DAY FORTY-FOUR: Trial Against David Castillo
/Last update: June 22 at 9:20 am
Main Points of the Day
Today, Jonathan Murillo, the defense’s data extraction expert, continued on the stand. Both the lawyers for the Cáceres family and the prosecution team managed to create some doubt about Murillo’s analysis including that one of the key audio files was oddly not transcribed for the court and that the date that the LG phone was obtained by state investigations, questions the authenticity of the audio file (this is the subject of another legal case against two investigative police for falsifying evidence). This in turn, created doubt about the defense’s argument that the audio file suggests there were other threats against Berta Cáceres that were not pursued by authorities.
The trial is convened for 9 am tomorrow. Telecommunications analyst, Shaun Vodden, another expert for the defense, will take the stand. The trial is expected to last until the end of this week and possibly, if still not concluded, a few days next week.
COPINH offers a few explanations as to why the defense revoked two witness testimonies on day 41 [English translation below]
Translation (left to right):
Fabiola Zelaya: Would testify about the administrative duties - carried out by PEMSA, the company that Castillo managed - about contracting Douglas Bustillo for the company in the south [of Honduras] which would have justified the reasons for the communication between both. Reality: She will not testify because she would have to lie to speak about the work that Bustillo did with PEMSA. She started to work with the comapny in October 2016, months after the crime.
Edgardo Jerezano: Would testify about David Castillo’s actions that he spoke about by chat - he was contracted to promote complaints and criminal actions for damages experienced by the company. Reality: His testimony would demonstrate the structure that harassed, persecuted, and criminalized COPINH and Berta Cáceres
More Details
Defense Challenges Credentials of Prosecution’s Technical Consultant
The prosecution team brought in a technical consultant to assist them with questioning the defense’s expert witness. The defense sought to object to the participation of the technical consultant, arguing that his credentials did not demonstrate his expertise in line with that of the expert witness. The court denied the objection.
Prosecutors and Private Accusers Questions Defense’s Data Extraction Expert Jonathan Murillo
PROSECUTOR’S QUESTIONS
Q: How did you confirm the phone’s IMEI? A: I did a search in Phone Detective. And in the report, I included a photo on the back of the phone.
Q: Where is the IMEI number in your report? A: It’s in the photos in the report
Q: Why didn’t you put the IMEI in the report where you wrote the information about the ID of the phone? [answer inaudible]
Q: What tool did you use to get the ID information included in the report about the phone? A: Cellebrite
Q: What differences could exist between the IMEI from the physical extraction and the IMEI on the back of the battery? A: It’s the same IMEI on the back of the battery as is inside the phone.
Q: According to what you were sworn in to analyze, what was the purpose of your expert testimony? A: Establish the existence of files and audio file 0035433
Q: When did the chain of custody on the phone begin? A: It starts, according to the document, from the time it was seized.
Q: When did it start? A: March 31, 2016
Q: What does the date of collection mean? Objection
[Defense continues to interrupt. Judges getting increasingly annoyed and call for order]
Q: According to the chain of custody, what was the collection date of the cell phone? March 31, 2016
[The court interrupts and the judge clarifies that the collection date of the phone was March 30, 2016 meaning that the phone was in police custody at that time. Then the following day, on March 31st, the chain of custody document was started. The prosecutor clarifies that the chain of custody started at 11:20 on March 31 but the evidence collection date is March 30th.]
[NOTE: The relevance of this is that the phone was in police custody on the day that the expert says the audio file alleging a threat against Berta was created, modified and deleted. This is likely the origin of the legal case charging Honduran investigative police, including one that came to testify for the defense, for falsifying evidence]
Q: In your analysis of the audio, why didn’t you transcribe it for the court? A: Because the audio was subject to an expert analysis and it was already described. I also played the audio file [NOTE: The first part of this claim is not true. No transcription of the audio has been provided]
Q: According to what you understand, who transcribed the audio? A: I don’t know
Q: And this information, who provided you with it? A: The transmission was put on Facebook.
Q: Why didn’t you think that it was important for your analysis to transcribe the audio? A: My objective was just technical - it was to identify the audio, not the content.
The prosecution’s technical consultant presents his conclusion to the report indicating that he is concerned about the types of connector cables used to carry out the extraction. The expert indicated that files were modified but doesn’t say what the modifications are. These modifications could have been made automatically by the phone if it was turned on (ex. if it received a text message, an app was open, etc).
PRIVATE ACCUSERS’S QUESTIONS FOR EXPERT
Q: You said that you received instructions from the defense, what did they say? A: As I explained, I’m an expert for the defense but my report is based on the technical information found in the cell phone
Q: What other instructions did the defense give you? A: No other indications
Q: What date did you submit your report to the court? A: [Missed response]
Q: You indicated that the audio had been transcribed for the court, but why did you not consider doing it as well? A: It was a personal decision, it was never of technical relevance.