Replies

The reports do not show the case is wrong. The reports show that the two were guilty of crimes, and that they denied it.

Reports of course are simply the collection of information about the events. They are not evidence. They can report about evidence.

Without the transcripts, we are a bit in the dark. With the transcripts we still won't be sure of things, but at least will know what people were willing to say under oath.

But since people can lie under oath, and since there is very little "physical evidence" at question, I suppose that nothing will dissuade those who are certain their is a vast conspiracy to sell our country to mexico.

What's really interesting about the debate is the subtle shifts. Let me explain.

Ramos and Compean of course know the truth. They are central to the entire story. They are the ones who shot, they are the ones who did or did not file reports, tell their supervisor, etc. They were at the trial and heard all the testimony. They were in all of the hearings, all of the investigative interviews involving themselves.

There is very little about this case that they should not have known completely by the time the trial ended.

So, if there is nothing to hide, and the two agents are interested in the truth, you would expect that, within days of the end of the trial, you would have had a complete story refuting their guilt. That story would have included how the bullet wasn't Ramos's, how the testimony of the medical examiner supported thier story, how the supervisor WAS briefed, how they never said the guy wasn't armed, etc.

But instead, what we see is "new" stories coming out each day. They are "new" because WND says they are new, and they are based on "new evidence" which are "DHS memos". But the memos are nothing more than the recordation of interviews and testimony given by the two defendants. Which means the defendants already KNEW all of this -- it's not new at all. Which means Corsi could have already known all this, if he just interviewed them. And they should have already told this to their lawyers, and to the congressman backing them, and to the reporters shilling for them.

So why all the "new" stories that tell us "new" things?

Well, last week there was NO INDICATION that these guys had told their supervisors. In fact, go look at the threads, it was all about how they didn't HAVE to tell their supervisors because the supervisors already KNEW about it, or how they weren't supposed to file reports, etc. etc.

This is the words coming from the camp which Ramos and Compean are a part of. Compean would have known at the time that he had talked to the supervisor if it was true, so why push a story that you didn't talk to the supervisor because you didn't have to?

What REALLY seems to be happening is that they release a story, and see how it fares. If people shoot it down because of some part they don't accept, you then put a NEW story out without that part. So apparently the "supervisors already knew" story wasn't working for them, and now we have a "he told the supervisors".

Just like we had the "Ramos didn't hit the guy", but that wasn't helping so then we had the "bullet from Ramos's gun proves guy was turning around", which of course presupposes Ramos DID hit the guy.

This whole thing looks like a classic political ploy of floating trial balloons to see what people will accept and what they won't. When they finally have a half-credible story, we will see it on the front page of the New York Times. Until then, they use WND which nobody reads and nobody believes.