Posted on 02/12/2007 1:35:42 AM PST by Man50D
The Border Patrol agent with family ties to the Mexican drug smuggler in the case of two jailed border agents may have been involved in back-channel communications with Mexican drug cartels, investigative reports obtained by WND suggest, prompting calls for a special prosecutor to look into the charges.
"We now know that DHS and prosecutor U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton found [smuggler Osbaldo] Aldrete-Davila because the mother-in-law of Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez talked with Aldrete-Davila's mother on the phone," Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Friends of the Border Patrol, told WND. "How many other conversations in Mexico did Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez have and what was the purpose of those conversations?"
An investigative report filed by Department of Homeland Security Special Agent Christopher Sanchez on July 18, 2005, stated that on July 11, 2005, the DHS Office of Inspector General in El Paso spoke to Agent Rene Sanchez in the Wilcox, Ariz., BP Station, concerning a telephone call Sanchez made to Border Patrol Agent Nolan Blanchett in the Ysleta BP Station in Texas.
At the time of the phone call, Blanchett was temporarily assigned to the Fabens BP Station, the scene of the Feb. 17, 2005, incident with Aldrete-Davila that led to the imprisonment of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.
According to the July 18, 2005, DHS memorandum of activity:
(Rene) Sanchez stated that he called Blanchett one or two days after he spoke to DHS OIG on March 5, 2005. Sanchez said he asked Blanchett if he knew anything about a shooting that occurred on February 17, 2005 involving a van loaded with dope in which BP agents shot at the driver. Sanchez said Blanchett told him he knew nothing about the shooting.
A separate March 14, 2005, DHS memorandum of activity filed by Christopher Sanchez, documents that agent Rene Sanchez "queried the Border Patrol Tracking System and found that the Fabens Border Patrol Station seized a load of marijuana on February 17, 2005."
These reports drew the suspicion of Ramirez.
"Why is this Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez over in Wilcox, Arizona, so interested in searching out this drug bust information in Fabens, Texas?" Ramirez asked WND. "Sure, we know that Aldrete-Davila and Rene Sanchez grew up together in Mexico. But how much more to the story is there than that?"
WND has learned that prosecutor Sutton's office took steps to prevent Agent Nolan Blanchett from testifying in open court, claiming that Blanchett's testimony would compromise an ongoing investigation.
WND has also learned that Blanchett had received phone calls from BP Agent Rene Sanchez tipping Blanchett off that a sensor hit was about to take place on the border, giving advance warning that a drug-smuggling transport across the border was going to take place. Knowing in advance the when and where of a sensor hit on the border would allow a Border Patrol agent to be in position to interdict the drug shipment and arrest the smuggler.
"How do we know that Agent Rene Sanchez wasn't working with Aldrete-Davila's drug cartel?" Ramirez asked. "Calling Blanchett in advance and letting him know where to interdict a drug shipment might be a good way to eliminate the competition of Aldrete-Davila or whomever he is linked to."
At the Ramos-Compean trial, the defense was not allowed to call Border Patrol Blanchett to the stand for testimony.
"The connection is a little bit too convenient," Ramirez pointed out to WND. "Here we have this Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez over in Wilcox, Ariz., and the only way DHS and Johnny Sutton's office find out that Aldrete-Davila was the drug smuggler is because Rene Sanchez tips them off. Then Aldrete-Davila gets immunity and medical care from the prosecutor. Just how closely was Rene Sanchez working with the drug smuggler and what did Rene Sanchez stand to gain when Aldrete-Davila got immunity?"
WND has previously reported Aldrete-Davila's cell phone was found in the abandoned vehicle. This directly contradicts prosecutor Sutton's repeated claim that there was no evidence at the scene, which would have permitted law-enforcement investigators to identify Aldrete-Davila as the perpetrator.
"Where is Aldrete-Davila's telephone?" Ramirez asked WND. "I wonder if Rene Sanchez's phone number was one of the numbers in that phone's memory, or maybe others of higher ranks inside U.S. government agencies or bodies. But then again, what if this guy is a runner for the Tucson Mafia and I am not referring to people of European ancestry either. Why is it that even today nobody knows what network of people Aldrete-Davila called? Why isn't Johnny Sutton going after the drug dealer's network? He gave Davila immunity, not the people Davila liked to call."
WND has obtained the transcripts from the Ramos-Compean trial for the testimony given by Border Patrol Agent Arturo Vasquez on Feb. 24, 2006, and by Agent Oscar Juarez on Feb. 23 and 24, 2006. Both agents gave testimony about the drug dealer's cell phone they found on the scene on Feb. 17, 2005.
Vasquez testified he found the phone in the front seat of the abandoned drug smuggler's Ford Econoline van, with a charging device plugged into the cigarette lighter.
In cross-examination by defense, Vasquez testified about the cell phone as follows:
Q: While you're looking at the phone, you're scrolling through whatever information you can find? A: Yes.
Q: Did you notice whether or not any of the calls are recent?
A: I didn't have the chance to find what I was looking for. I didn't have enough time to get into some of the directory, the actual directory where you can get that information from. Because, while we were going that (Supervisor) Agent (Jonathan) Richards and Lance (Mendrano) got to the area and I had to hand the phone over to Agent Mendrano.
Q: I thought your testimony, though, was tat was, pretty much, all you do is check out the phone.
A: Yes, but I didn't get to the part where I could actually see times and all that.
At this point, prosecutor Debra Kanof interrupted and objected that the testimony was not relevant to the guilt or innocence of Ramos and Compean. Judge Kathleen Cardone agreed, commenting, "It's late on a Friday ... ."
Judge Cardone ruled out cross-examination about the cell phone, stating: "Mr. Aldrete-Davila is not on trial. And everybody knows he's got a phone and everybody knows he was transporting the drugs, but, unless we're getting somewhere that's got to do with this case, I'm concerned we're going of ... ." At that point, Judge Cardone was interrupted once again by Debra Kanof.
On page 186 of his testimony, Agent Juarez corroborated Agent Vasquez's testimony that the drug smuggler's cell phone was found in the abandoned van containing 743 pounds of marijuana.
WND is unable to determine who currently has possession of the cell phone or if any law-enforcement officers made any attempt to identify the owner or the identify of the names in the incoming and outgoing call memory, or the service provider records of the same.
As far as WND can determine, no law-enforcement agency made any attempt to identify Aldrete-Davila's drug network or associates from the recovered cell phone, or if agents were able to determine if the phone records indicate any calls to or received from Border Patrol agents or others connected with U.S. agencies or law enforcement.
As WND previously reported, Agent Vasquez was fired by the Border Patrol and Agent Juarez resigned in anticipation of being fired.
A little testy this morning, I see.
OK. I fail to see the importance of the distinction between "he thought it was a gun" and "It looked like a gun".
Later he said he was never certain it was a gun. He said he thought he was in danger -- so his "looked like a gun" is more of a statement than a "well, it had some passing resemblance to a gun, not that I really THINK it was a gun or anything".
If COmpean really thought there was a gun, it's odd he let Ramos run over the hill without yelling "look out, he's got a gun". It's odd that both Ramos and Compean never mentioned a gun to the other 3 agents who were there at the time, or the others who showed up while the suspect was still at large.
You have to realise that you are essentially arguing that we have to take the word of two people charged with multiple crimes when they simply SAY they thought there was a gun, in the absense of ANY other evidence that there was a gun. Would you expect them to say "no, we didn't see a gun, but we shot anyway"? They are saying exactly what you would expect them to say in order to get off.
The one agent is saying he saw a gun at exactly the time the other agent says he was sure there was no danger so he stopped shooting. There is no way you could ever prove they DIDN'T think they had seen a gun, so their testimony is essentially irrefutable, even if you had captured the guy and there was no gun they could still say they THOUGHT he had one. And conveniently, they all agree he had no gun in his hands at ANY of the times that a 3rd agent could see him, ONLY when he was out of view of everybody BUT the two who were charged with the crimes.
Your case is hanging on unimpeachable statements by two people who know those statements are what they need to say to get off. I don't discount that their lawyers and union reps told them this, but they wouldn't have to, we all know that's what you have to say to justify a shooting.
When given such evidence, that can't be refuted directly because it is state of mind, you look for collaberating evidence. There is none. There are NO actions taken by EITHER of the two men to suggest they thought there was a gun, EXCEPT the shootings themselves. They warned no other agent, or even each other, about a gun. They never mentioned a gun, or feeling threatened, to ANYBODY. There was no warning of am armed suspect on the loose. They didn't run for cover behind the rise, the both testified that after the guy "dissappeared" behind a bush, rather than pursue him they TURNED THEIR BACKS, with Compean picking up shells.
If I had just thought a guy pointed a gun at me, and they were hiding behind a bush, I don't think I'd turn my back. Nothing they did makes ANY sense if they thought the guy had a weapon. There is absolutely NOTHING in the record other than their statements that lends ANY support to the idea that the man had a weapon.
Probably.
This case does that to me.
BTW, why did you decide to start making fun of my name? When it was clear that the jig was up now that the DHS report is out?
As are all of your posts ---
LOL.
There is no evidence he had a gun, even the two agents say they don't know he had a gun, and he was shot in the butt, Ramos stipulated at trial that he shot him in the butt.
So why do you claim there is a lie? Because you can't provide any evidence to support your position?
The 'jig' has just begun. Get some popcorn.
I know what you mean.
Evidence says that he was shot in the left hip.
OK, skepticism is good. Realise that the ONLY "evidence" supporting innocence is the claims by the two convicted felons that they thought they saw a gun -- a claim completely unsupported by either their own actions, the actions of any others that day, or any independent evidence.
You're kidding, right? We've come down to nitpicking meaningless distinctions of anatomy in order to score useless points?
I've seen calcowgirl say he was shot in the butt. When I used to say he was "shot in the back" I was told that was "lying" and that I should admit he was shot in the butt, not in the back.
Tell you what -- why don't you pro-pardon people get together, come up with a single coherent story and the terminology we can use, and post it somewhere so we all know what you are going to complain about tomorrow.
I've had it. The DHS report speaks for itself. There is no evidence these guys were railroaded, and the evidence we have strongly suggests they are guilty. Until someone published the trial testimony, this is all political theater trying to get the two a pardon before the truth comes out and the cause is sunk.
My agenda is to understand the facts as best we can, and to discern the truth as much as one can from evidentiary review.
I have no personal interest in these two men's guilt or innocence, or the rantings of Jerome Corsi.
BTW, any comment about the fact that Compean's statement to the investigators, written down and signed by him, essentially says he held his shot gun pointing at himself and stuck the butt-end with the trigger into the chest of the drug runner, thus offering the weapon's trigger to the guy who was supposedly trying to attack him?
Left buttocks... lodged in right thigh...
Here's the medical report:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54170
And why are you working so hard to keep these two imprisoned? Why do you even care about "justice" for an illegal, low-life drug smuggling creep?
And furthermore, Sutton could have cared less about arresting a big-time drug dealer. He offered him immunity, FGS.
I'd be red-faced ashamed to take the Prosecution's side in this..
sw
I can understand that, but given the parsing of words that we have seen from OIG and Sutton, I'm not making a conclusion one way or the other when I see wording like that. I'd like to see O.A.-D.'s exact words. All we have are C.Sanchez's words, and anyone else who wrote the November 2006 report.
Why would I bother? Ramos stipulated that he shot the guy. That means that he essentially confessed to it, and it was not an issue in the trial.
You remind me of the jurors in the infamous Marion Barry crack cocaine trial, who found him innocent of smoking crack cocaine when they watched an undercover tape of the event. Said the jurors -- we aren't sure that the stuff he's smoking is crack, it looks like it might be sugar.
I've been involved is some pretty big drug busts (1,500 pounds of cocaine) and no one was armed.
I choose to overlook whatever law they violated, and send a clear message to other drug dealers, that we are armed and dangerous if they are caught and try to flee.
The precedent we set by convicting R & C is a signal to other Drug Smugglers that we have to obey the law, even if they don't. It's the same message we broadcast to the Illegals. That there are TWO sets of laws, one for them and another for us.
sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.