DAY TWENTY-FOUR: Trial Against David Castillo

/

Last update: May 26 at 4:17 pm

Main Points of the Day

  • Telecommunication expert Brenda Barahona finished on the stand. The court notifies all parties that the prosecution’s evidence has mostly been presented. Over the next few days, the attorneys representing the Cáceres family will present their evidence including testimony from Daniel Atala, three expert witnesses, and testimony from Berta’s daughter, Bertita Zúniga, among others. The trial is convened for 9 am to noon tomorrow.

More Details

The Defense Continues Questioning Expert Brenda Barahona

  • Brenda Barahona begins by answering a question posed the day prior but that required a more in-depth look at her notes. Berta Cáceres was close to the airport on November 24, 2015. According to a chat message, Sergio said that Berta wasn’t going to be present because she left to go to the US.

  • Q: On pg. 406, can you explain who Henrry Hernandez was negotiating with between February 18 and 21? A: It’s a whole audio conversation. Hernandez is communicating with Mariano Díaz about what one of the hitman said. He said it doesn’t matter if it’s a mayor or anyone, what is important is the money.

  • Q: According to the synopsis from the judicial file 484-2015, who is ‘Comandante’? A: I was only sworn in to examine the parts of that chat that were relevant for this case.

  • Q: Since January 4, the date that corresponds to the timeframe you were sworn in to examine, who was Mariano Díaz working with to commit crimes? A: I only examined the chats between Mariano Díaz and the suspicious people that are part of this investigation

  • Q: Why didn’t you analyze the conversations with Mariano and ‘Comandante’ if they were talking about murder? A: Because ‘Comandante’ was not identified as a suspicious individual in this investigation

  • Q: Why were they not suspicious if they talk about homicides and other crimes? For example, Mariano Díaz said he communicated with Comandante, Selvin and Misael to plan some sort of crime? A: They didn’t give me that line of investigation. I was sworn in to examine only numbers that were identified as suspicious.

  • Q: What level or degree of wiretapping was used on the phone number assigned to David Castillo? A: I don’t know the degree of intervention on the phone because I was not the technician who was in charge of that.

  • Q: When you said that you had the evidence from judicial file 416 [it’s unclear what file this is], why didn’t you analyze this information in your study of people’s involvement in the crime? For example, when Henrry Hernandez’s mom talked about who gave weapons to Henrry. It also establishes that Henrry had a relationship with people involved in drug trafficking? A: They were not identified as suspicious in this case

  • Q: Would you have investigated the communications between Comandante, Selvin and Misael, if they were suspicious and they communicated with Mariano Díaz? A: Yes

  • Q: What are they [people involved in the chat which is unclear but may be Mariano Diaz and Henrry Hernandez] referring to when they talk about “good livestock”? A: He’s talking about drugs.

  • Q: According to your synopsis, who was Mariano referring to when he talked about the people in charge? A: When he talks about people in charge, he’s talking about Douglas Bustillo

  • Q: What are they talking about when they say they are going to buy livestock? A: They are talking about drugs.

  • Q: Why do you conclude that Bustillo got a loan to make payments? A: Because Mariano says he [Bustillo] doesn’t have the money but he would do everything to get it.

  • Q: You said in your report that David Castillo lied to Berta Cáceres about his location. You said he wasn’t in the place he says he was on January 9, 2015. Why? A: He was in several locations on January 8 and 9th, 2015 including Comayagua, Santa Barbara, Cortés, and then in Francisco Morazán.

  • Q: Why did you conclude that Castillo lied about being in Tegucigalpa? A: Because he responded that he was in Chamelecon [in San Pedro Sula] at 8:46 but he was in Tegucigalpa on January 9, 2015.

  • Q: You said that Castillo told Berta that he was in the “industrial capital” on February 18, 2015. Berta then asks him when he’s coming to Tegucigalpa and David answers “tomorrow”. A: But that same day at 17:46, he was located in Francisco Morazan.

  • Q: When did Castillo say he arrived? A: He wrote at 11:27 and said “I just arrived”

  • Q: How can you say that when Berta wrote “how’s it going” that she was asking if he had arrived to Tegucigalpa? A: I don’t know but I can say that at 11 pm or so when she asked, he was already in Tegucigalpa.

  • Q: Where was Berta Cáceres the day when Castillo told her “I just arrived”? A: In Francisco Morazan.

  • Q: On Pg. 22, the contact ‘Jeronimo"‘ contacted someone [unclear. Possibly Berta Cáceres?] on the day of the murder. Did you determine who this was? A: No. In her contacts the number is saved as Jeronimo 2 but the phone company didn’t say whose number it is.

  • Q: Do you know what Jeronimo said in his phone call with Berta? A: No, I can’t tell. The phone was not tapped.

  • [NOTE: The defense then begins clarifying different messages sent to different Whatsapp chat groups called ‘Seguridad PHAZ’ [PHAZ Security] and ''Coordinación PHAZ” [PHAZ Coordination]. It was difficult to follow the line of questioning written below]

  • Q: You made a correction in your analysis about where David Castillo said ‘copied’. You established also that two Whatsapp chats exist - PHAZ Security and PHAZ Coordination. In message 249, you said that the two messages were sent by Sergio and then a second, what chat is that part of? A: This is a communication between Castillo and Sergio Rodriguez

  • Q: But chat 298, PHAZ Security, is a group chat, can you explain this? A: It’s a group chat but it says what time the chat was received and who read it. In this case, the message was delivered to Castillo, he read it, and he responded 20 seconds after with the message ‘copied’

  • Q: Who else read the chat? A: Jorge Avila, Daniel Atala, and another unidentified number

  • Q: After this conversation, you wrote after ‘copied’, that there were three messages. The messages on March 3 are: “Sergio just called me” and then “You should coordinate communication and security” and the third message, “Yes, I’m going to prepare an email”. What chat are these messages from? A: This is chat #159

  • Q: After those messages in your report, the next two messages, what chat are they part of? A: It’s the chat #298 on March 3, 2016

  • Q: In your experience, how does taking chats from different conversations and putting them together in a report affect the analysis? A: Well here it helps the analysis because in the group chat they are coordinating and then also communicate separately to continue the coordination.

  • Q: Go to chat xyz [?], what difference do you find between the two pages [I believe the defense is referring to her preliminary analysis and then her final analysis report]? A: One includes chats and call registries that were not included in the first report.

  • Q: What knowledge is needed to alter a PDF file? A: I don’t know because I’ve never modified a PDF.

Court Reports About Remaining Evidence Presented by the Prosecution

  • The court was unable to call protected witness ABC-03-03-2016 (Gustavo Castro) to the stand because of the formal manner in which the citation must happen and the additional amount of time it would take for Mexican authorities to reach the witness. The timeframe was laid out in a communication from Mexican authorities to the Honduran government. The prosecution asks that this witness’s previous testimony be admitted in writing to the court.

  • The prosecution and court have been unable to locate protected witness Triple A. The prosecution asks if their testimony can be admitted in writing.

  • On May 13, the court published citations in the Honduran newspapers El Heraldo and La Tribuna notifying Jose Rafael Guerrero, Juan Carlos Beltran and Junior Alfredo Zambrano Aguilar that they were being called to appear in court. [This is in line with Honduran law when someone cannot be located]. The court has not received a response from any of the three individuals. All three were expected to ratify documents presented by the prosecution as evidence.

  • The court is waiting to hear from witness Lilian Esperanza Lopez Benítez.

Schedule for Tomorrow

  • Paula Quintero, an individual proposed by the prosecution to either ratify documents or provide some sort of testimony, still has to appear in court.

  • The judge mentioned that if time permits, the private accuser’s first witness, Daniel Atala will testify tomorrow.