PD-SP-EVT-0001 · PD-SP-DOC-0005 · PD-SP-P-0145
1 March 2018 — the photographic node now has contemporaneous sworn-witness corroboration.
The controlled 01MAR2018 package literally names “CAM Y JOAN CRUZ”. A separate court-recorded witness statement taken on 25 June 2018 describes repeated February/March Sun Park visits by a person the witness called “JOAN”, including measurements with a plan, showing the hotel to other men and a later visit to check installations for a refurbishment.
Identity firewall: the sworn statement says “JOAN”; it does not give a surname and the witness expressly said he did not know JOAN's role. Separate contemporaneous material materially corroborates the Joan Cruz Nuez identity route, but this page does not convert that route into facial recognition or an unqualified identity finding.
Evidence identity chain
Custodial email preserving the 01-Mar photographic package. Publication boundary: canonical metadata, controlled visual derivatives and source-attributed captions only.
ENTRADA ILEGAL DE CAM Y JOAN CRUZ AL HOTEL SUN PARK - 01MAR2018.pdf
18 pages · 2,890,644 bytes · SHA-256 3c05f2a90648299ca7792296e386aca8b48fc11ef93676f519938aaa61ef306b
Historical date stated by the controlled package: 1 March 2018 · Hotel Sun Park.
DP 1132/2018 · Juzgado de Instrucción nº 2 (antiguo Mixto nº 7), Arrecife · sworn witness statement of Miguel Ángel Barreiro Cano.
PRIMARY JUDICIAL RECORD · 25 JUNE 2018
What the sworn witness record establishes — and where it stops.
The controlled 32-page court attachment records that Miguel Ángel Barreiro Cano promised to tell the truth. In his statement he placed a person he called “JOAN” at Sun Park in February or March 2018 together with a person he called DANIEL. He described measurements of the buffet dining room, night bar and entrances using a plan; another occasion when “DANIEL Y JOAN” showed the hotel to three men; and two further visits by “DANIEL Y JOAN”.
The witness described more than one February/March visit involving a person he called JOAN.
The witness described measurements of hotel/common-area installations using a plan.
He described “DANIEL Y JOAN” arriving with three other men and showing them the hotel.
He linked a later two-person visit to checking installations for a refurbishment they were going to undertake.
The witness separately associated court-file photograph ranges with the activity: folios 25–33 with one visit involving three men; 34–41 with persons arriving to measure; and 49–56 with a later two-person visit to check installations for refurbishment. Folios 107–120 were associated with the distinct 7 June event.
Do not over-read this source. The statement itself does not identify “JOAN” by surname, does not state what entity he represented, does not prove an operator contract, and does not determine whether any February/March access was authorised or unlawful. The court-file folio numbering has also not yet been reconciled page-by-page to the later 18/19-page photographic compilations.
CONTROLLED VISUAL FAMILY
The photographs can now be presented next to the witness chronology — without facial recognition.
Readiness result: the existing visual family is publication-ready with these attribution controls. Privacy-safe crops of the 25-Jun witness act have also been prepared for binary ingestion, showing only the court/date/truth-obligation, the “DANIEL Y JOAN” testimony and the photo-folio mapping; the unredacted witness page is not publication-safe because it contains personal identifiers.
Binary-control notice (26 September 2026). The repaired contact sheet is a mechanical render of a preserved 18-page copy (2,890,644 bytes; SHA-256 e66d1c78166595c9f3899063fdf39767339d608d4184f93cd10993f11e051abc). It matches the recorded page count, size and visible sequence. Byte-for-byte equivalence to the separately recorded predecessor hash 3c05…306b has not yet been established; the two identifiers remain separate pending reconciliation.
The contemporaneous identity bridge
The sworn testimony is not being used alone to turn “JOAN” into “Joan Cruz Nuez”. The identity route is tested against separate contemporaneous material:
Classification: taken together, these sources create a corroborated identity/continuity route. Final identification of the witness-described “JOAN” remains subject to native message, witness, travel/calendar, contractual and original-image authentication. No biometric comparison is used.
Limiting and contrary evidence travels with the corroboration
The same sworn record says the witness did not know JOAN's role, describes the relevant visit with three other men as being in common areas and says no damage was caused during that visit. It also separately states that before 7 June the witness had not seen José Daniel Acosta Matos force a door cylinder and that José Daniel Acosta Matos was not present at the 7 June event.
Those limits matter. The combined chronology supports investigating knowledge, evaluation, measurements, project preparation and the identity/capacity of the participants. It does not by itself establish force, unlawful access, a particular contract, fraud, conspiracy or criminal common purpose.
Dates that must remain separate
Highest-value authentication now
Recover the native witness-identification chat with timestamps; original February/March photographs and EXIF/device data; certified/native court folios 25–33, 34–41 and 49–56; Joan/Meeting Point/CAM calendars, visitor records and communications; and the exact plan, measurements, estimates or refurbishment outputs generated from the visits.