Replies

I think Sutton said he didn't use ANY investigation papers in the trial, only actual testimony. If a person testified at trial to something under oath, it won't matter that they don't have the notes of the original meeting where they found the information.

If the notes were introduced in the trial, then they would matter, but they would then be exhibits and would be on file at the court, so I don't think that's the issue.

If someone testified at trial that they overheard the men say something, it really doesn't matter if the notes the DHS had where the man told DHS about it are still around.

That's why I said it's a "PR" problem, because the promise of notes seems to be related to the post-trial political battle, not the trial itself. The actual appeal of the case is decided in the court system, not the court of public opinion -- at least that's what the conservative view has been in the past.

He also convinced the judge not to put a DEA witness on the stand, who had possibly exculpatory evidence, because he (the DEA Agent) had been involved in a prior, October 2005) drug seizure of -- ta da -- Aldrete-Davila -- and since it was an "ongoing investigation" sealed.

It was determined that this would compromise Aldrets-Davila's integrity at the trial against the two BP agents. In addition another wittness involved in both cases was not allowed to testify because of the October 2005 case.

You also ignore that the HLS agent Sanchez took Davila to have the bullet removed and then took Davila to his home for the night ALONG WITH THE BULLET fragment, therefore breaking the chain of evidence.....

Last, you ignore the evidence that the path of the bullet actually bore out the story of both agents that he was running away from them and pointing a gun at them at the same time...

He also convinced the judge not to put a DEA witness on the stand, who had possibly exculpatory evidence, because he (the DEA Agent) had been involved in a prior, October 2005) drug seizure of -- ta da -- Aldrete-Davila -- and since it was an "ongoing investigation" sealed.

It was determined that this would compromise Aldrets-Davila's integrity at the trial against the two BP agents. In addition another wittness involved in both cases was not allowed to testify because of the October 2005 case.

You also ignore that the HLS agent Sanchez took Davila to have the bullet removed and then took Davila to his home for the night ALONG WITH THE BULLET fragment, therefore breaking the chain of evidence.....

Last, you ignore the evidence that the path of the bullet actually bore out the story of both agents that he was running away from them and pointing a gun at them at the same time...

Uh humm. Paperwork is the linchpin of government process. If there was testimony, there will be paperwork to validate it, or the process behind it.

No, it matters much to the indictment and conviction of these agents, and such sloppy prosecution and appearance of agenda on the part thereof is troubling.

You don't appear troubled, but then perhaps you would like to see the border loosened more that it already is.

Many are in favor of open borders that don't speak of their bias, knowing that its the destruction of our nation in progress, but the revenue they get, directly or indirectly, darkens their hearts and blinds their eyes.