Posted on 02/13/2007 6:40:43 PM PST by calcowgirl
The complete (I think) transcript was filed with the Court on Friday and entered in the Court record yesterday. The DOJ is hosting the transcripts on their website in a series of 18 PDF Files. They range in size from 5 pages to over 300 pages, covering pretrial matters, sentencing, as well as testimony.
The transcripts are linked at the site above, as well as most of the press releases issued by the U.S. Attorney office on this matter.
I am setting up this thread (in chat) as a place for us junkies can comment on the testimony and to post any revelations anyone might find. Have at it!!!!
VOLUME I: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%201.pdf
VOLUME II: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%202.pdf
VOLUME III: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%203.pdf
VOLUME IV: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%204.pdf
VOLUME V: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%205.pdf
VOLUME VI: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%206.pdf
VOLUME VII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%207.pdf
VOLUME VIII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%208.pdf
VOLUME IX: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%209.pdf
VOLUME X: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2010.pdf
VOLUME XI: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2011.pdf
VOLUME XII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2012.pdf
VOLUME XIII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2013.pdf
VOLUME XIV: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2014.pdf
VOLUME XV: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2015.pdf
VOLUME XVI: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2016.pdf
VOLUME XVII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2017.pdf
VOLUME XVIII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2018.pdf
.
I agree with you. I think it depends whose ox is being gored.
Frankly, I think that they will need a pardon.
I read this section the other night and is one reason my alarms have been going off all over the place over Rene Sanchez. Something is fishy.
Ramos has Tourettes Syndrome, nerves usually makes it more pronounced. Perhaps that had a certain amount of bearing on his ability to present himself in court.
The other thing that bothered, me in the transcripts, was the oral interviews were not audio or video taped.
They had the agent(s) write their reports and they made comments the reports differed from the oral interviews, yet we have to take his word for this. Wouldn't that be hearsay?
Except "our" Rene Sanchez was located in Tucson, with relatives in El Paso.
I guess I'm in the minority, but Chris Sanchez really puts a new spin on rush to judgement (IMO). He took three whole days to investigate and arrest Ramos/Compean and didn't even bother to check into Rene Sanchez and how he knew so much about the drug dealer.
This is a red herring. What was their defense, other than that they were doing their job? Their defense was that the perp pulled a gun on them.
The other thing that bothered, me in the transcripts, was the oral interviews were not audio or video taped.
They had the agent(s) write their reports and they made comments the reports differed from the oral interviews, yet we have to take his word for this. Wouldn't that be hearsay?
If objections were not made on the record regarding this evidence or testimony, then it doesn't matter if it is hearsay. It is not the court's job to object to evidence...it is counsel's job. What section of the transcript is this found in?
placemark
Exactly! I'm not a trained attorney, but I would have strenously objected that this was opinion or hearsay without any evidence to back up what "he" said they said in the oral interviews. I am shocked this is the governments habit, not to record oral interviews. For that reason alone those men should not have waived their rights and insisted on legal assistance.
I noticed that you used the term, "buddy" and "pal" in describing the smuggler's relationship with the border agent. Were they in fact, buddies and pals? I haven't read nor heard that this is true. Also, are you suggesting that we should take the word of the smuggler over the word of this border patrol agent? I sure wouldn't do that. How ironic that the defenders of the border patrol agents in general and specifically, Ramos and Compean, have attempted for a long time now to discredit and insult the honor of another border patrol agent.
I had seen the allegations that Rene Sanchez helped OAD find a lawyer, coaching his testimony, etc. But I'd never seen any mention of an indictment! That is the one that got me. IMO, but it would explain several of the sealed records and motions in limine. I still have a lot more reading to do before really concluding anything... other than lots of folks made lots of mistakes and there are lots of stinky fish.
I'm with you on that one. I don't know that the majority disagrees, it just doesn't do anything to help win an appeal.
Read up. It appears that border patrol Agent you are supporting was indicted.
Then you need to start doing a lot of reading. They were childhood friends... the drugies mother called Rene Sanchez' MIL about the shooting. Rene Sanchez helped this criminal hire and attorney and advised him about suing the US Government, which he is doing for $5 million dollars. Aactually, don't have to take our word for how tight those two are, it's in the transcripts.
appologize for typo's I didn't run it through before hitting send.
Thanks for that info, calcowgirl.
I guess I do have a lot of reading to do. LOL I'm so thankful that FR has resident attorneys on hand to help us wade through it all. I had heard that Sanchez had known Davilia when they were kids but that wasn't at the time, in and of itself, all that important.
Volume 6, p.300-301 Chris Sanchez - Cross by Stillinger 14 Q. Okay. Now, would you agree with me, upon reviewing your 15 memo, that you did, in fact, tell him that he wasn't going to 16 be prosecuted at all for the criminal offense that he made -- 17 for a criminal offense he may have committed that day? 18 A. Yes, ma'am. 19 Q. Okay. And that is a bigger immunity, a broader immunity, 20 than what's in that written document, Defendant's Exhibit 21 Number 2, correct? 22 A. I believe so. 23 Q. Okay. But I think you said that you told him that, because 24 that's what the Assistant U.S. Attorney instructed you to tell 25 him, correct? 1 A. Yes, ma'am. 2 Q. Okay. So you have some sort of, I guess oral agreement, 3 that he's not going to be prosecuted for whatever criminal 4 offense he may have committed on February 17, 2005, correct? 5 A. Yes, ma'am. 6 Q. And Mr. Aldrete-Davila would not speak to you until he had 7 that promise from you, correct? 8 A. That's correct.
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.