Smuggler shot by agentsbusted for 2nd drug load ( Ramos and Compean smuggler )

World Net Daily ^ | November 15 2997 | Jerome Corsi

[dennisw]

You summed it all up. Johnny Sutton looks like the criminal. A white collar criminal who screws the BP angsts out in the field to advance his career and twisted ego

Johnny Sutton is a fast talker and a very good liar. He had me half fooled when I saw him on Glenn Beck’s TV show

[CharlesWayneCT]

I thought that was part of the public record, and I thought I saw people complaining that he had gotten off easy, and they thought it was to keep him quiet about Davila.

If that wasn’t ever expressed, I apologize. It’s what I remember from when the indictment came down.

As to the “continued success of an operation”, I don’t think any of us has the information necessary to judge that. We get bits and pieces, and obviously to those who already think Sutton is crooked they interpret what we know in a bad light.

But if you are trying to put together a REAL bust, one that actually catches those responsible for the trade, you often have to let the trade continue while you collect information. Busting a 2-bit smuggler and the guy who stashes the dope wouldn’t stop ANYTHING. drug mules are a dime a dozen, as are places to stash your drugs.

We may never know what other drug busts were related to this operation. But I am certain of one thing that most here are NOT — if it was so “obvious” that Sutton was crooked, he’d be in jail, not still be the guy in charge.

You have to buy into the entire crooked country supporting drug smuggling to sell out our nation to the Mexicans in order to believe based on the existing evidence that Sutton is openly and notoriously supporting criminal activity from his office.

And like most conspiracies, if you have enough of them, at some point one will turn out to be true. And if Sutton ends up in jail, I’ll have to admit I was wrong about this one too. But I don’t mind being “wrong” about not jumping to conclusions based on flimsy evidence, even if the conclusion turns out to be correct.

I can guess the answers on a true-false test, but it doesn’t prove anything. As a test-taking strategy it’s a good idea in the end, but when you are talking about destroying people’s lives, taking their employment, trashing their character, I see no need to participate.

Even in the Ramos/Compean affair, I didn’t start until the verdict. And if they were released, I’d be OK with that, although in my opinion they won’t be. I don’t know that they are guilty, but I think a guilty verdict was RATIONAL, and therefore don’t see it as proof of corruption or jury tampering or nefarious conduct.

I don’t know how I would have voted if I had been a jury and heard all the evidence, but my review of the transcripts did not make me think they should have been released.

I think people in general these days are too quick to believe bad things about others. Richard Jewel was just a guy in the wrong place, and his life was nearly ruined because people believed without proof.

I would think as conservatives seeing our heroes trashed daily, and seeing how easy it is to get the masses to believe they are evil, would ourselves be more circumspect.

Anyway, I again want to say that I was wrong before when I concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to indict the drug smuggler, and I’m happy he has been indicted, and don’t think bringing him to justice is a bad thing for Sutton to do, or a bad thing for Sutton that he’s doing it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

As I’ve said, if they have been found innocent I would have been fine. I wasn’t pushing for their prosecution, my involvement has been mostly to defend the process.

Any criminal case involves a prosecuter who has decided the person is guilty (because prosecuters don’t BRING cases if they are not convinced of guilt). And every jury is confronted with the United States Government telling them the person is guilty, and how they react is really based on their opinion of the government, but yes often that is a bias against a defendant that the defendant must overcome.

Any time there are two people involved you must decide which, if either, are telling the truth. Davila is a drug smuggler, so he is naturally suspect (although in this case he wouldn’t be lying to stay out of jail). Compean was a person charged with an illegal shooting, and he told differing stories from time to time, and stories that differed in other parts from what other agents said happened. That hurt him both with the prosecuter and with the jury in my opinion.

I know nobody wants to see this from Sutton’s point of view, and I think in general people have lost the ability to look at things from differing perspectives. If you actually believed that two agents shot at an unarmed suspect just because they were mad at him, or for fun, you WOULDN’T believe them, and you would make that clear to the jury.

Think about if you are responsible for prosecuting at the border, and things are pretty quiet, you’ve gotten a report that a drug smuggler somehow got past two armed BP agents without a shot being fired, you’ve seized the drugs but the two can’t give you a description of the perpetrator or pick him out of any pictures you have.

Then, INDPENDENTLY, you get word that the same drug smuggler was in fact SHOT by those two agents, the ones who couldn’t identify the smuggler.

I can see where that would make Sutton mad. If they were ordinary citizens, that’s one of those CSI moments where you haul them back in and say “did you leave anything out of your story”.

Here’s a drug smuggler you’d like to have in jail, and he’s not, and the two agents who didn’t catch him failed to mention that they SHOT the guy? I think if that’s all you know that’s got to raise BIG RED FLAGS.

Now, maybe Sutton should have, as he investigated further, decided that this was not a big deal, maybe he should have believed their new story, understood that not reporting the shooting had nothing to do with them not having a reason to do so.

But remember, when they are interviewed, they both say they thought the saw a gun.

Oops. So now you, the prosecuter, find out that not only did the smuggler get away, and not only did the agents fail to mention they shot him, but they failed to tell you or anybody else that the guy was armed.

You also find out that one or more people scrubbed the crime scene of evidence (the shells). So it’s reasonable to ASSUME the two agents were actively trying to cover up the shooting.

Of course, the agents DENY this, and you could believe them, but if they aren’t trying to cover it up, why didn’t they mention this before you heard it from other sources? That’s what the rules say.

Maybe nobody follows the rules, maybe it’s no big deal, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for an honest prosecuter to decide he has two agents who committed a crime. And when he finds others lying to cover it up as well (remember several other agents only changed their story when granted immunity), I guess you could decide they were telling the TRUTH before immunity and lying later, but it seems more likely that the agents were covering for one another.

Sutton could be wrong. The guys COULD be innocent, Davila COULD have had a gun, they COULD have thought others KNEW they had shot, they could have thought the rules weren’t all that important.

But we aren’t arguing possibilities. The argument I’ve been fighting against is the presumption that Sutton’s actions were irrational, unexplainable, evil, and indicative that he was in bed with drug dealers.

When I see the evidence through HIS point of view, I can see him doing exactly what he did.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Let me ask you some questions. If you were Ramos or Compean, do you think you should be prosecuted and sent to prison and seperated from your family as the way to get you out of the way of an ongoing investigation?

No, but I don't think that is why they were prosecuted. I don't even know that Davila was PART of an ongoing investigation at the time -- the facts that we have been provided give NO evidence of that, and instead suggest that Sutton first learned of Davila AFTER the shooting when his family reported through other agents about the shooting.

I think they were prosecuted because the prosecuter thinks LEO have to live up to a higher standard, thinks that the rules are not suggestions, and believes that they were in fact guilty of a bad shooting and a coverup. And I think the evidence certainly supports that BELIEF (meaning there is plenty of evidence to make that belief reasonable).

Many disagree with me, but I'll say that if the belief was completely UNREASONABLE, the jury wouldn't have found guilt. There is a large gap between a reasonable suspicion and guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But a prosecuter starts based on reasonable suspicion, the jury FOUND beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they were wrong at LEAST that shoes the suspicion was reasonable.

NO LEO should go to jail in order to protect an investigation. I don't think that happened here.

[bmwcyle]

You missed Sutton’s actions were egotistical. That was the problem. It was a case of Sutton being very good at taking the law and beating two men over the head with it. You could try and justify Sutton’s actions all you want. It is reasonable for us to think his actions were not necessary. The letter of the law is not alway justice.

[CharlesWayneCT]

We have no evidence before us of that. We know of two loads. One he admitted to, one the government now believes it has enough evidence to try him for. Maybe there are others they have evidence for. The report didn’t say he had been CAUGHT with other drugs.

I do think this gives more credence to the notion (already iffy at best) that the shooting was the first time he had ever transported drugs. To Sutton that wouldn’t matter, as the two agents had no knowledge of who the guy was and were not acting based on evidence the guy was a known drug smuggler.

The issue of the 2nd load was brought up at trial, and the trial judge ruled that it was not germane. IF she was wrong, the appeals court will rule so. I don’t think her argument was wrong, but I’m not a judge, and if the appeals court says she was wrong I won’t have a problem with that.

I’ve pretty much been defending the process here.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I’m still hoping he will commute their sentences if the appeals process doesn’t work out for them.

On the other hand, this WAS a criminal prosecution. Libby’s was a political prosecution.

[dennisw]

But we aren’t arguing possibilities. The argument I’ve been fighting against is the presumption that Sutton’s actions were irrational, unexplainable, evil, and indicative that he was in bed with drug dealers.

You're too smart for your own good. 
Sutton is the criminal here not Ramos and Compean

Sutton is evil. He jammed Ramos and Compean for personal glory and future job promotions. Sutton is out of control like Nifong. This isn't the end, more Sutton damning material will be rolling in. Before this is over even you'll be admitting what a stinking mess Johnny Sutton created. And quite possibly at the initiative of the Mexican consulate which might have demanded this POS prosecution of two US Border Agents

[Perchant]

The El Paso Times is reporting “Aldrete’s first court appearance will be tomorrow.”

And he has Judge Mesa. Mesa and Cardone are in Sutton's pocket. Every matter involving this cover up has gone to Cardone or Mesa. Obviously they wouldn't dare give this Davila indictment to Cardone so Mesa got it. There are several other federal judges in El Paso.

Mesa is the son of illegal aliens and advocates for them with his rulings. Mesa authorized the arrests of Ramos and Compean based on controversial ballistics analysis. Chris Sanchez knew to go to Mesa to get the authorization.

The expectation should be that Davila can't be tried in El Paso because of all the publicity surrounding this entire matter. Advocates for Ramos and Compean should be demanding a change of venue, and taking the matter out of Sutton's hands, based on that perception and for other obvious reasons.

Obviously, Davila's drug trafficking history and his lying to help convict border agents actually favors Davila with the El Paso jury pool but Sutton can't make that argument and the venue must be changed based on the opposite presumption. That is, "Davila can't get a fair trial in El Paso".

[CharlesWayneCT]

I disagree, but won’t argue this further with you.

[bmwcyle]

Romans 3:18-20 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society 18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[a] 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Johnny Sutton is not righteous in his exercise of the law. Only God can judge that. Also only God knows what was in the hearts of the intent of the two men in jail. If their mission that day was righteous, God will forgive them.

They were given the job to protect this country against illegal entry and drug smuggling. There was an illegal entry and a history of illegal drugs. A law ties their hands to protect our country and their own lives. Johnnie Sutton has to work in an office with armed guards and metal detectors. I see no righteousness in Johnny. Johnny is a mortal man making judgments on men who exist in a live and death situation Johnny only watches on TV.

[calcowgirl]

And he has Judge Mesa. Mesa and Cardone are in Sutton's pocket.

I remember Mesa. I also remember discovering that the affidavit filed by C.Sanchez in support of the complaint and subsequent warrants had to be false in that all the evidence had not been collected that would support the contentions in the complaint.

The expectation should be that Davila can't be tried in El Paso because of all the publicity surrounding this entire matter. Advocates for Ramos and Compean should be demanding a change of venue, and taking the matter out of Sutton's hands, based on that perception and for other obvious reasons. Obviously, Davila's drug trafficking history and his lying to help convict border agents actually favors Davila with the El Paso jury pool but Sutton can't make that argument and the venue must be changed based on the opposite presumption. That is, "Davila can't get a fair trial in El Paso".

Hmmmm... somebody needs to support the "Citizens for Justice for Aldrete-Davila" and petition for a change of venue. "Justice" in this case means moving the trial to Nebraska!

[calcowgirl]

I’ve pretty much been defending the process here.

You have been justifying Sutton's thuggery tactics. That is not "due process," it is criminal (IMO).

[KC_Conspirator]

Sutton should be arrested and have his assets seized.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>I’m still hoping he will commute their sentences if the appeals process doesn’t work out for them.<<

Thanks, but I’m not holding my breath.

>>On the other hand, this WAS a criminal prosecution. Libby’s was a political prosecution.<<

Well, one could say that The Nifong Duke case was criminal rather than political, but I would disagree with that.

I remember high ranking officials in DHS lying to congress under oath to smear R&C. True, that occurred after the verdict, but it indicates to me that something is rotten in DHS. And Sutton went around making public statements that R&C were “dirty,” but I believe (if OAD was really unarmed) Ramos just made a mistake. Not political?

Also, how much influence did the Mexican government have on Sutton? He claims none, but frankly I do not trust him. The Bush administration is really eager to do favors for Mexico.

Sutton: “The way we found him is that he came forward and was in Mexico with a lawyer. So, the only way to get him to testify was to give him immunity from being prosecuted. He wasn’t going to agree to come to the United States, he wasn’t going to agree to talk, unless he had some kind of immunity from being prosecuted for that load. So, that puts the prosecutor in the terrible choice of everyone goes free, we got no case against the dope dealer, we cannot make a case against the dope dealer because there’s no evidence, thanks to agents and other factors.”

Then OAD was provided a green card, OAD was free to smuggle again, and as you know, the “gentleman” at the drug safe house fingered OAD. Finally the feds busted OAD, and now Sutton says in effect “See? I said I would bust OAD if I could.” I hope our government will be more careful in the future about giving admitted smugglers green cards.

R&C’s behavior after the shooting convinced you that they were guilty. I see Sutton’s actions and statements as highly suspicious.

[CharlesWayneCT]

That is your opinion, one that I do not believe is supported by the facts as we know them. But you are entitled to your opinion, and you were correct about Davila being involved in the 2nd drug smuggling incident, even though I did not believe we had enough evidence at the time to state that as fact (in part because I felt that if there was enough evidence, I trusted Sutton to prosecute — which appears to be the case).

[CharlesWayneCT]

My opinion is that they made false claims but did not lie, because they thought they were making valid claims. Still incompetent, but not willful. Again though, I only conclude that because I attribute the least nefarious motive consistent with the facts as we know them.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think it’s reasonable to fault Sutton for trusting a drug smuggler, especially given the resulting criminal activity. They could have obtained his testimony under much more controlled circumstances (for example, by escorting him rather than giving him unescorted access).

On the other hand, without that card we may never have gotten a chance to bust him.

[dennisw]

I disagree, but won’t argue this further with you.

Smart move because this is just the beginning for Johnny Sutton's bad news. The guy is an evil conniving bastard and will be going down. You yap about defending "the process"---Johnny Sutton was and is the process down there and he totally f'ed up. So keep shilling for him at your own peril

[Mad Dawg]

In haste, but it seems to me that the record shows that the defense was not allowed to impeach Davila. So any argument based on the reasonableness of the jury needs to take into account the quality of the evidence the jury was allowed to see or hear.

The presentation of poor stressed out Davila who, having lost his CDL took up a smuggling job on a one-time only basis to help out his poor ailing mother is considerably less useful to impeaching him than a presentation which acknowledges that he is suspected of a deeper involvement in the trade. If the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, then it seems to me proper to allow the defense to adduce that a major witness for the prosecution may be making a living from crimes of moral turpitude which might incline him to be less than truthful when giving an account of an encounter with the law.

As to the cover-up. I commend to you the work of the Force Science Research Center which does excellent work on what really happens in a gun fight and other work which discusses what LEO's (as distinct from military people) go through and are likely to do after a deadly force encounter.

I have been invited recently to return to my work in LE, and I have to say that a few cases like this one and that of an officer who made the mistake of responding angrily when he was shot at (Perp shoots at officer, kills K-9. Officer shoots perp - spinal cord injury. Perp narcissistically asks, "Why'd you shoot me?" Officer replies, "Why'd you shoot my dog?" This is adduced as evidence against him in a civil trial!) makes me think that nobody with a family or any assets should go into law enforcement.