The defense of Julio Leonardo Alejandro Girón Castañeda and Carlos Antonio González y González, identified by the Public Ministry (MP) as the alleged ringleader and operator in the kidnapping of the dentist Julio Amílcar Martínez Murillorequested this Tuesday the provisional closure of the process during the intermediate stage hearing.
Girón’s lawyer, Saúl Zenteno, argued before the judge that the prosecution’s accusation lacks precision and that there are still pending investigation proceedings, in addition to questioning the legality of the telephone interceptions used in the case.
According to the lawyer, the MP promoted special investigation methods under the hypothesis that an organized criminal structure existed; However, he subsequently did not charge the crime of illicit association and only filed accusations of plagiarism or kidnapping.
“The Public Ministry omits to make a statement on the crime of illicit association,” commented Zenteno.
The defender maintained that the prosecutor’s accusation is based mainly on vehicle tracking, telephone analysis and examinations carried out by the victim’s relatives, but assured that no specific actions attributed to Girón Castañeda have been identified.
“The accusation at no time explains what decision Julio Leonardo Alejandro Girón Castañeda made, what order he gave and to whom,” he said.
The steps against the accusation
During the hearing, Zenteno divided the Public Ministry’s accusation into six steps and maintained that the Prosecutor’s Office does not individualize the actions attributed to his sponsor within the kidnapping of the dentist.
As he explained, the first step proposed by the Prosecutor’s Office corresponds to the alleged monitoring of the victim. The second would be Girón’s alleged participation in the interception and deprivation of liberty of the dentist.
The third step, he added, corresponds to the transfer after the kidnapping and abandonment of the victim’s vehicle. However, he maintained that the accusation does not establish who physically carried out those actions or the exact place of captivity.
“The Public Ministry uses generic expressions such as ‘in the company of other people’, ‘compartments’ and ‘planning’, but does not establish where the event was planned or what decision my client made,” he indicated.
According to the defense, the fourth step corresponds to the coordination to demand money in exchange for the release of the victim and the relationship with Anelsy Adeli Quiñónez Coradowho remains a fugitive.
Zenteno maintained that there is no precision about the supposed scope of Girón Castañeda within the negotiations.
“The Public Ministry does not explain what order it gave and to whom. Nor how it controlled the victim’s deprivation of liberty,” he said.
In the fifth point, the lawyer questioned that the Prosecutor’s Office attempts to link his client with an alleged organized criminal structure without having proven elements of permanence, stability and organization.
In addition, Zenteno questioned the alleged telephone connection between Girón Castañeda and Quiñones Corado.
Questions antenna analysis and tests
The lawyer also questioned an analysis of telephone antennas incorporated by the MP, which located Girón Castañeda’s telephone 500 meters from the place where the dentist’s vehicle was abandoned. “The time is omitted to be detailed. He lives there and travels there daily,” he commented.
During the investigation proceedings, the authorities raided two homes linked to Girón Castañeda and in one of them they located traces of blood, according to the investigation by the Public Ministry.
Expertise and wiretapping
During the hearing, the defense also questioned a lophoscopic expert report related to fingerprints. According to Zenteno, the expert report itself points out technical limitations due to problems with access to databases.
“This expert opinion is not conclusive,” he said before the judge.
In addition, he asked to expand proceedings and statements within the investigation, including that of the dentist’s wife and other analyzes related to telephone records and surveillance videos.
The lawyer also criticized the inclusion of some evidence incorporated by the MP, including videos obtained in a fast food restaurant, considering that they are not directly related to the events described in the accusation.
One of the defense’s main arguments focused on the authorized wiretapping within the case of the MP’s Special Investigation Methods Unit.
Zenteno said that the interceptions were authorized under an investigation related to organized crime, despite the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office later did not support that accusation.
According to the defense, this would prevent the valid application of the Law against Organized Crime and the special investigation methods derived from this regulation.
Defense of Carlos González questions telephone identification
During the hearing, the defense of Carlos Antonio González y González, identified by the Prosecutor’s Office as an alleged negotiator in the kidnapping, also intervened.
The lawyer questioned the way in which the MP relates his client to the so-called “issuer 2”, a telephone number that, according to the investigation, was used during negotiations with the dentist’s family.
“When the Public Ministry makes an accusation against issuer 1 and issuer 2, it is not certain who that person is,” the defense argued.
He explained that the Prosecutor’s Office maintains that it managed to identify González and González through activation of telephone antennas and follow-ups carried out between Jutiapa and Guatemala; However, he stated that there is no certainty that the telephone number attributed to “sender 2” was actually in the possession of his sponsor.
“How do you identify that specifically Carlos Antonio González y González is issuer 2 and that he has been traveling back from Jutiapa to Guatemala?” the lawyer questioned.
The defense also pointed out inconsistencies in the schedules of telephone activations and movements attributed to the accused.
“We have the photograph of the identification document, but we do not have the photograph of the phone that supposedly corresponds to issuer 2,” he stated.
You could also read: The “best friend” under suspicion: the unexpected turn in the kidnapping of a dentist in Villa Canales
In addition, he questioned a follow-up carried out on June 4, 2025, when investigators observed González and González talking on the phone in zone 5 of the capital.
“The Public Ministry establishes that at that time my client is making a call and that coincidentally at that time the victim’s wife receives a call. That could only be a coincidence,” he argued.
The lawyer added that, if the authorities were certain that the phone was used to negotiate the dentist’s release, they could have confiscated the device at that time.
“At that moment they could have asked for the phone that he had in his hand and thus be certain that sender 2 and Carlos Antonio González were the same person,” he stated.
For this reason, the defense also requested the provisional closure of the process against González and González, considering that the Prosecutor’s Office does not have sufficient elements to support the accusation in a possible trial.
The evidence of the case
During the hearing, the MP presented material evidence that, according to the Anti-Kidnapping Prosecutor’s Office, strengthens the hypothesis of an organized structure behind the disappearance of the dentist. Among the evidence exposed are cell phones, firearms, uniforms with insignia of the National Civil Police (PNC), surveillance videos, fingerprints and bank account statements.
The Prosecutor’s Office explained that the evidence maintains chains of custody and that among the seized objects there are seven pistols, a rifle, a gun sight, nine magazines, at least 680 firearm cartridges, intercoms, a helmet and clothing similar to police uniforms. In addition, it incorporated audio from hearings, banking information and recordings from surveillance cameras obtained in residential and commercial areas.
Case continues in intermediate stage
The Public Ministry indicates Julio Leonardo Alejandro Girón Castañeda as the alleged leader of the structure linked to the kidnapping of the dentist Julio Amílcar Martínez Murillo, who has disappeared since May 28, 2025.
According to the investigation, the dentist was intercepted when he was heading to his clinic in El Jocotillo, Villa Canales. The Prosecutor’s Office maintains that Girón Castañeda had had a close relationship with the victim for more than 12 years.
Carlos Antonio González y González, Juan Ubaldo Tzul Castillo, Juan Oswaldo Tzul Hernández and Paola Isabel Díaz Ramírez are also accused in this case. In addition, Anelsi Adelí Quiñones Corado remains a fugitive.