When asked if he goes out with friends, Bates replies that a boy's best friend is his mother.

Their exchange continues with the theme of traps. Marie Samuels mentions falling into one's own traps, to which Bates responds that he was born into his. He conveys a sense of resignation and disconnection from his mother's influence. In this case, Marie Samuels trap is her own self while Norman Bates trap is her mother. 

In this complex interaction, the Doppelgänger is pervasive, manifesting through reflections, shadows, and character dynamics. Marie Samuels's recognition and understanding of Bates's double nature contribute to her own journey of self-discovery.

Bates opens up about the source of his troubles, attributing them to his mother. He acknowledges that he no longer cares about being trapped by his circumstances and wishes he could challenge his sick mother. He recounts how she had to raise him alone after his father's death when he was five years old. Bates speculates on the difficulty she faced, not needing to work due to financial support from his father, possibly in the form of alimony or insurance.

He reveals that his mother met another man who persuaded her to build the Bates Hotel. The influence of this man was significant, and his passing hit her hard. Marie Samuels empathizes, recognizing the depth of her loss.

Bates admits that a son is a poor substitute for a lover and explains his commitment to taking care of his mother. He expresses resentment not toward his mother, but toward what she has become due to her deteriorating mental health.

Marie Samuels suggests institutionalizing his mother, which greatly offends Bates. He vehemently rejects the idea of placing his mother in a clinic or asylum. In this exchange, aggression is palpable in Bates's words, expression, and posture.

Continuing with the theme of birds and his mother's condition, Bates compares her to the stuffed birds. He claims his mother is as harmless as these inanimate objects, hinting that she might even be "dead" in some sense. The comparison underlines his conviction that she poses no threat.

He shifts his stance, suggesting that his mother isn't a maniac or a freak, but merely experiences moments of instability like everyone else. This interaction prompts Marie Samuels to recognize her own situation, leading to a pivotal realization or recognition of her own self.

Marie Samuels's recognition parallels that of Marion Crane. Marie Samuels serves as a decoy, a manifestation of her "crazy" side. Yet, she is not this person; she awakens to the potential risks posed by her criminal act.

Bates queries whether she has ever experienced moments of instability, to which Marie Samuels admits that she has. This admission underscores her acknowledgment of her own duality and provides a connection to Bates's experiences.

In this nuanced interaction, we tried to explore the themes of recognition, duality, and the interplay between characters. The Doppelgänger motif serves as a vehicle for conveying the complex inner struggles and transformations of the protagonists.

A Note about the concept of Doppelgänger.

The concept of the Doppelgänger, as understood through a Freudian lens, finds a compelling representation in Alfred Hitchcock's film "Psycho" (1960). The Doppelgänger, originating from German folklore, refers to a double or counterpart of a person that often symbolizes one's inner conflicts, desires, or psychological disintegration. In the context of "Psycho," the Doppelgänger concept aligns with Sigmund Freud's theories of the human psyche, particularly the id, ego, and superego, and the presence of repressed desires.

Marion Crane's journey in the film can be interpreted as a manifestation of her own Doppelgänger, a psychological double that emerges as she embarks on a path of transgression and theft. The Doppelgänger embodies her repressed desires for a better life and her frustration with societal norms. As she steals money and attempts to escape her responsibilities, she becomes divided between her conventional self (Marion Crane) and the Doppelgänger (Marie Samuels) representing her hidden aspirations.

The Bates Motel and its owner, Norman Bates, serve as another manifestation of the Doppelgänger concept. Norman's duality is evident through his relationship with his mother, who has a powerful hold on him. The Doppelgänger in this context embodies the Freudian idea of the divided self, with Norman's id and ego being in conflict due to his unresolved Oedipal complex and his mother's domination.

Norman's mother, who exists as both herself and a projection of his psyche, exemplifies the Doppelgänger as well. She represents his superego, enforcing societal norms and moral codes. Her presence fuels Norman's inner turmoil, leading to the emergence of his darker, psychotic side.

The meeting of Marion Crane and Norman Bates in the motel office brings these Doppelgängers into contact, illustrating the interplay of their psychological doubles. Their interaction becomes a confrontation of suppressed desires, repressed fears, and psychological fragmentation. The motel itself serves as a luminal space where identities blur and duality is emphasized, reinforcing the Doppelgänger motif.

Overall, "Psycho" encapsulates the Freudian concept of the Doppelgänger through its characters' internal conflicts, psychological divisions, and the collision of their hidden desires with societal norms. The film masterfully portrays the duality of human nature and the intricate layers of the human psyche, all within the framework of suspense and horror that Hitchcock is renowned for.

Freud in his own mind

The concept of the Doppelgänger, in the context of Freudian psychology and subsequent critical theory, pertains to the idea of a double or twin representing hidden aspects of an individual's psyche or personality. Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, introduced this concept to explain the complex interplay of conscious and unconscious forces within the human mind.

According to Freud, the Doppelgänger represents repressed desires, fears, or unresolved conflicts that are often relegated to the unconscious mind. It embodies the parts of ourselves that we suppress due to societal norms, moral codes, or personal discomfort. The Doppelgänger can take on various forms, including a physical double or a symbolic representation of the suppressed self.

In psychoanalytic terms, the Doppelgänger concept aligns with the id, ego, and superego structure of the psyche. The id represents our primitive and instinctual desires, while the ego acts as the mediator between the id and the external world, adhering to societal norms. The superego embodies our internalized moral values and standards. The Doppelgänger emerges as a manifestation of these internal conflicts, often personifying the tension between our hidden desires and societal constraints.

In subsequent critical theory, the Doppelgänger has been explored as a rich metaphor for various themes. It can symbolize the fractured self, the struggle between individual and society, the uncanny or unsettling nature of the familiar turned strange, and the psychological disintegration of characters. It is a narrative device that mirrors the human experience of duality and inner turmoil.

Literature, film, and art frequently employ the Doppelgänger motif to delve into characters' psychological depths, reveal hidden motivations, and explore the complexities of human behavior. It has become a versatile tool to examine the tension between appearances and reality, conscious and unconscious motives, and the dichotomy of self-hood.

In summary, the Doppelgänger, as understood through Freudian psychology and critical theory, symbolizes the internal conflicts and hidden aspects of an individual's psyche. It highlights the interplay between societal norms and suppressed desires, serving as a powerful metaphor in literature and art to explore themes of duality, psychological tension, and the uncanny.

Carlos H. Barbosa: From Secretary to Thug - The uncanny and Marie Samuels

Maria Madalena

 Eu, Barbosa, servo do Senhor, venho por meio desta anunciar que Jesus Cristo é o único Mestre, o nosso salvador e redentor que sacrificou-se na cruz e morreu para nos libertar dos nossos pecados.

A Ele toda honra, glória e poder para todo o sempre, amém. 

Pois ele é o mestre do universo, pois já existia antes da criação da própria luz. Até quando vamos ser rebeldes como os filhos de Jacó? 

Pois ainda continuamos a acreditar naquilo que é mais conveniente para a nossa carne, e negamos toda a mensagem pura que vem do nosso Senhor. 

Quem somos nós para sabermos de alguma coisa neste mundo dominado pelo Príncipe das Trevas? Aqui jaz o reino do Inimigo, do Maligno, e vocês ainda teimam em seguir os homens e seus corações corruptos.

Entreguem suas vidas e suas almas para Jesus Cristo pois o tempo está próximo, apesar da sua falta de fé e blasfêmia.

O que é impossível para o nosso senhor Jesus que é puro amor e nos deixou o Espírito Santo, para que seus humildes servos continuassem a pregar a sua palavra?

Lembre-se de Maria Madalena e de quando o nosso Mestre a encontrou primeiro: Madalena estava oprimida por sete demônios e Ele que é todo amor a libertou das garras dos espíritos imundos que a oprimiam. 

E Madalena passou a seguir Jesus com muita fé, sendo hoje considerada uma de seus apóstolos. Pois Ele ama a todos e vocês dificilmente vão saber como aplicar esta palavra nas suas vidas. 

Tudo é possível para aquele que crê que Jesus deu o seu próprio sangue como oferta no altar de Deus, mesmo Ele mesmo nunca tendo cometido erro ou pecado. 

Você ainda acredita que o Maligno se importa com aparências? Com meras frases repetidas exaustivamente e que não carregam uma gota do amor daquele que é o maior de todos os reis?

Você pensa que é quem para dizer “te repreendo”, por acaso você pensa ser como o Anjo Miguel? Pois quando Satanás debatia com o poderoso Anjo acerca do corpo e da alma de Moisés, Miguel o disse: “Que Deus o repreenda”. Mas isso não significa que você tenha o mesmo poder ou autoridade deste Anjo iluminado! 

Você não é Miguel e assim como eu não é digno nem de tocar nas sandálias do Nosso Senhor! Jesus retirava os demônios que oprimiam os nossos irmãos, Miguel pede para Deus repreender o Maligno, mas nós não temos este poder até ter a fé pura. 

E o que é está fé? É reconhecer os próprios pecados e entregá-los a Deus, é reconhecer que aquele que é imaculado sacrificou-se para nos libertar da morte. 

Portanto, devemos seguir a sua lei que é a mais bela de todas pois nos afasta de todo e qualquer mal, devemos amar nossos irmãos como amamos a nós mesmos. 

E não tenham medo de Deus, pois quem teme a Deus são os demônios. Não sejam iguais a eles, pois os demônios também acreditam na existência de Deus e de Jesus e morrem de medo do seu extremo poder! Porque? Porque vivem a praticar o mal e sabem que um dia ele voltará para julgar os vivos e os mortos.

Por acaso somos demônios para ter medo de Deus? Deus é amor, e quando as escrituras dizem que devemos temer ao SENHOR, isto significa que devemos amá-lo acima de tudo e de todos, como Abraão o amou e teve fé na Sua palavra. 

Temer ao SENHOR, significa respeitar as suas escolhas e ordens, pois Ele sacrificou o seu Filho que era puro para nos libertar! Temor significa obediência à lei que é amar a todos, incluindo os inimigos, orar para aqueles que nos fazem mal e se possível ajudá-los para que eles percebam como é belo e grande o amor do nosso senhor Jesus Cristo!

Até quando vocês vão ser como crianças rebeldes e ficarem distorcendo as palavras dos profetas e apóstolos? 

Este mundo é uma ilusão assim como tudo aquilo que se busca nele. A única verdade é que devemos temer ao SENHOR e termos uma vida pura. 

Assim não precisaremos blasfemar e sermos pueris com frases que não vem do coração e não foram forjadas na alma. Para afastar Satanás de sua vida não são necessárias palavras, mas amor! Fé, perseverança e obras. 

Os incrédulos criticam aquilo que não sabem, pois tem olhos e não podem ver, tem ouvidos mas não podem ouvir! Abraão nunca duvidou de Deus, quando ele disse que iria dar a terra de Canaã para ele e que a sua descendência seria mais vasta do que as estrelas do céu e os grãos de areia da praia, mesmo Abraão sendo de idade avançada e Sara também!

E quando Deus pediu que Abraão sacrificasse o seu único herdeiro Isaque, o patriarca de Israel não hesitou, pois tinha fé que caso seu filho fosse morto no sacrifício, Deus iria ressuscitá-lo! 

Pois como os descendentes de Abraão poderiam ser vastos se o seu patriarca houvesse sido sacrificado? Glória a Deus e ao seu amado Filho, que nos deu o sangue para podermos buscar o reino dos céus, o Senhor sabe o que faz, eu que sou fraco e ignorante para não sentir nem perceber a grandeza de tudo que já aconteceu e ainda vai acontecer. 

Aquele que ama não tem medo de Deus nem do Inimigo. Segue forte como uma rocha sem jamais praguejar ou duvidar. Entende que aquele que morreu na cruz é o Mestre do Universo, ao qual devemos fidelidade por meio da nova aliança. Que as palavras dele possam chegar até você, homem incrédulo e que seu coração possa sentir uma fagulha do fogo do zelo de Deus. 

A Jesus Cristo, o poderoso Leão de Judá, toda a glória e poder ontem, hoje e sempre. Amém.

Tempo III

 Barbosa é apenas mais um servo de Deus. Insignificante diante da sua majestosa presença, indigno do ar que respiro, pois pequei e não posso merecer a Graça, devo lutar por ela.

Como pude esquecer das minhas irmãs hebréias? Lutadoras e guerreiras como as parteiras Sifrá e Puá: o faraó deu terras para os hebreus morarem, contudo eles começaram a crescer demais e isso preocupou o faraó que os escravizou durante quatrocentos anos. 

Só que mesmo na escravidão, os hebreus não paravam de aumentar no Egito, então o faraó mandou as parteiras Sifrá e Puá matarem todo menino recém-nascido.

As parteiras desobedeceram e mentiram para o faraó dizendo que as moças hebréias são muito saudáveis e dão a luz antes das parteiras chegarem! E Deus abençoou as parteiras por terem protegido as suas irmãs.

A mãe de Moisés o escondeu durante três meses e depois o jogou no Rio Nilo, num cesto feito de junco e vedado com betume.

E o que dizer da beleza e sabedoria de Ester, rainha da Pérsia ao lado de Xerxes: praticando o bem e a obra de Deus, Ester e seu tio Mordecai salvam o povo hebreu de um genocidio e armam este povo. Ester faz com que o traidor Hamã seja enforcado na própria corda que ele havia feito.

E Mical, Rainha de Israel e esposa de Davi, que elabora um plano para salvar o marido. A moça de Jericó que ajuda Calebe e os espiões hebreus, Raabe. 

E o que dizer da Juíza Débora e de Jael, que fez o general Sisera cair numa armadilha, ele pediu água para Jael e ela lhe dera leite! Ao dormir, Jael prega uma estaca na cabeça de Sísera, fazendo o rei Jabim fugir de medo.

Tem uma mulher que mata o rei Abimeleque com uma pedrada na cabeça! 

Como falar da nobreza de Sara e Hagar, que apesar de escrava é mãe de Ismael. Bate-Seba, mãe de Salomão, que foi usada pelo rei Davi que a engravidou enquanto ela era casada com Urias. Davi engravida a esposa de Urias e por fim manda Urias para a frente da guerra onde ele acaba morrendo.

Quão tristes deveriam ser as canções de Miriam! E ainda há Rebeca esposa de Isaque e Raquel, Lia, Bila e Zilpa, mães das treze tribos de Israel ou Jacó. Diná é a última filha.

Hoje eu sei Pai, que aquele que luta com Deus é o nosso patriarca Jacó, que lutou contra homens e contra Deus e venceu

Tempo II

 Eu disse para você Barbosa, não a procure jamais, enquanto estiver vivo ou morto. Você vai ficar solitário, sem amigos, e dependendo da caridade de outros.

Assim Deus falou para mim e eu entendi o que tinha de fazer. Ficar longe dela é a vontade do Pai, e a minha inveja só iria arruinar a beleza de seu sucesso. Obrigado Pai por me dar esclarecimento!

Eu cheguei na casa dela e fui tomando posse, logo aconteceu como Deus havia dito que iria acontecer, na casa dessa mulher eu apanhei, fui usado e humilhado e apesar de ter tentado levar a palavra e A Lei do Senhor Deus de Abraão, Isaque e Jacó, fui escorraçado e saí de lá como vilão.

Só agora eu percebo que esta mulher estava apenas fazendo o trabalho de Deus, fazendo cumprir a Sua vontade endurecendo o coração daquela mulher! Obrigado por este aprendizado Deus, pois só assim pude ver meus pecados contra minha irmã Oliveira e a minha teimosia e desobediência. 

Sou um ignorante, vadio e inútil, mas desejo fazer a Tua vontade, sendo obediente. Se esta for o desejo e mandamento de Deus eu vou cumprir e pagar cada centavo pelos pecados que cometi no passado.

Não lembrava que uma pomba trouxe uma folha de Oliveira nova para Noé, simbolizando vida na terra, que as águas do dilúvio haviam baixado.

De que o Óleo de Oliveira serviu para ungir poderosos Reis de Israel como Saul, Davi e Salomão. Quero fazer cumprir a ordem de Deus, respeitando a aliança que fizemos de não nos vermos nesta vida.

Eu

Tempo

 Primeiro ele, filho de Bosa, de uma dinastia menor de Israel ajoelha-se e abaixa a cabeça até o chão em sinal de reverência ao SENHOR. Larga a sua lança, sua espada, seu elmo na entrada do templo.

_Seu servo veio pedir perdão, por ter pecado. Não sou digno de estar na sua presença, mas me entrego a Ti, ó Senhor dos Exércitos! Eu pedi ajuda ao Senhor e fui ouvido, e o Senhor mostrou-se diante dos meus olhos os pecados dos nossos antepassados e os meus próprios pecados!

Como fui arrogante e cheio de si, e agora não tenho nada, e como me arrependo por não dar ouvidos ao Senhor! E sei que fui rebelde e desobediente aos seus mandamentos: há dez anos eu pequei contra minha irmã Oliveira!

Naquele dia eu praguejei contra o Senhor e disse não ter fé em mais nada. E o Senhor me amaldiçoou naquele mesmo instante, me dizendo ‘Nunca mais irá falar com a minha serva Oliveira, nem ver a tua face, pois você Barbosa, pecou contra a sua irmã, caindo nos vícios da carne e nos prazeres da vida, além disso você mentiu para ela, por isso, a partir de hoje ela terá uma vida plena, nada irá faltar para Oliveira, pois ela sempre foi fiel e me serviu de todo o coração, e quando ela orou por mim, eu ouvi as preces dela, e tratei de afastar Barbosa da presença dela.

E você Barbosa, vai pagar por todos os seus pecados, você nunca mais será amado por uma mulher, será usado e maltratado e será motivo de piada entre o povo. Você vai chegar perto do sucesso, mas Eu vou fazer você tropeçar porque foi rebelde e não me obedeceu. 

José

  E José foi levado ao Egito, e Potifar, eunuco de Faraó, capitão da guarda, varão egípcio, comprou-o da mão dos ismaelitas que o tinham levado lá.  E o Senhor estava com José, e foi varão próspero; e estava na casa de seu senhor egípcio.  Vendo, pois, o seu senhor que o Senhor estava com ele e que tudo o que ele fazia o Senhor prosperava em sua mão,  José achou graça a seus olhos e servia-o; e ele o pôs sobre a sua casa e entregou na sua mão tudo o que tinha.  E aconteceu que, desde que o pusera sobre a sua casa e sobre tudo o que tinha, o Senhor abençoou a casa do egípcio por amor de José; e a bênção do Senhor foi sobre tudo o que tinha, na casa e no campo.  E deixou tudo o que tinha na mão de José, de maneira que de nada sabia do que estava com ele, a não ser do pão que comia. E José era formoso de aparência e formoso à vista.

 E aconteceu, depois destas coisas, que a mulher de seu senhor pôs os olhos em José e disse: Deita-te comigo.  Porém ele recusou e disse à mulher do seu senhor: Eis que o meu senhor não sabe do que há em casa comigo e entregou em minha mão tudo o que tem.  Ninguém há maior do que eu nesta casa, e nenhuma coisa me vedou, senão a ti, porquanto tu és sua mulher; como, pois, faria eu este tamanho mal e pecaria contra Deus?  E aconteceu que, falando ela cada dia a José, e não lhe dando ele ouvidos para deitar-se com ela e estar com ela,  sucedeu, num certo dia, que veio à casa para fazer o seu serviço; e nenhum dos da casa estava ali.  E ela lhe pegou pela sua veste, dizendo: Deita-te comigo. E ele deixou a sua veste na mão dela, e fugiu, e saiu para fora.  E aconteceu que, vendo ela que deixara a sua veste em sua mão e fugira para fora,  chamou os homens de sua casa e falou-lhes, dizendo: Vede, trouxe-nos o varão hebreu para escarnecer de nós; entrou até mim para deitar-se comigo, e eu gritei com grande voz.  E aconteceu que, ouvindo ele que eu levantava a minha voz e gritava, deixou a sua veste comigo, e fugiu, e saiu para fora.  E ela pôs a sua veste perto de si, até que o seu senhor veio à sua casa.  Então, falou-lhe conforme as mesmas palavras, dizendo: Veio a mim o servo hebreu, que nos trouxeste para escarnecer de mim.  E aconteceu que, levantando eu a minha voz e gritando, ele deixou a sua veste comigo e fugiu para fora.  E aconteceu que, ouvindo o seu senhor as palavras de sua mulher, que lhe falava, dizendo: Conforme estas mesmas palavras me fez teu servo, a sua ira se acendeu.  E o senhor de José o tomou e o entregou na casa do cárcere, no lugar onde os presos do rei estavam presos; assim, esteve ali na casa do cárcere.  O Senhor, porém, estava com José, e estendeu sobre ele a sua benignidade, e deu-lhe graça aos olhos do carcereiro-mor.  E o carcereiro-mor entregou na mão de José todos os presos que estavam na casa do cárcere; e ele fazia tudo o que se fazia ali.  E o carcereiro-mor não teve cuidado de nenhuma coisa que estava na mão dele, porquanto o Senhor estava com ele; e tudo o que ele fazia o Senhor prosperava.

1) Mulher de Potifar: produz falsa evidência e falso testemunho

2) Deus abençoa José em tudo o que ele faz

II

 E aconteceu, depois destas coisas, que pecaram o copeiro do rei do Egito e o padeiro contra o seu senhor, o rei do Egito.  E indignou-se Faraó muito contra os seus dois eunucos, contra o copeiro-mor e contra o padeiro-mor.  E entregou-os à prisão, na casa do capitão da guarda, na casa do cárcere, no lugar onde José estava preso.  E o capitão da guarda pô-los a cargo de José, para que os servisse; e estiveram muitos dias na prisão.  E ambos sonharam um sonho, cada um seu sonho na mesma noite; cada um conforme a interpretação do seu sonho, o copeiro e o padeiro do rei do Egito, que estavam presos na casa do cárcere.  E veio José a eles pela manhã e olhou para eles, e eis que estavam turbados.  Então, perguntou aos eunucos de Faraó, que com ele estavam no cárcere da casa de seu senhor, dizendo: Por que estão, hoje, tristes os vossos semblantes?  E eles lhe disseram: Temos sonhado um sonho, e ninguém há que o interprete. E José disse-lhes: Não são de Deus as interpretações? Contai-mo, peço-vos.

 Então, contou o copeiro-mor o seu sonho a José e disse-lhe: Eis que em meu sonho havia uma vide diante da minha face.  E, na vide, três sarmentos, e ela estava como que brotando; a sua flor saía, e os seus cachos amadureciam em uvas.  E o copo de Faraó estava na minha mão; e eu tomava as uvas, e as espremia no copo de Faraó, e dava o copo na mão de Faraó.  Então, disse-lhe José: Esta é a sua interpretação: os três sarmentos são três dias;  dentro ainda de três dias, Faraó levantará a tua cabeça e te restaurará ao teu estado, e darás o copo de Faraó na sua mão, conforme o costume antigo, quando eras seu copeiro.  Porém lembra-te de mim, quando te for bem; e rogo-te que uses comigo de compaixão, e que faças menção de mim a Faraó, e faze-me sair desta casa;  porque, de fato, fui roubado da terra dos hebreus; e tampouco aqui nada tenho feito, para que me pusessem nesta cova.

 Vendo, então, o padeiro-mor que tinha interpretado bem, disse a José: Eu também sonhava, e eis que três cestos brancos estavam sobre a minha cabeça;  e, no cesto mais alto, havia de todos os manjares de Faraó, obra de padeiro; e as aves os comiam do cesto de sobre a minha cabeça.  Então, respondeu José e disse: Esta é a sua interpretação: os três cestos são três dias;  dentro ainda de três dias, Faraó levantará a tua cabeça sobre ti e te pendurará num madeiro, e as aves comerão a tua carne de sobre ti.

 E aconteceu, ao terceiro dia, o dia do nascimento de Faraó, que fez um banquete a todos os seus servos; e levantou a cabeça do copeiro-mor e a cabeça do padeiro-mor, no meio dos seus servos.  E fez tornar o copeiro-mor ao seu ofício de copeiro, e este deu o copo na mão de Faraó.  Mas ao padeiro-mor enforcou, como José havia interpretado.  O copeiro-mor, porém, não se lembrou de José; antes, se esqueceu dele.

III

 E aconteceu que, ao fim de dois anos inteiros, Faraó sonhou e eis que estava em pé junto ao rio.  E eis que subiam do rio sete vacas, formosas à vista e gordas de carne, e pastavam no prado.  E eis que subiam do rio após elas outras sete vacas, feias à vista e magras de carne, e paravam junto às outras vacas na praia do rio.  E as vacas feias à vista e magras de carne comiam as sete vacas formosas à vista e gordas. Então, acordou Faraó.  Depois, dormiu e sonhou outra vez, e eis que brotavam de um mesmo pé sete espigas cheias e boas.  E eis que sete espigas miúdas e queimadas do vento oriental brotavam após elas.  E as espigas miúdas devoravam as sete espigas grandes e cheias. Então, acordou Faraó, e eis que era um sonho.  E aconteceu que, pela manhã, o seu espírito perturbou-se, e enviou e chamou todos os adivinhadores do Egito e todos os seus sábios; e Faraó contou-lhes os seus sonhos, mas ninguém havia que os interpretasse a Faraó.

 Então, falou o copeiro-mor a Faraó, dizendo: Dos meus pecados me lembro hoje.  Estando Faraó mui indignado contra os seus servos e pondo-me sob prisão na casa da guarda, a mim e ao padeiro-mor,  então, sonhamos um sonho na mesma noite, eu e ele, cada um conforme a interpretação do seu sonho sonhamos.  E estava ali conosco um jovem hebreu, servo do capitão da guarda, e contamos-lhos, e interpretou-nos os nossos sonhos, a cada um interpretou conforme o seu sonho.  E como ele nos interpretou, assim mesmo foi feito: a mim me fez tornar ao meu estado, e a ele fez enforcar.

 Então, enviou Faraó e chamou a José, e o fizeram sair logo da cova; e barbeou-se, e mudou as suas vestes, e veio a Faraó.  E Faraó disse a José: Eu sonhei um sonho, e ninguém há que o interprete; mas de ti ouvi dizer que, quando ouves um sonho, o interpretas.  E respondeu José a Faraó, dizendo: Isso não está em mim; Deus dará resposta de paz a Faraó. Então, disse Faraó a José: Eis que em meu sonho estava eu em pé na praia do rio.  E eis que subiam do rio sete vacas gordas de carne e formosas à vista e pastavam no prado.  E eis que outras sete vacas subiam após estas, muito feias à vista e magras de carne; não tenho visto outras tais, quanto à fealdade, em toda a terra do Egito.  E as vacas magras e feias comiam as primeiras sete vacas gordas;  e entravam em suas entranhas, mas não se conhecia que houvessem entrado em suas entranhas, porque o seu aspecto era feio como no princípio. Então, acordei.  Depois, vi em meu sonho, e eis que de um mesmo pé subiam sete espigas cheias e boas.  E eis que sete espigas secas, miúdas e queimadas do vento oriental brotavam após elas.  E as sete espigas miúdas devoravam as sete espigas boas. E eu disse-o aos magos, mas ninguém houve que mo interpretasse.

 Então, disse José a Faraó: O sonho de Faraó é um só; o que Deus há de fazer, notificou-o a Faraó.  As sete vacas formosas são sete anos; as sete espigas formosas também são sete anos; o sonho é um só.  E as sete vacas magras e feias à vista, que subiam depois delas, são sete anos, como as sete espigas miúdas e queimadas do vento oriental; serão sete anos de fome.  Esta é a palavra que tenho dito a Faraó; o que Deus há de fazer, mostrou-o a Faraó.  E eis que vêm sete anos, e haverá grande fartura em toda a terra do Egito.  E, depois deles, levantar-se-ão sete anos de fome, e toda aquela fartura será esquecida na terra do Egito, e a fome consumirá a terra;  e não será conhecida a abundância na terra, por causa daquela fome que haverá depois, porquanto será gravíssima.  E o sonho foi duplicado duas vezes a Faraó é porque esta coisa é determinada de Deus, e Deus se apressa a fazê-la.  Portanto, Faraó se proveja agora de um varão inteligente e sábio e o ponha sobre a terra do Egito.  Faça isso Faraó, e ponha governadores sobre a terra, e tome a quinta parte da terra do Egito nos sete anos de fartura.  E ajuntem toda a comida destes bons anos, que vêm, e amontoem trigo debaixo da mão de Faraó, para mantimento nas cidades, e o guardem.  Assim, será o mantimento para provimento da terra, para os sete anos de fome que haverá na terra do Egito; para que a terra não pereça de fome.

 E esta palavra foi boa aos olhos de Faraó e aos olhos de todos os seus servos.

Rubin Carter

Bob Dylan

Desire, 1976

Hurricane

 Pistol shots ring out in the barroom night

Enter Patty Valentine from the upper hall

She sees a bartender in a pool of blood

Cries out my God, they killed them all

Here comes the story of the Hurricane

The man the authorities came to blame

For somethin' that he never done

Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been

The champion of the world

Three bodies lyin' there does Patty see

And another man named Bello, movin' around mysteriously

I didn't do it, he says, and he throws up his hands

I was only robbin' the register, I hope you understand

I saw them leavin', he says, and he stops

One of us had better call up the cops

And so Patty calls the cops

And they arrive on the scene with their red lights flashin'

In the hot New Jersey night

Meanwhile, far away in another part of town

Rubin Carter and a couple of friends are drivin' around

Number one contender for the middleweight crown

Had no idea what kinda shit was about to go down

When a cop pulled him over to the side of the road

Just like the time before and the time before that

In Paterson that's just the way things go

If you're black you might as well not show up on the street

'Less you want to draw the heat

Alfred Bello had a partner and he had a rap for the cops

Him and Arthur Dexter Bradley were just out prowlin' around

He said, I saw two men runnin' out, they looked like middleweights

They jumped into a white car with out-of-state plates

And Miss Patty Valentine just nodded her head

Cop said, wait a minute, boys, this one's not dead

So they took him to the infirmary

And though this man could hardly see

They told him that he could identify the guilty men

Four in the mornin' and they haul Rubin in

They took him to the hospital and they brought him upstairs

The wounded man looks up through his one dyin' eye

Says, wha'd you bring him in here for? He ain't the guy!

Here's the story of the Hurricane

The man the authorities came to blame

For somethin' that he never done

Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been

The champion of the world

Four months later, the ghettos are in flame

Rubin's in South America, fightin' for his name

While Arthur Dexter Bradley's still in the robbery game

And the cops are puttin' the screws to him, lookin' for somebody to blame

Remember that murder that happened in a bar

Remember you said you saw the getaway car

You think you'd like to play ball with the law

Think it might-a been that fighter that you saw runnin' that night

Don't forget that you are white

Arthur Dexter Bradley said I'm really not sure

The cops said a poor boy like you could use a break

We got you for the motel job and we're talkin' to your friend Bello

You don't wanta have to go back to jail, be a nice fellow

You'll be doin' society a favor

That sonofabitch is brave and gettin' braver

We want to put his ass in stir

We want to pin this triple murder on him

He ain't no Gentleman Jim

Rubin could take a man out with just one punch

But he never did like to talk about it all that much

It's my work, he'd say, and I do it for pay

And when it's over I'd just as soon go on my way

Up to some paradise

Where the trout streams flow and the air is nice

And ride a horse along a trail

But then they took him to the jailhouse

Where they try to turn a man into a mouse

All of Rubin's cards were marked in advance

The trial was a pig-circus, he never had a chance

The judge made Rubin's witnesses drunkards from the slums

To the white folks who watched he was a revolutionary bum

And to the black folks he was just a crazy nigger

No one doubted that he pulled the trigger

And though they could not produce the gun

The D.A. said he was the one who did the deed

And the all-white jury agreed

Rubin Carter was falsely tried

The crime was murder one, guess who testified

Bello and Bradley and they both baldly lied

And the newspapers, they all went along for the ride

How can the life of such a man

Be in the palm of some fool's hand

To see him obviously framed

Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land

Where justice is a game

Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties

Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise

While Rubin sits like Buddha in a ten-foot cell

An innocent man in a living hell

That's the story of the Hurricane

But it won't be over till they clear his name

And give him back the time he's done

Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been

The champion of the world

Songwriters: Bob Dylan / Jacques Levy

Hurricane lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

Clitemnestra

 Prefácio

Notamos na mitologia antiga que uma esposa, quando alienada da condição de uma própria filha comete homicídio doloso contra o marido. Agamemnon, rei de Micenas, tinha ambição de tomar o império do rei Príamo, do outro lado do Mar Egeu.

Agamemnon consultou o oráculo que lhe informou a respeito da guerra e do sacrifico de sua filha Ifigênia para obter o resultado esperado. Ao retornar de Ilíon, Agamemnon é assassinado por sua esposa. Em legítima defesa.

Porque se o marido conseguiu ser frio o suficiente para sacrificar a própria filha em favor de uma atitude egoística de tomada de território, sem o consentimento da mãe, Clitemnestra jamais poderia se sentir segura ao lado de Agamemnon, sabendo que nesta relação o marido conjura mais poderes e influências do que a esposa e poderia usar contra ela. Apesar de Agamemnon ter atacado Clitemnestra indiretamente (assassinou a própria filha em um ritual macabro para o deus da Guerra), o rei de Micenas atacou o coração materno na parte onde mais poderia doer retirando Ifigênia do seio da mãe e deixando a mãe às migalhas emocionais ao ter que sobreviver.

A questão sobre o valor da vida humana é inquestionável. E a pergunta que o direito sempre deve refletir sobre é se Elize Matsunaga cometeu um crime, e não se ela é culpada ou inocente. Culpados todos nós somos, e isso não presume responsabilidade criminal.

Não há dúvidas que o homicídio é um crime hediondo. Entretanto, quais as circuntâncias que levaram a este homicídio é o que deve ser caracterizado como forma processual.

A substância do processo criminal deve conter a verdade histórica e humana inseridas de modo que possamos qualificar Elize Matsunaga dentro do código penal e estipular uma sentença adequada ao caso e que não privasse a mãe do contato com a filha.

E devemos refletir sobre a alteridade, sobre a vida do outro. Em outras circunstâncias o júri teria agido da mesma forma? Se Marcos Kitano Matsunaga assassinasse Elize Matsunaga dentro de sua residência, ele teria pego uma pena tão grande?

Marcos Kitano Matsunaga é um homem rico, privilegiado em contrapartida em uma relação onde sua esposa não usufrui do mesmo poder financeiro e privilégios do marido. A senhora Matsunaga sofreu ameaça de internação em clínica para tratamento psiquiátrico, e conseqüente alienação da própria filha.

Se você fosse uma mãe, como você reagiria no lugar da senhora Matsunaga? Sabendo que o marido pode matá-la, ou aliená-la da sociedade a qualquer instante pelo pressuposto do privilégio social do homem rico em detrimento do homem pobre?

Sabemos que no Brasil existe uma constituição para a elite e outra constituição para as classes menos favorecidas socialmente. E é isto que vamos analisar.

Introdução

Sim, uma minissérie bem popular na Netflix (Once upon a crime, 2021 https://www.netflix.com/title/81043160). A história da mulher que assassina o marido. Não obstante, esta é uma história real. Vamos observar os fatos com um pouco de senso crítico e descobrir ipso facto se a nossa personagem, a senhora Elize Matsunaga é uma heroína ou uma vilã.

O objetivo é tratar desta personagem histórica do cotidiano brasileiro que representa muitas mulheres em condição de opressão familiar e que não podem reagir porque o marido usufrui de poderes no limite do Estado de Exceção. Elize Matsunaga era casada e em situação de desvantagem sócio-econômica frente a seu marido Marcos Kitano Matsunaga.

Mésalliance

A Senhora Elize Matsunaga e o Senhor Marcos Matsunaga se conheceram no ano de 2004, por meio de um site de relacionamentos. A vida do casal era harmoniosa até meados do ano de 2010, quando Elize desconfiou que estivesse sendo traída — porém, a gravidez dela, no mesmo ano, fez com que a desconfiança fosse momentaneamente deixada de lado.

Com o passar do tempo, o casal começa a brigar frequentemente, conforme as suspeitas de Elize aumentam. Preocupada em estar sendo traída, a senhora Matsunaga viaja para o Paraná e contrata um detetive particular para espionar o marido. Rapidamente, ela descobre que Marcos jantou com uma amante em um restaurante luxuoso em São Paulo e passou a noite com ela no hotel Mercure, na Vila Olímpia. (https://www.google.com/travel/hotels/s/mEKcZ) Ao descobrir sobre o encontro, ela volta para casa em 19 de maio de 2012, no dia em que ela cometeria o crime em legitima defesa.

A senhora Matsunaga tinha toda evidência material necessária para incriminar o marido, fotos e vídeos oriundos do detetive particular contratado por ela.

De volta a São Paulo, Elize, a filha do casal — que tinha um ano na época — e a babá da criança foram buscadas no aeroporto. Ao chegar a casa, a profissional foi dispensada e o casal iniciou uma briga quando Elize questionou Marcos sobre a traição, afirmando que não aceitaria esse tipo de comportamento.

Esse erro tático prova que a senhora Matsunaga não premeditou o crime. Se a intenção dela fosse a de extorquir o marido, ela poderia ter tentado isso de diversas outras formas. Lembrando que não é só isso, a senhora Matsunaga é formada em Enfermagem e em Direito.

O que aconteceu durante essa discussão do casal poderia mudar completamente a decisão do júri. E da população brasileira. Elize Matsunaga acreditou ter alguma vantagem por possuir evidência material contra o marido.

Contudo, o senhor Marcos Kitano Matsunaga era uma pessoa provida de poderes divinos no âmbito financeiro. Quando a esposa o ameaçou com as evidências contra ele, de que não haveria mais como ele esconder a infidelidade conjugal, Marcos Kitano Matsunaga apelou para seus poderes olímpicos.

Com a abordagem da esposa, o empresário se enfureceu, a insultou e lhe deu um tapa no rosto (Foto 4/38 Laudo do Instituto de Criminalística http://glo.bo/PD8LuS). Além das repetidas injúrias verbais e físicas, ele ironiza o passado da senhora Matsunaga. Marcos Matsunaga ameaça tirar a guarda da filha e desaparecer com a criança. Além disso, Marcos Matsunaga estava planejando, juntamente com o padre que realizara o casamento, a internação compulsória da senhora Matsunaga em uma instituição de apoio psicossocial privada.  Enquanto o homem proferia tais palavras, ela notou que ele estava perto de uma arma de fogo — já que ambos tinham posse liberada — e, temendo que Marcos a usasse, ela pegou outra e apontou para ele. Segundo o seu depoimento à polícia, a intenção inicial dela era apenas intimidar o marido.

 Apesar de Elize estar armada, Marcos não se conteve e continuou com as ofensas. A mulher, então, fez um disparo que atingiu a cabeça do marido, que morreu na mesma hora (Foto 13/38 Laudo do Instituto de Criminalística http://glo.bo/PD8LuS).

"Judicium"

Processo: C.569/12 - 5ª Vara do Júri da Capital

[(...) nesta cidade (São Paulo) e comarca, teria, com ânimo homicida, matado o seu marido MARCOS KITANO MATSUNAGA, fazendo-o por motivo torpe, mediante recurso que impossibilitou a defesa do ofendido e com meio cruel, bem como teria, também, destruído e ocultado o respectivo cadáver.

Quanto ao crime doloso contra a vida.

Em que pese o comportamento da vítima (envolvendo traição conjugal) e os autos darem conta de que Elize é boa mãe, sendo também polida no trato com as pessoas em geral, a acusada veio a trocar o cano da pistola com a qual atirara em Marcos, bem como a livrar-se do computador com o qual, passando-se falsamente pelo ofendido, enviou mensagens a outrem, informando que ele estava bem (portanto vivo), assim posando de esposa abandonada pelo marido que teria deixado o lar conjugal, tendo - ainda - se desvencilhado do instrumento com o qual esquartejou o corpo da vítima, também espalhando suas partes em local distante do lugar do cometimento ilícito, cuja prática culminou por confessar (apresentando, no entanto, a sua versão defensiva) tão só dias depois do episódio criminoso, quando as investigações já convergiam contra ela, cuja dinâmica, na esteira do "veredictum" do Conselho de Sentença, aponta cuidar-se de prática revestida de cuidadosa premeditação, reveladora de uma personalidade fria e manipuladora e, portanto, extremamente perigosa.

COMENTÁRIO: (Elize Matsunaga deveria ser orientada apenas por oficiais femininas. Deveria ser uma delegada, especializada em assuntos da mulher que estaria à frente das investigações. Deveria ser uma juíza. E o Estado deveria apresentar uma promotora na frente da acusação.

A senhora Matsunaga nunca foi uma pessoa fria e manipuladora e o crime que ela cometeu não tem qualquer indício de premeditação. Ela sabia que se matasse o esposo estaria em condição muito ruim perante à sociedade.

As atitudes tomadas pela senhora Matsunaga são indício de desespero, uma pessoa que não sabe o que fazer, porque não premeditou o assassinato, resolve simplesmente se livrar da evidência, porque nesta hora Elize Matsunaga estava dominada por adrenalina e medo correndo dentro de suas veias, e foi o medo quem tomou a decisão de ocultar o cadáver.)

 

Aliás, também é dos autos que Elize não é pessoa de parcos recursos intelectuais. Contrariamente, apesar da origem humilde, além de ter frequentado curso de enfermagem (completando-o), formou-se em curso superior em Ciências Jurídicas e Sociais (Direito), vivendo, ainda, nababescamente depois de casada justamente com o ofendido, já que, no dizer dos autos, então, tratada "como uma Princesa".

COMENTÁRIO: (Quer dizer, que por ser uma moça formada ela jamais poderia ter matado o esposo. Que o fato dela possuir dupla graduação intensifica, aos olhos da sociedade, a frieza dessa mãe desesperada que infelizmente não teve a frieza necessária para tentar convencer o marido a não interná-la e não deixá-la longe da criança.

Apesar de origem “humilde” ela passou a viver “nababescamente” depois de casada, como uma Princesa. Esse tipo de comentário serve apenas para representar o ódio do júri e do próprio Juiz que teoricamente escreveu este texto.

Ou seja, Elize Matsunaga era uma mulher pobre que passou a ter uma vida de princesa, com muita opulência. Contudo, a senhora Matsunaga nunca teve uma situação de isonomia com o marido, e vivia sob constantes ameaças contra a dignidade, contra o corpo, contra a vida.

Portanto, aos olhos da sociedade, a senhora Matsunaga é uma ingrata, por ser pobre e depois ter tanto luxo e matar a pessoa que lhe deu tudo isso. 

Devemos sempre refletir e nos perguntar: o que teria acontecido na recíproca? E se Marcos Kitano Matsunaga tivesse assassinado a esposa dentro de casa? Qual seria a longitude de sua pena?)

Efetivamente, muito embora tenha sido casada com pessoa financeiramente abastada, o foi em regime parcial de bens, encontrando-se em ininterrupta prisão desde junho de 2012, ou seja, há mais de 4 (quatro) anos. (sem direito a habeas corpus).

Mas não é só.

Não se trata de situação onde, logo após a prática homicida, a acusada prontamente se apresentou à polícia para noticiar o ocorrido, esclarecer as suas circunstâncias e declinar onde se encontrava o corpo da vítima, assim efetivamente colaborando com a Justiça.

Contrariamente, é dos autos que a acusada forjou a verdade sobre o acontecido, alegando um desaparecimento do ofendido que sabia inexistente, vindo a confessar a autoria delitiva tão só posteriormente às investigações policiais levadas a efeito.

Bem a propósito, também é dos autos que a ré com veículo tentou distanciar-se desta capital (onde residia) levando consigo as malas contendo o corpo do marido já esquartejado, mas também com documento do carro vencido, acabou desistindo de ir para outro Estado (Paraná).

Nesse conjunto, nem mesmo a primariedade, bons antecedentes, residência fixa e ocupação lícita podem na espécie amparar qualquer outra medida cautelar que não o encarceramento.

Sentença publicada no Plenário 10 do Complexo Judiciário Ministro Mário Guimarães, às 2h8min do dia 5 de dezembro de 2016.

 

ADILSON PAUKOSKI SIMONI

-Juiz Presidente- ]

 

Fotos do laudo do instituto de criminalística na ordem em que constam no documento:

http://glo.bo/PD8LuS

Foto 4/38 Laudo da reconstituição: "Elize retruca posição de Marcos e acaba sendo agredida fisicamente, levando um tapa em sua face", conforme descrição do laudo

Foto 8/38 Laudo da reconstituição: Elize "vai até uma cômoda após o balcão, onde era guardada uma pistola. Elize disse que era de hábito haver armas guardadas pelo interior do imóvel por medo de assaltos"; conforme laudo da reconstituição.

Foto 9/38 Laudo da reconstituição: "Elize pega a arma no interior da gaveta e retorna com a arma em punho", conforme laudo da reconstituição.

Foto 11/38 Laudo da reconstituição: "Elize se vira e vê Marcos vindo da sala de jantar; Marcos vem da sala e vê Elize parada na porta da copa com a arma na mão;", conforme texto do laudo.(foto do corredor, ressaltar pequena distância entre Elize e Marcos)

Foto 13/38 Laudo da reconstituição: "Marcos se desloca em direção a Elize, esbravejando e dizendo que ela não teria coragem de disparar. Elize realiza um disparo de arma de fogo contra Marcos, sem fazer visada", conforme relato no laudo. (Marcos chega muito próximo a ela)

Foto 14/38 Laudo da reconstituição: "Marcos tomba em decúbito dorsal em meio ao corredor, de fronte a porta de entrada; Elize sai da copa, passa pela cozinha e se desloca em direção a sala de jantar", conforme o laudo.

Carlos Henrique Barbosa: Legítima Defesa

 

 

 

Shutter Island (English Version)

 Shutter Island

Or the reinvention of fascism

 

Preface

We will deal here with the feature film Shutter Island, 139 minutes, 2010, Paramount Pictures. We will deal with the incorporation of memories, fabricated memories, we will discuss the Process and Kafka's Metamorphosis to illustrate what seems obvious. But it is not.

Introduction

It is curious to observe how modern society continues to deny the origins of fascism. Edward Daniels' story and his interpretations follow a strand that analyzes the character's dreams through formal representations of water, fire and ice.

To prove at the end of the story that the main character is a patient suffering from severe psychotic disorders, and that his memories are therefore not valid. Even the memories that the character remembers about Mahler and Nazism come to be considered as part of this schizophrenia that the potential character would represent.

Teddy Daniels' recurring memories of ice would be his memories as a combatant in World War II. The memories with the water would be the traumas of the federal agent and the reason for his blockage. The images with fire would be a combination of a conscious state with a semi-conscious state of the character's mind and body.

This state that varies between being awake and sleeping and is represented by images with fire and some with ash, are effects caused by the widespread use of psycho pharmaceuticals against the will of the character Edward Daniels. Let's remember that he woke up in the middle of a ferry going to Shutter Island.

We know that Edward Daniels was drugged, sedated, but we don't know how long he was exposed to medication, imagery exposure, and brainwashing.

Most interpretations are along the lines of casting Teddy Daniels as a dangerous psychotic with a past trauma that caused a haunting wound/trauma, from which he was not able to live, to the point of elaborating a fantasy that he was a federal agent investigating the crime of disappearance of a patient/prisoner from the island of Ashecliffe, so as to hide the past wound/trauma.

And the most curious and impressive thing is the memory of fascism. The memory of fascism is present at all times, and this eludes the majority of the audience that intends to make schematic and repetitive Freudian analyses. And in this the repression is latent. The danger of too schematic and quick interpretations is that they hide the nature of the scientific and forensic search for truth.

The truth is not found right at the table, inside the cell phone chip or computer processor. We seek the truth in difficult places, we have to face monsters of the most varied types and in this battle we know from the beginning that we will lose. Eventually we will be able to find, after much sacrifice, the cave, from where we ourselves came out to actually see this one for real.

Plato’s Cave and the search for truth

Plato's cave myth and the passage in which Edward Daniels, first descends one cliff and then over another, represents the search for truth, and the difficulties and horrors that Oedipus had to face in order to solve the miasma that terrified Thebes. Can the search for truth, the search for justice, the search for what is good lead one to madness?

The spectator is led to believe in the fantasy that a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane, in its fullness, would stage a play, an articulate farce, using all the institution's employees and patients with the humanitarian end of exposing the possible patient Teddy Daniels to his own fantasy/trauma and thereby cause him a catharsis so that he would purge this miasma from his mind and he could be a normal patient/prisoner.

Not only that: if Edward Daniels is indeed a dangerous prisoner/patient, for being violent, for having murdered his wife, for having witnessed Nazism, this type of prisoner/patient should never be released in the company of other patients and staff, for jeopardizing the functioning of the entire psychiatric institution.

What fascism wants to hide, and public repression helps a lot with this, is that the social institution does not work for the citizen, but to produce profit. The objective is to enrich the manufacturer of psychotropic drugs, sell drugs and test these drugs on those that society considers to be invalid. And that and other fascist horrors still happen today. The interpretations continue to be imaginary, surrealist, trying to deny the existence of fascism within democratic systems.

The purpose of the market is profit and it doesn't matter if you are a renowned diplomat or a scientist, from a family like the real Rachel Solando. The renowned diplomat is the character present in “The Constant Gardener”. Don't we see a case where to sell a certain type of medication a company may not have any ethical purposes?

The fascist representation is so absurd that the viewer is led to believe that for a humanitarian reason, a psychiatric institution isolated from any social context, would use a ferry to take the patient out of the hospital and bring him back, this time as a federal agent. And why does Edward Daniels never come to his senses and recognize that his partner is actually a doctor, that Doctor Cawley is another one, that Bridget Kearns is a prisoner just like him?

What is evident

 

1) Had Teddy Daniels really been Ashecliffe's patient, he would have been drugged against his will, and placed in the middle of the sea on a raft. This does not exclude fascism, but it is overwhelming proof of the existence of this institution.

 

2) Had Teddy Daniels really been Ashecliffe's patient and had the fantasy of being a federal agent, that fantasy would have been reinforced through brainwashing, torture, and widespread use of psychopharmacological substances.

People will see fascism pass under their noses and won't believe it exists. When Teddy Daniels wakes up inside the ferry, he realizes he's out of cigarettes. The character expected a federal partner to come from Portland, but instead, it was someone from Seattle.

When Teddy Daniels enters the gates of Ashecliffe and is ushered in by the institution's wardens, he recognizes that he has seen such a situation before.

The average viewer, who doesn't want to see fascism, will interpret this as further proof that Teddy Daniels is a patient/prisoner at the Psychiatric Hospital for the Criminally Insane, because he recognizes that institution.

However, the institution that Teddy Daniels recognizes is not the Hospital, but the institution of fascism. Teddy Daniels had already witnessed the horrors practiced by fascism in Germany during World War II.

What Teddy Daniels observes is the repetition of fascism passing before the cynical eyes of the community.

For Teddy Daniels, an institution of social control isolated from a geographical and geopolitical context, inside an island, with many heavily armed guards, with prisoners chained and surrounded by walls, barbed wire, electric fences and where absolutely, the act of experimenting with the human body and perverting its nature, through transorbital lobotomy, is another fascist institution:

Italian psychiatrist Amarro Fiamberti developed a procedure that involved accessing the frontal lobe through the eye sockets, but in 1945, the transorbital lobotomy emerged, a method in which the doctor inserted the tool into the patient's orbit with the aid of a hammer.

Doctor Cawley says he is against transorbital lobotomy, which he intends to treat patients with psychopharmacological, psychotropic drugs such as Chlorpromazine:

Chlorpromazine (CPZ), marketed under the brands Thorazine and Largactil, among others, is an antipsychotic drug. It is primarily used to treat psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Other uses include treating bipolar disorder, severe behavioral problems in children including those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, nausea and vomiting, anxiety before surgery, and hiccups that do not improve after other measures. It can be given orally, by injection into a muscle, or into a vein.

Chlorpromazine is in the typical antipsychotic class, and chemically it is one of the phenothiazines. Their mechanism of action is not entirely clear, but it is believed to be related to their ability as a dopamine antagonist (they block Dopamine receptors in the brain). It also has anti-serotonergic and antihistaminergic properties.

Common side effects include movement problems, drowsiness, dry mouth, low blood pressure when standing, and weight gain. Serious side effects can include potentially permanent movement disorder, tardive dyskinesia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, severe lowering of the seizure threshold, and low leukocyte levels. In older people with psychosis as a result of dementia, it may increase the risk of death. It is unclear whether it is safe for use in pregnancy.

Psychiatrist Cawley makes it clear that he is against transorbital lobotomy, but all other psychiatrists at the institution are in favor of using this method, including the director of the institution, the German physician Dr. Naehring.

The common citizen has a repression in relation to fascism and that is what the film tries to show. It's not Teddy Daniels who has a repression against fascism, because the federal agent has already experienced this type of situation and can recognize the same institution being practiced on American soil.

Teddy Daniels is in fact a federal agent, who was bothering a part of the fascist system and for that reason was used as a rat by the institution's psychiatrists.

Fabricating Medea’s memories

As soon as Teddy Daniels is received by Doctor Cawley he is introduced to a series of images of torture and pain, which were methods historically practiced by social institutions responsible for the less favorable or the unwanted "mentally ill".

Doctor Cawley wants to make it very clear that the institution has evolved and abandoned these methods of corporal punishment, brainwashing, torture, scientific experiments with the body, and the contradiction of this argument comes soon after when the doctor recognizes that the institution's psychiatrists still practice transorbital lobotomy.

Doctor Cawley also offers an "Aspirin" to Teddy Daniels, when in fact the drug the character ingests is Thorazine (Chlorpromazine). It is observed that Cawley does not open a bookcase or a cupboard to look for Aspirin: he already has a pill in his hand ready to serve with the glass.

The Ashecliffe institution's brainwashing methods are unethical, and no one sees them. Most Ashecliffe patients/prisoners repeat the same version of a story as if it were not a natural memory but an implanted, fabricated memory.

The employees, for not having power within the institution, and for fearing to suffer the same tortures that they see the institution practice, are conniving and “intelligent”, because they want to survive within the fascist system. Society is alienated from Ashecliffe because it is an island. What good Samaritan would take a ferry to visit a psychiatric hospital from the mainland to the island? And with what kind of permission can a citizen enter the administrative part of a public institution?

What is the probability or possibility of two people, within the same institution, pronouncing the same sentence that is constituted by the same memory? When could two people have an identical memory and describe it using the same words, in the same order, as if the words had been dictated? In a context of exploitation of one man's mind by another man.

It is a resource widely used by fascism, the principle of Goebbels, that if we repeat a lie several times, that lie becomes the truth. This is brainwashing: information is repeated so many times that it becomes a memory and is assimilated in its entirety by the person who repeats it, not just the syntactic content, but the constructed emotions that that sentence emanates.

We see Nurse Marino repeat a phrase identical to a phrase Doctor Cawley said to Teddy Daniels. We see prisoner Bridget Kearns, from the scene where the glass of water disappears, speaking matter-of-factly that she had murdered her husband, said something about the hydrogen bomb that was repeated identically by the bald prisoner, fugitive from Ward C, who got into a fight with Teddy Daniels.

Andrew Laeddis' memories are constructed through the memories of a possible runaway patient named Rachel Solando. Rachel Solando was actually a single doctor, from a respected family, who began to investigate illegal situations within the public institution to report it as a crime, and for that, she was hospitalized as one of Ashecliffe's patients and they tried to manufacture the memory that she had committed triple infanticide by drowning three children. Edward Daniels and Rachel Solando were exposed to the same fabricated memory, Medea's fantasy.

It's quite plausible to assume that Teddy Daniels was never Andrew Laeddis, as in Fight Club (1999), where we're pretty sure Tyler Durden doesn't represent two people, but a divided person.

Therefore, we assume that Teddy Daniels was never married, never had children, because these memories were implanted through brainwashing and extensive use of the antipsychotic Thorazine (Chlorpromazine).

Medea's memory began to be implanted when Doctor Cawley informed Teddy Daniels that the runaway patient had committed triple infanticide by drowning her three children in water.

Teddy Daniels was exposed to this fabricated memory again, when he interrogated the possible patient Rachel Solando, who in fact, within the myth that fascism never exists, or may not exist today, is a nurse at the institution, who at the moment practiced an action drama, which coincidentally happened to have to do with Teddy Daniels' fabricated memory.

There are no coincidences with fascism. It only repeats itself as a farce, and it is precisely a farce that wants to convince us of the non-existence of fascism in modern public institutions. Institutions of social control such as public schools, public hospitals, irregular psychiatric clinics, shelters for homeless people, federal and state prisons, and even some universities.

Kafka's theory that once a citizen is branded as "crazy" by society, nothing he does will be useful to him, and on the contrary, the more he speaks and tries to expose the truth, the more that citizen will be put as a mad one.

First the institution will disregard everything he says. Then it will start administering medication. Ultimately, the citizen will be arrested, either as in Metamorphosis or in Kafka's Process.

The Anagram does not prove anything, because who created these names was the institution itself. Dolores Chanal can exist only within the constructive myth of fascism itself. Within the myth manufactured in the mind of the character Edward Daniels, who in his objective of seeking justice against fascism, became the object of the same monster he was trying to destroy.

Fascism is not something visible, easily interpreted and accepted by society. This repression, this desire to never see the evil acts practiced by social institutions, this alienation is what guarantees that the fascist institution is still present in many democratic countries.

Who isn't afraid of the police? Who is not afraid of the Judge? Who isn't afraid to challenge the system and lose everything? Like Jesus Christ, who defied the system and lost his own life. Why run the risk of losing everything, including life, when it's much easier to join the existing bundle!

Edward Daniels is traumatized by fascism. Fascism is a practice that will inevitably produce more fascism. Edward Daniels felt bad about not murdering his wife Medea/Dolores Chanal after she drowned three children in the lake. Even because that never happened, they are manufactured memories.

A tragedy, a father who finds his three children murdered by his wife sees no alternative but to murder his own wife, guilty of this heinous crime. One madness produces a greater one, and so on. And we are facing another Orestes, another Achilles, another Oedipus, but the context and the perspective are what really change the play.

The madness of fascism perpetuates and further produces fascism. And the only problem is that neither you, nor your neighbor and nobody wants to see it, because that is a public repression, a taboo, a subject that is not talked about so we don't have any responsibility for it.

It is much more convenient to believe in the fantasy that Teddy Daniels is really a violent patient and that there is nothing to do with him other than removing part of his brain via the eye. This fantasy elaborated and constituted with images of fire and water, images created by the institution itself.

Teddy Daniels' guilt memory is the memory where the American army had captured several Nazi SS prisoners, and when one of them runs, and some American soldier shoots, the situation spirals out of control and Teddy Daniels shoots one of the Nazi soldiers, which causes the extermination of this soldier and dozens of other prisoners who are summarily executed.

We saw very well in Inglourious Basterds that only in a fantasy can we fight fascism using fascism itself. Inglourious Basterds is a fairy tale where American fascism defeats German fascism. And now the winner of this clash can practice any kind of fascism.

Yes, Inglourious Basterds is a fantasy about fascism because it starts with "Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France...", and a few more occasional questions like Cinderella's lost shoe, Bridget von Hammersmark.

Doctor Rachel Solando has never had children and has never been married. She was a respected doctor within the institution when she began to question the reason for so many shipments of sodium drugs and surgical procedures.

What the institution did with the doctor Rachel Solando was to admit her as a patient inside Ashecliffe and try to implant in her the memories that she was married, that she had three children and that she had drowned them. The same memory they tried to implant inside Edward Daniels' mind.

Teddy Daniels does not recognize, at any point in the film, any staff or patients of the institution. There is no moment of recognition, essential in determining whether Edward Daniels exists or is the dark ego, Andrew Laeddis.

Ultimately, all of Edward Daniels' memories can be fabricated. As he has become a mad patient, anything he says will only further confirm his madness, even his real memories of WWII.

Rachel Solando's dialogue with Edward Daniels inside the cave

Rachel Solando: Who are you?

Edward Daniels:I am Teddy Daniels. I'm a cop.

Rachel Solando: You're a Marshal.

Edward Daniels: That's right. Would you mind, mind...take your hands from behind your back?

Rachel Solando: Why? Why?

Edward Daniels: To make sure what you have hold there does not hurt me

Rachel Solando I'm gonna keep this...If you do not mind… fine with me.

Edward Daniels:You're Rachel Solando. The real one. Did you kill your children?

Rachel Solando: I never had children. I was never married. Before I be a patient in Ashecliff, I worked here.

Edward Daniels: You were a nurse?

Rachel Solando: I was a doctor, Marshall. You think I'm crazy?

Edward Daniels: - No, I...

Rachel Solando:- And if I say I'm not crazy... well that hardly helps, does it? That's the Kafkaesque genius of it. People always tell you you're crazy and protested, on the contrary, confirm what they say.

Edward Daniels: I do not following you. I'm sorry.

Rachel Solando: Once you are declared insane, then anything you do is called as a part of insanity. Your reasonable protests are denial, valid fears, paranoia. survival Instincts as defense mechanisms. You're smarter than you look Marshall. That's probably not a good thing

Edward Daniels: Tell me something ...

Rachel Solando: Yes ...

Edward Daniels: What happened to you?

Rachel Solando: I started asking about shipping this this large amount of sodium .

Edward Daniels: - And the sodium-based hallucinogens.

Rachel Solando:- Psychotropic drugs. And I began to ask about the surgeries, too. Ever heard of transorbital lobotomy? They cap the patient with electroshocks, then go through the eye with an ice pick and pull out some nerve fibers. Makes the patient more obedient. Tractable. It's barbaric. Unconscionable. Do you know how pain enters the body marshal? Do you?

Edward Daniels: Depends on where you hurt.

Rachel Solando: No, it has nothing to the flesh. The brain controls pain. The brain controls fear, empathy, sleep, anger, hunger ... everything. what If you could control it?

Edward Daniels: The brain?

Rachel Solando: To re-create a man, so he doesn't feel pain. Or love. Or sympathy. A man who can't be interrogated because he has no memories to confess. And you know the North Koreans use american POWs during brainwashin experiments they turns soldiers into traitors. That's what they are doing here. Creates ghosts and give way in the world. And do things sane man never do. That kind of ability, that kind of knowledge it would take years. Years of research, experiments on hundreds of patients. For 50 years now, people will look back and they say ... this place is where it all began. The Nazis used the Jews. The Soviets used prisoners in their own gulags and we...We tested patients on Shutter Island.

Edward Daniels: No, they won't...no

Rachel Solando: you do understand that they can't let you leave?

Edward Daniels: I'm a federal Marshall... They can't stop me.

Rachel Solando: I was a esteemed psychiatrist, from a respected family. It did not matter. Let me ask you... any past trauma in your life?

Edward Daniels: yes, why... why that matter?

Rachel Solando: If a particular event is past the reason you lost your sanity…  so when they commit you in here, your friends, colleagues will say... “he has cracked”. And who would do it, after what happened. That could be said of anyone

Edward Daniels: - anyone at all.

Rachel Solando: - The point is they're going to say it about you. How's your head?

Edward Daniels: - My head?

Rachel Solando: - You had funny dreams? Trouble Sleeping, headaches ...

Edward Daniels: I'm prone to migraine

Rachel Solando: you haven't taken any pills, no? Not even aspire?

Edward Daniels: - I get a aspirin.

Rachel Solando: Jesus! And you ate in the canteen and of drinking coffee that gave it. Tell me that even smoking Cigars of you.

Edward Daniels: Not ... no. I haven't.

Rachel Solando: It takes between 36 and 48 hours for neuroleptics narcotics to reach sufficient blood that you-and take effect. Pulse will become first, fingers first and then shall include all labor. Seen any waking nightmares lately, Marshall?

Edward Daniels: Tell me what's going on in that lighthouse? Tell me.

Rachel Solando: Brain surgery. Like, "to open the skull to see “what if we pull on this kind. "That's not different with Nazi's kind and then they created the ghosts.

Edward Daniels: Who knows about this? On the island I mean. Who?

Rachel Solando: Everyone.

Edward Daniels: Come on, the nurses, the orderlies? It's not possible ...

Rachel Solando: - Everybody. You can't stay here.

They think I'm dead, that I drowned. If they come looking for you, they migh find me. I'm sorry, but you have to go.

Edward Daniels: I'm gonna come back for you.

Rachel Solando: I will not be here. I move during the day. New places every night.

Edward Daniels: But I could come get you take you out of the island.

Rachel Solando: Haven't you heard a word I've said? The only way off the island is ferry and they control it. You'll never leave here.

Edward Daniels: I had a friend. He was with me yesterday, but we got separated. Have you seen him?

Rachel Solando: Marshall... You have no friends.

 

Carlos H. Barbosa: Shutter Island