DAY TWENTY-TWO: Trial Against David Castillo

/

Last update: May 23 at 8:00 pm

NOTE: Today, Sunday, May 23, the court notified that the trial will be suspended for two more days. It will reconvene at 9:00 am on Tuesday, May 25.

****

NOTE: Today, May 22, the trial did not take place as planned. A judge was reportedly not feeling well causing the proceedings to be suspended until tomorrow (Sunday, May 23) at 9 am.

Main Points of the Day

  • Accompanied by a technical consultant, Castillo’s attorneys began questioning expert Brenda Barahona about her telecommunication analysis. They focused on calling into question the following claims: that Castillo’s SIM card was used in 26 different devices; that Berta Cáceres’s phone listed the last activation date as January 16, 2016 but messages and calls came into and out of the phone according to the data, up until March 2016; that Mariano Diaz went to La Ceiba in January 2016 to allegedly plan the murder but received phone calls discussing another job that could explain his presence in La Ceiba; amongst others. The defense also listed one phone number (8929-5274) that made contact with Elvin Rápalo and Edilson Duarte Meza (both convicted of the murder) on March 2 and 3, 2016 and asked why the number was not identified as suspicious and thus investigated. The defense appears to be calling the expert’s work into question but it is yet to be seen how the questions relate directly to their client David Castillo.

  • Tomorrow, the defense will continue questioning Brenda Barahona. The prosecution will likely finish presenting all of their evidence and the attorneys representing the Cáceres family will present their witnesses and experts possibly starting tomorrow. The trial will be in session all weekend and will begin tomorrow at 9:30 am

More Details

Defense Questions TeleCommunication Analyst Brenda Barahona

  • Castillo’s defense team includes a data extraction technical consultant that began questioning Barahona about the technical and procedural aspects of her analysis. The defense attorneys then began questioning Barahona. Here are most of the questions:

  • Q: Why in your conclusion did you say that the SIM card that belongs to David Castillo was used in 26 devices? A: That is what the telephone indicated.

  • Q: On January 27, you said that Castillo used a different SIM and that it was an attempted phone call. You indicated the location of the SIM. On another date in 2015, the location of the phone does not appear, why not? A: It says that the location is N/A (not available)

  • Q: In your expertise in extraction, what would you attribute the change in IMEI? A: I’m not an expert in IMEI, this corresponds to the [cellphone?] company.

  • Q: What are your capabilities in intelligence and counter-intelligence? A: I haven’t mentioned anything about intelligence or counter-intelligence.

  • Q: What is your experience in identifying networks of involvement of different actors? I have worked in connecting various people, using data, that are part of involvement in a network. I’m trained to do that type of work.

  • Q: You said that the primary data archives are stored on a computer in ATIC [Technical Agency for Criminal Investment]. In what computer is the data obtained from Berta Cáceres’s cell phone stored? A: The machine is called A-PC [?]

  • Q: In what department and in whose custody is the evidence and who ensures its integrity? A: It’s in ATIC. I don’t know in what department.

  • Q: What is the last activation date of a phone? A: It is the last date that it was used - the last date it received phone calls, chats, etc.

  • Q: Why have you established that Berta Cáceres’s cell phone was last activated on January 10, 2016? A: That was the date I was given.

  • Q: Then why are there chats and messages received after this last activation date? A: This information was not extracted by me, it was information given to me.

  • Q: How many phone calls are there from the number 8929-5274 on March 2 and 3 between the numbers used by Elvin Rápalo and Edilson Duarte Meza? A: I would have to go back into the report and see.

  • Q: Why was this phone number (8929-5274) not investigated? A: Because it was not identified as suspicious.

  • [The court interrupts and asks how this particular question is relevant to Castillo’s defense strategy. The defense replies that the calls could mean that someone else was involved and that if it was properly investigated then Castillo would not be in prison. The court asks Barahona to make note of this question and to spend time during recess or overnight to gather the data and answer the question the following day].

  • Q: How does a “fake hour” [phone is registered with a different timezone] affect the extraction of information? A: It would affect the time zone that the activity is registered.

  • Q: On 03/08/2016, there was communication between two numbers, 9851-3171 and 9897-3999 [not sure if those are the correct numbers cited in court], one was used by Mariano Díaz Chávez. Why did you establish that Mariano went to La Ceiba on January 5th to plan Berta Cáceres’s murder when the information in the cited communication says otherwise? A: I don’t believe the report says that he went to La Ceiba on January 4th to plan the murder. I would have to check

  • [The court interrupts the questioning and asks Barahona to spend the night finding the relevant data in her report and to answer the defense’s questions tomorrow].