who voted for Bush are feeling
this about him about now?!
Posted on 02/12/2007 1:35:42 AM PST by Man50D
This is the real story being hidden here -- the US Border Patrol is completely compromised. How can you expect an anchor baby to defend the border in any meaningful way?
The Border Patrol needs to be cleansed from top to bottom if we want to be serious about defending our borders. They have some serious institutional problems that MUST be addressed.
I guess it's an interpretation of the phrase "there was a cell phone in the van". I took that to mean "when davilas got into the van". Just as he would say there was drugs in the van.
I would expect that if it was his cell phone, he would have said "I left my cell phone in the van".
C. Sanchez was reported elsewhere to be the agent who was transporting Davilas and the bullet. So he couldn't have been the agent at the scene when they took Ramos's gun, unless I have a serious warp in the timeline.
And at the time Sanchez was transporting Davilas and the bullet, he didn't know which agent had shot at the guy, and which one had hit him, even if he could get his hands on a bullet to swap, he wouldn't know which bullet to swap.
It is clear now why Ramos stipulated that his weapon fired the shot. Everybody agrees Compean missed his mark, and Compean said in his first statement that he thought Ramos hit the guy, and another agent said the guy had to be helped into a van on the other side of the river -- there's little room for the "shot later", substituted bullet theory.
I will agree that I am trying, to the best of my ability, to substitute names back into the report based on other reports, mostly from WND, leaked about the case, and an "analysis" of the amount of space available in the document for names, and occasional edges of letters left visible.
And I think it is reasonable to infer that the three other agents who are accused of lying in the report are the three that have now been terminated (one resigned, two were fired).
You were saying the same thing when WND reported that one of the agents was beaten up in prison. You have no credibility on this issue.
Because "smuggler" is the person who brought the drugs across the border. There is no evidence that Davilas brought the drugs across the border -- nobody saw him drive the van across the border.
The van had Texas license plates, and the investigation report says Davilas met the van in the united states. That makes him a drug courrier, not a drug smuggler.
But I didn't want to change the terms now lest I confuse anybody.
The section in question was about a series of interviews held with Davilas before the trial, but you are correct that the report doesn't have an attachment showing a written statement signed by Davilas. I would hope there is a recording of the discussions somewhere that would contain this information, but I haven't seen it.
This same basic scenario was provided by a Freeper whose name I can't remember now. I told him it seemed feasible then, and it seems even more feasible NOW.
But you are correct. If we assume that Sutton is crooked, that Sanchez (both Rene and Chris) are crooked, that the defense attorneys are idiots, that the 3 other BP agents and their supervisors are crooked, and that they are all willing to commit multiple criminal offenses in order to put two BP agents in jail, then we could surmise that they fed Davilas the correct words to say to match the testimony of the others.
Of course, they could also plant evidence and bribe the jurors.
Problem is, once you assume this stuff is a grand conspiracy, it's a self-fulfilling theory, because any "proof" of guilt is obviously planted evidence.
Gotcha! I just figured they were all about the business of smuggling drugs, but I see the distInction now that you point it out. Davila probably doesn't make as much money as the people who hired him. Thankfully now he has a shot at that five million.
From several things you have posted:
1. Sanchez had NO BUSINESS being involved in this case. He was a childhood friend of Davila. That he is STILL involved tells me volumes.
2. It is apparent to me that Sanchez is running Davila in an undercover operation. I'm HIGHLY suspicious that Sanchez is letting Davila get away with a lot of lawbrealing, just to hide his involvment.
3. I suspect Sanchez is a dirty BP agent. He is in a supervisory position in the ID office. He can spot trouble and warn off his childhood friend.
Yes. If the van belonged to Rene, that would mean something, but it wouldn't mean that the agents were innocent of any of the charges against them, because HOW they were discovered is immaterial to the facts of what happened that day.
And of course there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Rene owns the van -- how do we know YOU don't own the van?
At this point, there is little doubt; they are protecting a compromised agent, and that is the reason for the railroading of these men.
WND is written by people with an agenda, who have shown no particular fealty to the facts in any matter in which they have a vested interest.
The DHS is an official department of the United States which is tasked with investigating criminal activity and providing evidence for trials.
So yes, I give more credence to the DHS report than I do to WND. Of course, WND's facts on the rare occasions that they provide a fact are often from the DHS reports. So they believe them when it's convenient.
My real reason for skepticism of WND is that whenever someone posts a WND article I can trivially show how they have twisted the facts and made up conclusions without basis in order to push their agenda. I post these regularly, and while I am vilified for that with name-calling and the like, nobody has refuted my objections to the articles.
But then you even believe that the sun rises in the east....
In his original statement, he said he thought it was a gun; That "thought" isn't a profession of doubt, but rather a profession of his inability to provide evidence. "I thought I saw a gun" only covers you for shooting at an unarmed man if you are certain that you thought you saw a gun.
So later saying that you were never certain there was a gun means you were NEVER certain you were in danger, and in the absense of clear indication of danger, you aren't supposed to shoot. YOu don't get to shoot people because you think they might be threatening you, you have to have a reasonable certainty that you are in danger.
Coupled with the absense of a single person at the scene who heard the two ever say anything about there being a weapon in the hands of a suspect that was on the loose, it is rational to believe that "I thought he had a gun" was the statement of a man trying to justify why he took shots at a fleeing man, and not a statement of a certainty of fear of danger.
And since Compean says that he no longer felt in any danger when Ramos showed up and shot the guy, it's bad for Ramos as well to claim he saw a gun and felt threatened. So much so that Ramos testified that Compean was laying on the ground, when Compean claimed first that he was standing, and later that he was kneeling, but NEVER that he was laying down.
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.