DAY THIRTY-SEVEN: Trial Against David Castillo

/

Last update: June 12 at 1:00 pm

Main Points of the Day

  • In a short session today, Castillo’s defense team continued to interrogate expert Waxenecker and will continue, once again, on Monday at 9 am. Waxenecker touches on possible motives of the crime by affirming that DESA had economic resources to lose if the project was stopped but also, the capabilities to pay for the murder if need be, although he is clear that a more extensive financial analysis is needed to establish how and if this occurred. Waxenecker says that DESA’s economic capabilities (to pay for the murder (if that was the case) and push the Agua Zarca project forward), stem from financing granted by international banks to DESA.

More Details

Defense Continues to Question Waxenecker

  • The defense asks him to go to a certain page in the files he used for his analysis. Q: Can you read this part? A: The documents don’t indicate the flow of economic resources

  • Q: Can you read the paragraph? Objection.

  • Q: What doe these lines say in the file? A: Waxenecker reads part of the court’s sentencing of the 7 men (I believe) convicted of the murder. It refers to someone offering a quantity of money to Henry Hernandez to carry out an action but it was not shown in trial that the payment was made and what actors made the payment, including any payments from DESA.

  • Q: [Missed the question]. A: I looked at the indictment. The economic resources was part of the motivation behind the murder and Castillo was in a position of power with the ability to access company resources. I problematized DESA’s access to resources. I didn’t examine this any more because I didn’t have the financial information. There has to be a deeper financial investigation.

  • Q: On pg. 53, last paragraph, [missed question because of the objections]. A: On pg. 53, third paragraph, I refer to the available economic resources of the project. This is what I have argued and explained as part of the contradictions and also motives. I emphasize in this paragraph that there was 15 million USD and 24 million USD in financing to DESA. I made this emphasis to show that there was sufficient financial resources to make payments but I don’t establish a concrete relationship of how this was done.

  • Q: Who authorized you to use file number 388 for the analysis? A: I received an email on March 22 with this information, exactly 4 days before I had to submit my analysis to the court. I was authorized to use it.

  • Q: You spoke about about the loan from the FMO, who administered that money that was put in a trust? A: I don’t have concrete contracts, this is not part of the analysis. The focus was on the execution and implementation of the project by DESA.

  • Q: Who had the administration of the trust of DESA’s assets? A: This is not part of my analysis.

  • A: Why on Pg. 51 do you detail the loans given by the banks to DESA? A: I included it to show the financial - that there is a dispute that has to do with a lot of money. This is a motive to exercise violence and that there would have been sufficient resources to commit the murder. I attempted to understand this process and describe that financial resources were available.

  • Q: If the money was administered by Banco FICENSA, then why do you say that it could have been used to pay hitman? A: The details or mechanisms and the availability of the resources and administration of them, in general terms should be understood in terms of function. I have to look at a financial analysis of the company to understand this.

  • Q: What expertise do you have in the topic of trusts? A: I don’t have any expertise in that area

  • Q: What influences did COPINH and Berta Cáceres have on other projects? A: This was not the focus of my analysis

  • Q: Did Berta Cáceres receive threats from the money she received from the Goldman Prize? A: This was not part of my analysis

  • Q: When have you given a public opinion about Berta Cáceres’s murder? A: I haven’t given an opinion

  • Q: Go to pg. 48, from where did you get the information about the company PRODERSSA? Objection

  • Q: You talk about a relationship with the Rivera Maradiagas, what information do you have about the processes against the family Mejía in relation to the company INRAMAR? A: I made reference to this in a footnote.

  • Q: Who is part of PRODERSSA? A: It is not clear in the public documents about the selling and transactions of shares to Castillo and PEMSA. It’s a confusing process because of the dates, according to the information from public documents.

  • Q: What legal documents did you review? I looked at the public registry of PRODERSSA from March 19, 2014 and the contract between them and UPOWER [shows the documents to the court on his screen]

  • Q: In the communication network, you said there were several numbers that were not identified - why did you say they are important in the network analysis if you don’t know who they belong to? A: Because they are relevant in the communications network. You have to broaden the investigation to determine who these numbers belong to.