The Patsy?
Jorge Eliécer Gaitán Ayala, the People's Champion, was dead – struck down by an assassin. But who did it? The assassination was quickly pinned on 26 year-old Juan Roa Sierra, who was suffering from delusions, which included believing that he was the 19th century Colombian national hero Francisco de Paula Santander y Omaña or the Spanish adventurer Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada who seized control of Bogotá in the 1530s, claiming it for the Spanish Emperor Carlos V.

Roa clearly had serious mental problems, but he was also a very convenient suspect, as his delusions meant that the lone (lunatic) assassin hypothesis would seem plausible, but did he do it, and if he was involved in the assassination, did he do it alone? These questions divide Colombia even now. Even though Roa was not seen by anyone at the scene of the crime at the relevant time – he was first seen between two policemen – he still had the opportunity and he was discovered carrying a gun that the official report concluded he had been told to hold nearby while the 'real killer' made his getaaway.

He had tried to get close to Gaitán previously, seeking employment, but never got an appointment. At the very least, he had an interest in Gaitán if not an obsession with him. While forensic sciences were rudimentary then, they could have resolved some issues, especially regarding the gun Roa had. Colombian General Secretary and later conservative Minister of Education, Rafael Azula Barrera, claimed that it was incapable of being fired accurately. There is no evidence that Roa was proficient, or even competent, with firearms, while the assassin of Gaitán was clinically efficient – two shots to the head and one to the chest.

In the light of all this, was it really likely that Roa could have committed this terrible crime, especially on his own? The Colombian government's report concluded that Roa had been paid to stand nearby with a gun. In short, they believed that Roa was one in a long line of patsys, but if Roa was a patsy, who really did it? There were a large number of conspiracy theories to answer that, but few solid facts.

Fleeing for his Life
According to the government's report Roa was first seen between two police officers and not near the scene of the assassination. Roa eventually took refuge with a police officer, but irate supporters of Gaitán stormed the drugstore that the officer took him into to try to protect him. The crowd, however, would not be denied. Roa was dragged out and stabbed and beaten into a form barely recognisable as human. His naked body was dumped outside the Presidential Palace in Bolívar Square, but Bogotá had plenty more violence to see that night.

Roa's death, before he could be interrogated, was very convenient. The uncomfortable questions were never asked, let alone resolved. His presence, if indeed it was him, at Gaitán's office was entirely consistent with his desire – belief even – that if only he got to talk to Gaitán face to face, the People's Champion would see his talents and give him the job that he wanted. He was after all, delusional enough to believe himself to be Santander or Jiménez de Quesada. Why then, would it be inconceivable for him to believe that Gaitán would see his talent if he saw him face to face? That is as consistent to explain his alleged presence at Gaitán's office as having a grudge against Gaitán that resulted in his assassination if indeed he was there at all.

A Pawn?
Roa may have been involved, but the extent of his involvement will almost certainly never be established. His lynching prevented an interrogation, let alone trial that could have resolved the numerous questions arising from it. Nevertheless, Ospina believed him totally innocent, but that could be due to his wish to blame communists, especially a then 21 year-old future Cuban leader Fidel Castro Ruz, whom police reports accused of being the assassin, without any credible evidence.

According to the government's report, relied on by Azula, Roa was used as a pawn – paid to stand nearby with a recently fired gun. There was no ballistics evidence linking Roa's gun to the assassination – it had only been sold two days prior to the assassination and it was purportedly not capable of shooting accurately and Roa did not have the opportunity to learn to shoot. Neither the weapon or alleged assassin semed consistent with the facts of Gaitán's assassination.

Gaitán stood no chance. It was a clinical and efficient kill, which supporters of Roa's innocence, which include the Colombian 1982 Nobel Literature Prize winner, Gabriel García Márquez, argue points to Roa's innocence. Sadly, the lynching of Roa meant that Gaitán's murder would never be solved and that Roa's role, if any, could not be satisfactorily resolved. Consequently, a fertile breeding ground for numerous conspiracy theories existed and they flourished.