DAY TWENTY-THREE: Trial Against David Castillo

/

Last update: May 26 at 3:37 pm

Main Points of the Day

  • Castillo’s defense continues to question telecommunications analyst Brenda Barahona, attempting to create doubt about her investigative methods and pointing out details that may aid in undermining her analysis. The most noteworthy are the number of phone calls made by two unidentified phone numbers to two of the hitman on March 2 and 3, 2016. These numbers were not identified as suspicious and were not investigated. Most of the defense’s questioning focused on details that did not create doubt about the strongest evidence against Castillo (communication with Douglas Bustillo that corresponds to plans with the hitman to commit the murder)

  • The trial will continue tomorrow at 9 am.

As the trial is underway, the feminist encampment remains outside of the Supreme Court in Tegucigalpa. The Honduras Solidarity Network (HSN) is doing a fundraiser to support the women’s presence at a critical moment of the trial. For more information, go here.

campamento feminist.jpeg

More Details

Castillo’s Defense Attorney Continues to Question Telecommunication Analyst Brenda Barahona

  • Barahona began by providing the answers to questions that the defense had asked on Friday but that required a more in-depth revision of the data. The defense had asked about the calls coming from the phone numbers 8929-5274 and 9526-4387 on March 2 and 3rd to Edilson Duarte and Elvin Rápalo.

    • Edilson Duarte received two phone calls from 8929-5274 on March 2 at 14:04 and 17:57 and five calls from 9526-4387 on March 3 in the morning, early afternoon, and evening.

    • Elvin Rápalo received 3 calls from 8929-5274 on March 2 and 13 calls and 36 text messages from that number on March 3. And one call on March 3 from 9526-4387.

  • Q: According to your analysis of the involvement of this number, how did you determine what numbers were suspicious? A: In this case, the numbers that were identified as suspicious were based on the timeline and the day of and day after the murder, based on information from telephone antennas.

  • Q: Based on this timeline you refer to, what do you make of the calls [between 8940-6538, Duarte and Rápalo]? A: They were in contact after the crime was committed.

  • Q: Why was it not suspicious that this number had had no contact with these people before the murder but did immediately after? A: No because they were not located at the crime scene. Both numbers made contact outside of the hours of the murder and I did not receive the phone data from these numbers.

  • Q: Why in your hypothesis and expert analysis, did you identify the call between Sergio Rodriguez and Douglas Bustillo at 6 am on March 3 as suspicious? Because they were identified as suspicious.

  • Q: What importance as an analyst do you put on investigating the frequency of calls from the two numbers on March 2 and 3rd? A: If the numbers were investigated then they and any other numbers would have been identified as suspicious and thus investigated.

  • Q: What range of time did you use to identify suspicious calls and communications? A: From 00:00:00 on March 2 to 11:59:59 on March 3, 2016.

  • Q: What was the first phone calls received on March 2 by Elvin Rápalo and Edilson Duarte? A: Rápalo received a call on March 2 at 6:09 from 8929-5274 and Edilson at 6:05 on March 2nd.

  • Q: After Edilson received the call at 6:05 am, who did he communicate with? He communicated with the same number again (8929-5274)

  • Q: After the three phone calls with that number, who did he communicate with after? A: He communicated with Henrry Hernandez and Oscar Torres.

  • Q: Where was Elvin Rápalo from January to March 2016? A: He was located in Atlántida, Cortés, Intibuca, Santa Barbara, and Yoro.

  • Q: Where was he the majority of that time? A: Arizona, Tornabe, Ceiba … many places.

  • Q: And in San Pedro Zacapa, how many times was he there? A: 395 times in San Pedro Zacapa, Santa Barbara

  • Q: And in Concepción del Sur? A: 18 times

  • Q: What are the exact dates that Rápalo was in Arizona before March 2? A: On February 14-20, 28-29, and March 1, 2016.

  • Q: Look at page 387 of your analysis, according to the data, who was in touch with Henrry Hernandez/ What does Henrry say? A: Henrry said something about the “high ups” (people in charge)

  • Q: When Henrry says “well, I’m going to call the higher ups to see what they say” who is he referring to? A: Henrry is referring to Douglas. You can tell if you keep reading.

  • Q: How did you determine who the “higher ups” are? A: Because Henrry then communicated with Bustillo.

  • Q: What importance did you give to the synopsis provided by the other court [court documents provided for the analyst of wiretaps of Mariano Diaz’s phone that were ordered for another investigation]? A: Importance was given to the fact that it was a suspicious number and it had been tapped since 2015. The number had been involved in with other suspicious individuals according to telephone antennas and this shows that there was some sort of planning going on.

  • Q: On the synopsis on pg 4573, who are the “higher ups” (personas arriba)? A: I can’t answer this because the synopsis is from a drug trafficking case, not this murder case.

  • Q: Who does the other case describe as the people in charge (higher ups)? A: I don’t know because I did not work on that case. I was sworn in as an expert on this homicide case, not the drug case where this information comes from.

  • Q: According to message xyz, who communicates with the people in charge? A: It’s Henrry [Hernandez] that says that because he spoke with Douglas Bustillo

  • Q: How many communications did you find in your analysis between Henrry and David Castillo? A: None.

  • Q: How many between Mariano Diaz and Castillo? A: None

  • Q: How many people is it referred to when it’s says “the people in charge”? A: It’s plural but I don’t know exactly how many

  • Q: What does plural mean? A: It means more than one

  • Q: On pg. 423, who are the participants negotiation with? A: I can’t say because they are speaking about different situations. He [either Mariano or Henrry] is referring to a person that Henry is with and Henry says the person has an issue to deal with.

  • Q: How many people are talking in that particular wiretap? A: Two, Douglas and David.

  • Q: According to the timeline, what issue did the person have to deal with? A: I don’t know because that person was not identified as suspicious [and therefore was not investigated].

  • Q: In your conclusions, you say that Douglas and David meet on November 22 to plan a murder. What basis do you have for this interpretation? A: It says that because there is sufficient information after analyzing all the evidence given to me. Bustillo was talking about completing the 50% and they discuss a meeting.

  • Q: Where in the messages do they talk about killing someone? A: No one is going to talk about killing someone directly in a message

  • Q: The message, “complete the 50%”, does that mean that it was paid or going to be paid? A: He’s asking for the payment to be made.

  • Q: In November 2015, did the meeting take place? A: I can’t say but both, according to phone data, were located in [the department of] Francisco Morazán.

  • Q: According to your timeline, where did David Castillo say he was going to meet Bustillo on November 22? A: In Chile’s [restaurant] in Los Proceres [a neighbourhood in Tegucigalpa].

  • Q: At 13:12 on November 22, where is David Castillo according to your analysis? A: At the airport in Francisco Morazán

  • Q: And the next phone activity? A: In Talanga [municipality north of Tegucigalpa]

  • Q: On November 21 and 22, 2015, what activity according to phone data belongs to David? A: One phone call on November 21 between David Castillo and Daniel Atala. But thats just between the numbers that were identified as suspicious. There were other calls from other numbers.

  • Q: Let’s go back to your conclusions, how can you say that Castillo was meeting in Chile’s if he’s located at the airport? A: I never said they met there [and the expert reads her exact wording from her conclusions].

  • Q: Why did you conclude that they met that day to plan the murder? A: They met many times, not just those days.

  • Q: But the conclusions says they met in November 2015, can you show me those messages? A: It says that if you look at all the evidence - messages, audios, everything - there is sufficient reason to conclude that Castillo and Bustillo communicated to plan the murder.

  • Q: Can you show me an objective message that demonstrates concretely that they met to plan the murder? A: I cannot say concretely but with the messages “aborted mission” and the answer “copy that,” thats a pretty clear indication.

  • Q: On November 25, where was Douglas Bustillo? A: In Cortés, Atlántida, and Cortés.

  • Q: According to the wiretaps, what dates is there communication between Bustillo and Mariano Diaz? In 2015: August 2015, September 13, 18, 24, 26, 27, October 24, December 31. In 2016: January 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 20- 22, 25, 29, 30 and February 1-4, 8, 13, 25 and March 2, 4, 6, 18, 19, and 28.

  • Q: From the other judicial file, from what date did you have access to Mariano Diaz’s wiretap data? A: Starting on January 4, 2016.

  • Q: How trustworthy are the wiretaps? A: It’s the information we are given from the phone companies.

  • Q: What role do the phone companies or responsibility do they have? A: You would have to ask for their company policies.

  • Q: Why does TIGO [phone company] attribute this number to David Castillo? A: Because that is what the phone company has indicated.

  • Q: On Pg. 768, you said that Castillo communicated with Bustillo after [inaudible], how did they communicate? A: At 13:55 in chat number xyz on February 20, 2016.

  • Q: When you say “they”, who wrote who? A: Bustillo wrote to Castillo

  • Q: Where is Castillo’s response? A: He could have responded via other means. I don’t have a call to see if there was a response.

  • Q: After the 20th, what communication between Castillo and Bustillo occurred between February 20 and March 2? A: [answer inaudible]

  • Q: How did they communicate after February 20th, if there was no response from that message? A: It was a message that was recovered from the phone but that had been deleted. Maybe it was not a complete message.

  • Q: Can you tell us Bustillo’s location from February 21 to 24, 2016? A: He was in Francisco Morazán, Comayagua, Intibuca and then again in Francisco Morazán.

  • Q: In conclusion 23, you said that Bustillo went to Intibuca and stayed there, why did you conclude that if Bustillo was in Francisco Morazán? A: On Feb 21, he was in Intibuca and then in Francisco Morazán on the 23rd.

  • Q: How many hours was he in Intibuca on the 21? A: He was there for four hours

  • Q: From where did you receive information that Henrry Hernandez was in the military? A: I don’t remember but it might have been in the investigative file.

  • Q: Look at the chat on February 16, who is talking in this chat? A: Mariano Diaz and Henrry Hernandez.

  • Q: Who is “compañerito” they are referring to? A: Henrry is referring to Douglas Bustillo.

  • Q; When does Henrry communicate with Bustillo? A: From September 11, 2015 and from the other phone number he had, since January 29, 2016.