October 11th
The day the facts take place.

October 14th
Request for arrest presented and signed the same day by the judge.

October 15th
Arrest and detention of Free.

Start of the ‘termino Constitutional’ : period of 72 hours for the judge to decide if the suspect needs to be kept in detention; the period can be extended to 144 hours, which is the case for Free.

October 19th
There is a rumor  that there exists a video tape in favor of Free, but his lawyers deny it, as they do not want to bring the video in as proof.

October 20th
Upon arrival from Europe , Free’s  parents discover the videotape in which one can clearly see that it was Free who got attacked. The video however got to be supported by at least 2 witnesses. At this stage, we do not have any in our favor.  We are obliged to change  lawyers as we suspect their defense  tactics and negligence.

October 21st
The judge of the Juzgado Tercero Penal de Primera Instancia  decides  that Free will stay inside without right on bail since it is a case of physical harm.

October 21th
Start of the ‘termino Procesal’ : 15 days to bring in proof and  30 days to explore and work it out.

October 27th
Start of an  Appeal (Amparo) at the federal court against Free’s indictment. Here we have 10 days to produce proof in favor of Free. This time we present the video as proof, supported  by witnesses and other evidence.

November 17th
We file a charge against our accusers for : imposture and criminal participation, extorsion, procesal fraude, false testimonies, false accusations.

November 21st
The federal judge rejects  Free’s appeal on procedural grounds. According to the law, the federal judge can not accept and take into account evidence  that has not been presented to the Juzgado Penal , in the termino Constitutional.

December 7th
The judge of the Juzgado Tercero Penal de Primera Instancia  decides  that the proof will be examined as of December 22nd. As considerable time will be needed for the examination the judges stipulates that the videoclip will be examined later on. The date set for this exam is February 27th.

December 9th
Kidnapping of Ana Villaplana, Free's mother, just af te noon, in the centre of Cancun. A street vendor who witnessed it calls the police, who are able to liberate her shortly aftterward in a shootout with the kidnappers. Because of this incident first the press in Mexico and Europe become interested in the case, then the political authorities.

December 12th
Bello Melchor Rodriguez, attorney-general of Quintana Roo, the State in which Cancun is located, declares to the press that the 'case Free' will go to another judge, of the Fourth Chamber. (This is good news for Free, who always got the impression that the judge handling his case favoured the Ferrat family.) The attorney-general states furthermore that he hopes Free will soon be released, once the video of the fight has been presented to the judge and accepted as proof by him. To make this possible Free's lawyer will have to start a procedure known as "Disappearance of Data" (Desvanecimiento de Datos.)

December 14th
In a press conference Ivan Ferrat Mancera declares "I have decided to close this chapter and will present myself tomorrow, Monday, at 10 am at the judicial authorities to grant Free a pardon. (Otorgar el perdon.)

December 17th
Judbge Echeverria Tun, of the Third Chamber, keeps Free's case and decides to hold the 'Disappearance of Data" procedure on December 24th. (The fact that htis procedure would be held on such short notice was possbile to the personal interventions of the attorney-general of the state and the president of the Superior Court of Quintana Roo, ms. Lizbeth Loy Song, both of whom also spurned Free's lawyer to present the procedure forthwith.

December 18th
Free's lawyer presents demand for "Disappearance of Data."

December 21st
Ivan Ferrat mancera presents himself at the Chambers of judge Echeverria Tun to withdraw his 'pardon' of a week earlier, because it would entail that he'd be responsible for the cost of his hospitalization and could even result in criminal proceedings on the part of the insurance company.

December 24th
No merry Christmas for Free: Free has to remain in jail, since judge Victor Echeverria Tun refuses to accept the video and Free's witnesses as proof in his decision about the "Disappearance of Data " and also becasue Free's actions were premeditated, "because at the moment of the crime he acted with the complete knowledge of the illegality of his actions." (Informe Audiencia, page 20) (...tenia pleno conocimiento de lo illicito de su proceder); regarding the testimony of Free's friend Jacob the judge states that "no validity can be given this testimony, because he is a friend of the accused, therefor partial." (Informe Audiencia, page 34) (...se le niega valor probatorio, toda vez que.... dicho testigo es amigo del incoado, y por ende parcial.) (Nothing was mentioned about relationship with respect to Juan Adolfo Montiel Franco and Christian Ferrat Mancera, friend and brother of Ivan, who's declarations were summarily accepted by the judge; nor accepted the judge the testimonies of Cesar Marcelo Albarracin and Uriel David Caudillo Almaraz (both of whom worked in the bar Rush at the moment of the attack on Free), because "they are not trustworthy, because both of them declared that the accused had not hit Ivan." (Inorme Audiencia, page 41) (... los testigos son reticentes, ya que ambos refieren que el imputado de merito no golpeo al agraviado); the authenticity of the video has not been proved (...no se ha comprobado que la misma - el video - haya sido obtenida precisamente de las camaras de seguridad de la Plaza Peninsula), and finally that it is not clear beyond any doubt that the persons in the video are Free and Ivan, (...no se logra identificar la personalidad o fisionomia de los sujetos que intervienen) (Informe Audiencia, page 56)
What became clear beyond any doubt is that judge Echeverria and the Ferrats triumphed, and that the interventions of the attorney-general and the president of the highest court in the state to stop this mockery of justice, had been in vain

January 8th, 2010
A forensic psychiatric inquiry into the degree of Free's aggressivity, requested by the Ferrat family, has to be delayed because Free's lawyer, Gerardo Solis Barreto, doesn't show up. News Agency SIPSE, which has followed the case since the kidnapping of Free's mother Ana, is surprised over the radical change undergone by Ivan Ferrat Mancera, whose "semblance was different, ,,,,,he talked and made commentaries with his friends and his voice sounded completely normal. When he left court he walked normally and did not need any support to move", (Cuando salió del juzgado su caminar era normal y ya no necesitaba apoyarse para poder avanzar.) (These observations confirm the suspicions of Free's family that the lesions of Ivan had been exagerated in order to portray a much graver picture of his situation, This willl be reconfirmed on August 16, when Ivan refuses to undergo a tomographic test, requested by Free's lawyer, in order to get a clear picture of the lesions and the healing process.)

January 9th
After having been kidnapped for three days, Free's lawyer, Gerardo Solis Barreto is freed by his kidnappers who warned him to drop the case (...la defensa del joven holandes fue levantado y amenazado.)

January 13th
The crown's medical expert doctor Fernando Salgado Contreras, who reported on October 11, 2009 that he had encountered Ivan in a 'state of coma', is questioned by the defense. Lawyer Solis Barreto points out that the majority of lesions are internal and that "it is difficult for a doctor to diagnose a patient solely looking at him" (... es difícil que un médico saque un diagnóstico exacto a simple vista de ellas). Therefor he asked the doctor: "On what facts did you base your diagnosis?" The doctor answered that he "had used the medical report of the hospital to draw his conclusions about the lesions." Since the medical report doesn't mention 'a state of coma', Solis Barreto continues asking : "Why didn't you attach the medical report to your expert report?', the crown's expert answers "I didn't find that necessary."

January 14th
Judge Echeverria Tun visits the Plaza Peninsula, the nocturnal centre where Free was attacked.

January 15th
Jesus Almaguer, director of the Office for Visitors and Conventions - the local tourist office - publicly requests to make anende to the 'drunkard's dispute' because it dammages the image of Cancun. (....pleito de borrachos)

Fre's family accepts a request from the Ferrat brothers to sit down and look for a solution to the case. Free invites to that end Ivan Ferrat to visit him in his 'residence' in the Cancun jail. (invito a Ivan a visitarme en mi residencia en la Cárcel Municipal de Cancun).

January 19th
The Dutch honorary consul in Cancun, mrs Ingrid Bosman, accepts the Ferrat family request to be present during the dialogue (va a estar intercediendo, como parte medidora, el cónsul de Holanda) which should enable the two families to reach an agrrement.

January 21st
Free waits in vain for Ivan Ferrat Mancera's visit. His lawyer claims that he had not been informed of the visit, although a week earlier Free had sent him a letter through the consul as well as an invitation on the internet, asking him to "show him the courtesy to visit him and colaborate in this way to search for an acceptable arrangement for the two parties." (para de este modo dar inicio a un arreglo justo y aceptable a las dos partes).

February 6th
Fernando Lechuga Collin, the lawyer who represents Free's family in the negotiations with the Ferrats, replaces Gerardo Solis Barreto as Free's defender in the case iniciated against Free by Juan Adolfo Montiel and Ivan Ferrat Mancere and because of which Free has spend four months in jail so far.

March 7th
Negotations with the Ferrat family are broken off, since it became clear that these had only served as a purpose for Alain Ferrat Mancera, leader of the local greens, to make election arrangements with the ruling PRI party iwthout the constant scandal of Free's case (... la llegada a Cancún de un alto dirigente del PVEM, que busca establecer alianzas con el PRI).A vast amount of money was asked by the Ferrats to cover the medical expenses and future expenses, without anything concrete in exchange for Free. It became clear that the Ferrat family could care less about Free's liberation, but wanted instead to profit from his family's anxiety and fear (nada les importa la libertad de Free y que sólo quieren beneficiarse de su angustia y ansiedad por sacar a Free de la cárcel).

May 2nd
Alain Ferrat Mancera intends to reward Guillermo Andres Brahms Gonzalez, the lawyer who outlined the "case Free", and known as the man who took care of the shady dealings of the president of the green party, with a seat in parliament, "to protect him from an accusation of a fraud involving millions" (mano derecha y operador de algunos negocios poco claros del presidente del PVEM, Alain Ferrat Mancera).

May 9th
On this Mother's day a Mariachi ensemble brings an ode for Free's mother at the prison gates, an adaptation on the rithm of the popular song "El Rey": I know well that I'm in jail, But know also that you will wail, the day I come your way (your way, your way.) This bastard called my fate, abusing the law of the state, Therefor I have to stay. ("Yo sé bien que estoy adentro, pero el día que yo te encuentro, se que tendrás que llorar (llorar y llorar). Te conté que un malvado, abusó la ley del estado, por eso me tengo que quedar").

May 17th
Ana Villaplana, Free's mother, hands a letter intended for Mexican president Felipe Calceron, on a visit in her home town of Santillana del Mar (Spain), to the Mexican ambassador to Spain, asking for justice for her son.

Letter of the Mexican ambassador to Spain to the Mexican Council of the Judiciary (Consejo de la Judiciatura) to draw attention to the 'case Free' and ask for a fair application of the law.This letter will have little effect since Free's case is being heard by a stagte court, independent of the federal judicial instances.

June 4th
The manager of the Plaza Peninsula, the place where Free was attacked, testified in court on the authenticity of the video.

June 14th
A series of images of the attack on Free are presented to the court.

July 23th
Presentation of the expert report that establishes the identity of the persons captured by the video, coming to the conclusion that beyond any doubt it is possible to identify Free, his friend Jacob Willemsen and the wounded Ivan Ferrat Mancera

Presentation of the forensic report that establishes without any doubt the perjury of accuser Juan Adolfo Montiel and the three witnesses and also depicts Free as the victim of their conspiration.
Page 11, Forensic considerations (FC) point 1. With respect to the witness Juan Adolfo Montiel Franco who said that "we came in opposite direction and our shoulders touched"......while it can be clearly observed that the presently wounded (Ivan Ferrat, note redaction) and the person wearing a black shirt with short sleeves and jeans (Juan Adolfo Montiel, nr) proceed towards the presently accused person (Free, nr), by which proof is being given of the lack of veracity about the movement as refered by the witness (...mientras que claramente se aprecia que el hoy lesionado y el sujeto que portaba camisa negra lisa manga corta y pantalón de mezclillas se dirigen hacia el hoy procesado, comprobándose la falta de veracidad técnica en la maniobra referida por el testigo.)

Page 12, (FC) point 3. Moreover C(itizen) JUAN ADOLFO MONTIEL FRANCO tells us that "....the person wearing a white T-shirt with grey stripes (Free, nr) with a ring in his right eyebfrow, started to beat with his fists on my friend IVAN FERRAT MANCERA while he could not defend himself....;" movement that can not be proven through the frozen images taken from the video." (Además refiere el C. JUAN ADOLFO MONTIEL FRANCO que ".. la persona que vestía playera blanca con rayas grises y quien tenía un arete en Ia ceja derecha, empezó a golpear con los puños a mi amigo IVAN FERRAT MANCERA sin que este pudiera defenderse....;" Maniobra que no se comprueba a través de las imágenes congeladas tomadas del video.)

Pag 13, (FC) point 4. And it is also proven through the sworn statement of the accused C. FREE BRONKHORST which literally says: "Presents on his left shoulder a healing wound (scab) which measures approximately two and a half centimetres, of circular form, coffee colored, as also a scab in his left ear, half a centimetre long and 3 millimetres wide, and also as manifested by the accused, a scratch inside his ear and bruises on his neck", that he himself also presents signs of having been physically attacked with wounds caused by defense present in different parts of his body, shown not only through the images captured by the video of the plaza, but also through the presence of the mentioned wounds, that the presently accused is the person who undergoes in a first moment the ofensive movements of the presently wounded (Ivan Ferrat Mancera, nr) and of the person who wore a black shirt and jeans (Juan Adolfo Montiel, nr) (Comprobándo se además a través de la fe de lesiones que se hace del procesado C. FREE BRONKHORST que a la letra dice: " Presenta en su hombro izquierdo una herida cicatrizada (costra), que mide aproximadamente dos centímetros y medío Ia cual esde forma circular, de color café, a sí como también presenta una costra en su oreja izquierda de aproximadamente medio centímetro de largo por tres milímetros de ancho", a sí también el causado manifiesta, que en su orega izquierda en la parte del interior de su oído tenía una raspada y un hematoma en el cuello que el mismo presenta indicios de haber sido agredido físicamente con lesiones de defensa presentes en diversas partes de su cuerpo, demostrándose no sólo con las imágenes captadas por la videograbación de la plaza sino también con la presencia de dichas lesiones que el hoy procesado es el sujeto que recibe en primer momento las maniobras ofensivas por parte del hoy lesionado y del sujeto que vestía camisa negra lisa y pantalón de mezclilla).

Pag 13, (FC) point 6. C. JUAN ADOLFO MONTIEL FRANCO sustains moreover that "....what I did was trying to prevent that he would continue to beat him, but at the moment that I wanted to try to defend him, the other person of foreign origin wearing a black T-shirt with colorful print on it subdued me and started to hit me and I could not defend myself and was seeing how they beat my friend IVAN ...." and with respect to this declaration it is necessary to indicate that ....JACOB WILLEMSEN.....is caught by the person who subdues him, realizing brusque movements of projection with his two hands, pushing the gentleman identified as JACOB WILLEMSEN in the direction of a glass wall situated on the right hand side, subduing him and taking him towards the railing, taking him by his neck surrounding it with his arm, realizing movements to subdue and paralize him, observing moreover that the gentleman identified as JACOB WILLEMSEN realizes defensive movements of escape...., thus making it completely unlikely that the supposed offended JUAN ADOLFO MONTIEL FRANCO realizes any movement of defense. (Menciona además el C. JUAN ADOLFO MONTIEL FRANCO que ", . . .yo lo que hice fue tratar de evitar que Io siguiera golpeando, pero en ese momento en que yo iba a tratar de defenderlo, la otra persona de origen extranjero que traía playera negra con estampados de colores me suietó y me empezó a golpear y yo no podía defenderme por estar viendo como golpeaban a mi amigo IVAN. . . " y, en relación a esto, es preciso señalar que.....JACOB WILLEMSEN..... es alcanzado por el sujeto que lo somete realizando maniobras de proyección brusca con ambas manos, empujando al señor identificado como JACOB W ILLEMSEN hacia una pared de cristal que se encuentra del lado derecho, sometiéndolo y conduciéndolo hacia el barandal, tomándolo del cuello rodeándolo con su brazo realizándole maniobras de sujeción e inmovilización observándose además que el señor identificado como JACOB WILLEMSEN realiza maniobras de defensa de escape...,siendo entonces completamente improbable que el supuesto agraviado JUAN ADOLFO MONTIEL FRANCO realizara maniobra de defensa alguna.)

Page 15, (FC) point 11. When he (Juan Adolfo Montiel, nr) also indicates that "....some girls that were leaving the place, as other persons who also were witness to the facts", it is necessary to point out that in the frozen images of the video of the closed circuit of the place of the events, the presence of two persons with caracteristics belonging to the female gender can not be observed, making it unlikely that the forementioned persons were present in this place, witnessing and seeing the facts, as mistakenly sustains the offended (Juan Adolfo Montiel Franco, nr) (Así como también indica que ",....unas muchachas que se estaban retirando del lugar al igual que otras personas que también presenciaron los hechos", es preciso señalar que en las imágenes congeladas de la grabación del circuito cerrado del lugar de los hechos, no se aprecia la presencia de dos personas con características de ser del sexo femenino en el lugar de los hechos, por lo cual es improbable que dichas personas mencionadas se encontraran en el lugar presenciando y percatándose de los hechos como erróneamente lo refiere el agraviado.)

Page 16, (FC) point 15. In the same way did he (the first witness, RUBEN RAMON RODRIGUEZ, nr) refer to the fact that ".....then he threw him on the ground and continued to kick him in various parts of his body, head and face.....", and therefor it is important to mention that the wounds that presented IVAN FERRAT MANCERA, specifically the one that corresponds to the base of the cranium, according to the medical report is described as a fracture of the two mastoids, (processus mastoideus, nr), and appealing to the principle of forensic correspondence one can appreciate that the impact between the forementioned zone of the body of the offended (Ivan Ferrat Mancera, nr) and the border of the step present in that place, was a single impact in one single plane and direction, making it evident that there were not various impacts in the forementioned zone as mistakenly referred by said witness (RUBEN RAMON RODRIGUEZ, nr). In the same way: from the moevments described by the witness is it impossible to prove the supposed blows on different parts of the body proportioned by the presently accused. (Así mismo refirió que "...y luego lo tiró al piso y luego lo siguió golpeando a patadas en el piso en varias partes del cuerpo, cabeza, cara...", " es importante mencionar que de las lesiones que presentó IVAN FERRAT MANCERA, específicamente la que corresponde a la fractura de base de cráneo según el historial médico se describe como fractura de ambos mastoides, por lo que apelando al principio de correspondencia criminalística se aprecia que el impacto entre dicha zona del cuerpo del ofendido y el filo del escalón presente en el lugar fue un impacto único en un solo plano y sentido, evidenciándose que no existieron varios impactos en dicha zona como erróneamente lo refiere dicho testigo. Asímismo de las maniobras referidas por el mismo no se comprueban los supuestos golpes lanzados por el hoy procesado en diferentes partes del cuerpo.)

Page 16, (FC) point 16. The witness RUBEN RAMON RODRIGUEZ also sustains that "....also the other person of foreign origin who can be seen in the picture I showed, on the right hand side, and who wears a black T-shirt with coloured letters, beats also with his fists on JUAN ADOLFO MONTIEL FRANCO." It is important to mention that the movements referred to by the witness are not undertaken by the gentleman JACOB WILLEMSEN but to the contrary that he is the one who undergoes the aggression. (También refiere testigo RUBÉN RAMON RODRIGUEZ que "....también Ia otra persona de origen extranjero que está en Ia fotografia que exhibí y que está del lado derecho y quién viste una playera negra con letras de colores, también estaba golpeando con los puños a JUAN ADOLFO MONTIEL FRANCO." Es importante mencionar que la maniobra referida por el testigo no las realiza el señor JACOB WILLEMSEN sino por el contrario él es quien recibe la agresión.)

Page 17, (FC) point 17. In relation to the testimony of C. MILDRED GONZALEZ RUBIN, who sustains that "....two persons of foreign origin were beating up two other persons....of whom I know now that one of those persons is IVAN FERRAT MANCERA .....there was another person of foreign origin who was beating with his fists on the other person who was with Ivan ..." Movements that she describes in exactly the same manner as witness RUBEN RAMON RODRIGUEZ, and of which in the above mentioned considerations it was demonstrated that they are not based on the evidence of the real movements observed through the images taken from the video of the place (where the events took place, nr) and the indications encountered on the bodies of the present participants. (En relación a la "TESTIMONIAL DE LA C. MILDRED GONZALEZ RUBIN, quien refiere que "...rne percaté que dos personas de origen extranjero estaban golpeando a otras dos personas....una persona que ahora se responde al nombre de IVAN FERRAT MANCERA.... había otra persona de origen extranjero que también estaba golpeando con los puños a la otra persona que venía con lván...". Maniobras que describe exactamente como las referidas por el testigo RUBÉN RAMON RODRIGUEZ, mismas que como ya se demostraron en las anteriores consideraciones no se suscitan por la evidencia de las maniobras reales observadas a través de las imágenes extraídas de la videograbación del lugar y los indicios encontrados en los cuerpos de los hoy participantes.)

Page 17, (FC) point 18. Moreover does it become clear that based on the testimony of C. OTMARA CRUZ who sustains that "...I saw two persos of foreign origin beat up two other persons, nationals, ....there was another person of foreign origin who also beat with his fists on the other person who was with Ivan...." ....no person of the female gender was seen around (the fighting) and even if we would accept the presence of the witness in a nearby place, not caught by the video camera, ....the movements referred to by her do not exist, meaning that the person who accompanied the offended (Ivan Ferrat Mancera, nr) was beaten by the gentleman JACOB WILLEMSEN, because of the lack of indications that technically prove her declaration. (Además se precisa en base a la TESTIMONIAL DE LA C. OTMARA CRUZ que la misma refiere "'....me percaté, que dos personas extranjeras estaban golpeando a otras dos personas de origen nacional.....había otra persona de origen extranjero que también estaba golpeando con los puños a la otra persona que venía con lván...". ....no se aprecia alrededor de ellos persona alguna del sexo femenino y aun considerando la presencia en este preciso momento de la testigo en algún lugar cercano que no fuese captada por el video....es inexistente la maniobra referida en relación a que el sujeto que acompañaba al ofendido fue golpeado por el señor JACOB WILLEMSEN, por la carencia de indicios que comprueben técnicamente su dicho.)

Page 20, Conclusions, point 1. ....the person wearing a black shirt with short sleeves and jeans, as observed in the images from the video of the closed circuit television of the Plaza called Peninsula, is whom starts to realize offensive movements against the person identified as FREE BRONKHORST, presently accused. (....:el sujeto que viste camisa negra manga corta y pantalón de mezclilla observado en las imágenes extraídas del video de circuito cerrado de televisión de la Plaza denominada Península, es quién comienza a realizar maniobras ofensivas contra el sujeto identificado como FREE BRONKHORST hoy procesado.)

Page 21, Conclusions point 2. ....fight, defense and struggle, start the offensive and fight movements the person one can observe with a black shirt with short sleeves and jeans (Juan Adolfo Montiel, note redaction) and the person identified as the wounded (Ivan Ferrat Mancera, nr), against the person identified as FREE BRONKHORST, presently accused, who starts defensive movements with a flight, followed by defense and struggle and then starts movements of fight in order to stop the initial aggression he is exposed to... (....lucha, defensa y forcejeo, iniciando las maniobras ofensvas y de lucha el sujeto que se observa vestía camisa negra lisa de manga corta y pantalón de mezclilla y el sujeto identificado como el lesionado en contra del sujeto identificado como FREE B RONKHORST hoy procesado quien inicia las maniobras de defensa con mecanismo de huida y posterior defensa y forcejeo para posteriormente realizar maniobras de lucha contrarrestando la agresión primera a la que es sometido.)

Page 22, Conclusions point 3. Once Free has been able to get up the video lets us see how he throws his fists in the direction of someone who is not visible, but that he does so towards the upper parts of a body, and that when IVAN FERRAT MANCERA falls heavily backwards only moments later, this happens because of the fact that in his drunken-ness his reflexes have notably disminished..... "The facts demonstrate that the mecanism is accidental and not intencional on the part of the presently accused. " (el ofendido IVAN FERRAT MANCERA, se produce la caída de este último a nivel de su plano de sustentación y con la fuerza de su propio peso sin que exista maniobra de oposición, ya que como se da fe el hoy lesionado se encontraba bajo intoxicación etílica, lo que hace que disminuya notablemente sus reflejos y su pericia ante un mecanismo como el referido, cayendo hacia atrás golpeándose en la base de su cráneo contra cuerpo duro, .......Demostrándose fácticamente que el mecanismo es accidental y no intencional por parte del hoy procesado).

Page 22, Conclusions point 5. "...that no wounds exist divers from the ones described on different parts of the body of the presently offended that prove that he suffered multiple wounds, product of movements like punches and/or kicks on his whole body, because if these movements as described by the crown's witness would have been produced, than the offended IVAN FERRAT MANCERA would present on his whole body multiple wounds and bruises that would determine and demonstrate the production of such movements". (... que no existen lesiones diversas a las descritas en diferentes partes del cuerpo del hoy ofendido que acrediten que el mismo fue poli-contundido producto de maniobras como golpes y/o patadas en todo su cuerpo, ya que si se hubieran producido las maniobras descritas por el testigo de cargo, el ofendido IVAN FERRAT MANCERA presentaría en todo su cuerpo múltiples equimosis hematomas y excoriaciones que determinarían y demostrarían la producción de dichas maniobras.)

July 27th
"Careo", or confrontation between Free and his accuser Juan Adolfo Montiel Franco. In this 'careo' Free gets the possibility to question his accusers, without the intervention of the mutual lawyers. Juan Adolfo repeats systematically all his lies about how Free attacked Ivan, hit him with his fists and kicked him with his feet once Ivan had fallen on the ground. He denies furthermore vehemently that he would have had a dispute with Free inside the Clasico prior to the fight in the hall (page 3) (no tuve ningun tipo de altercado con nadie dentro del Clasico). When Free wants to question him about the video - which can be seen online, is being commented on by the Ferrats on their site FreeingFree.com, and has been mentiones since December 2009 untold times in the local press - Juan Adolfo answers that he has heard that a video exists but that he has not seen it (page 7) and is not able to tetify to its authenticity (He escuchado que hay un video, pero no se si sea de la pelea o no).

"Careo" between Free and witness Rubin Ramon Rodriguez. This gentleman aan zijn ealso maintians his declarations of October 2009. When Free asks him if he has seen the video - which shows a completely different version of the facts than the one the witnesses have given - Ruben also answers in the negative. Then Free asks him how that is possible, since he has been informed that all the personnel working in the Plaza Peninsula have been shown the video. To which Ruben answers that since eleven months he doesn't live in Cancun anymore (page 12) (no vivo en Cancun desde hace aproximadamente 11 meses) and that for that reason he hasn't seen the video. Free then observes that the fight was only nine months ago and that he, Ruben, at that ime still lived in Cancun.

"Careo" between Free and witness Otmara Cruz Cardona. She answers a host of questions Free puts to her, about the position of Ivan at the moment Free was supposed to have hit him, where he hit him, and how, with an 'I don't know', but doesn't contradict herself. When Free asks her if she's seen the video she answers "No, I haven't seen a fight (page 20), I know that a viedo exists, but it dpoesn't interest me that much and I don't have time to waste on the case (no, no he visto ninguna pelea).

The third witness, Mildred Gonzalez Rubin, didn't show up and will be heard at a later date.

September 3d
Dr. Claudia Veronica Rosas Salas presents two tomograms of Ivan Ferrat Mancera.
The first one contains images of the facial skeleton, in which can be observed a fracture, not recent, of the bones of the nose, on the right hand side. The nose (nasal pyramid) has deviated about 3mm to the right, but the nasal cavities are seen to be permeable and without obstruction. There are neither traces of fractures in the other facial bones, nor bone calluses that suggest old fractures. Also not observed are fractures or old lesions of the base of the skull. The mastoid cells on both sides of the skull don’t present surgical material on their walls, nor images of old fractures. The doctor comes to the following conclusions:
- A not recent fracture of the nose bones of the right side.
- Deviation of the nasal pyramid to the right of the median line
- In particular is there no evidence of fractures, or postsurgical changes or bone calluses that would suggest traumatic lesions in the bones that form the facial skeleton, jaw, the orbital bones, the mastoid process, the sella turcica (Turkish saddle at the base of the skull), or the base of the skull.
The second tomogram shows images of the skull and its contents.Can be observed adequate differentiation between grey and white substances, without evidence of acute intra-axial (within the brain tissue) lesions or as a consequence of former events. There are no extra-axial (inside of the skull but outside of the brain tissue) collections that suggest haemorrhages or bruises. The petro mastoid (pertaining to the petrous and mastoid parts of the temporal bone) regions, Turkish saddle, orbital bones (eye sockets) and their contents and cranio-vertebral junction conserve their characteristic anatomies, without their being any evidence of traumatic lesions, recently or formerly. The conclusions are clear and short:
- Study within the normal limits. In particular, there are not observed any recent or former traumatic lesions within the brain or in the rest of the structures of the cranial vault.

September 28th
Forensic physician Freddy Romero ratifies his observations in court. They are the following:
- The declarations of the accusers and their witnesses contradict the initial medical reports, which didn't mention any lesions or bruises on Ivan Ferrat's body, but should have been there if Free, according to the witnesses, would have kicked his body from all sides; neither is it possible that Free beat the unconscience Ivan's head repeatedly against a concrete floor, as all the witnesses had declared in unison, since this would have severely bruised his head, and would most probably have resulted in a cervical (neck) sprain, neither of which were reported;

- the medical reports of fractures of the base of the skull, fracture of the jaw with a cranio-facial disjunction (Lefort III), occipitalparietal fracture and the fracture of both mastoids are not corroborated by the tomograms taken earlier that month and which do not indicate any recent or earlier traumatic lesions, which would have shown in bony callusses in the affected areas; moreover, in the case of the fracture of the upper jaw and the disjunction of the face from the skull, none of the required surgery for such fractures was ever performed;

- about the findings of the prosecution's forensic physician doctor Fernando Salgado Contreras, the ones that gave the judge the arguments to whisk Free off to jail, doctor Freddy Romero has this to say:
- the wound of the eyebrow must have been superficial because no scar could be found:
- the suture between the parietal and occipital bones must have been mistakenly identified by doctor Salgado as fractures;
- regarding the fracture of both mastoids, also not supported by the 03/09/10 tomogram, in case such fractures would have existed, they would have shown up in lesions and/or bruises of the ear;
- there is no reason to accept the pneumocranium (presence of air between the skull and the outer membrane of the brain), as mentioned by doctor Salgado, since there were no fractures or lesions of the bones of the skull to cause such phenomenon;
- the bilateral otorragia (bleeding of the ears) as a result of fractures of the mastoids or the dijunction of the face from the skull was probably caused by teh blood running from the broken nose into the ears, as the patient was laying on his back;
- contrary to doctor Salgado's conclusions - which stated that the lesions will take more than 15 days to heal, will leave a permanent scar on the right eyebrow, put the patients life at risk, reduce the cerebral, respiratory, motor and mastication funcions, and incapacitate to work for longer than 1 year - doctor Romero concludes that the mentioned lesions will heal within 15 days, left no scar on the eyebrow, left no visible negative after effects on any of the afore mentioned functions, do not indicate at all that the patient wouldn't be able to work, certainly not for more than a year, and that there were no indications as to danger to the patients life; moreover, doctor Salgado made his conclusions prematurely, since he should have waited for an evaluation report of the patient before reaching his farfechted conculions;

- with respect to the declarations of ivan Ferrat Mancera about not being able to remeber anything about the fight, the forensic physician notes that theraren't any organic damages that would justify such loss of memory;
- that Mr. Ferrat's declarations about his loss of smell, taste and hearing capacities as a fresult from the fight are not caused by any organic damage, since none of it shows up after examination; that the vitamines he says to be taking to combat his loss of smell and taste are not the indicated medecine to treat this kind of ailment;
- that the Ibuprofen anti-inflamatory he says to be taking to combat the incapacitating migraine he claims to be suffering from as a result of the terrible beating inflicted on him by Free, are not the indicated medecine for this ailment, and
- that of the 4 scars he claims to have gotten as a result of Free's beatings, 3 don't show and the fourth, a 2 cm scar between the eyes - for which no lesion was reported at the time of his hospitalization - most probably resulted from an earlier occasion.

Decembre 7th
Dutch ambassador to Mexico, Ms Cora Minderhoud, visits Free in the municipal jail of Cancun, in a clear show of support for his struggle for justice.