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
.
1. Name names then.
2. I don't approve of judges that legislate from the bench, I don't approve of judges that would make a ruling based upon "a subtle indirect word" from any sitting president.
But like I said...name names...because I don't know one 3d cir judge who doesn't take his or her job seriously...and that means not making a decision on the whim of a sitting president.
My comments. Might as well start at the beginning. Bold is my emphasis, quotes from transcript in italics.
Volume I: The Trial Delay.
This volume deals with the trial date being moved from October to February, as well as the conditions for the two agent's pre-trial detainment.
The testimony here refutes the speculation that the trial was moved to February because Davilas was involved in a capture involving drugs. Instead, the defense (Compean) is seen to have requested the postponement, for purpose of preparing for the additional charges which had been recently filed.
Ramos agreed to the postponement on the condition that he no longer have to wear an electronic tracking device, which was granted for both agents. The Prosecution agreed with both the delay, and the removal of tracking devices, as well as granting permission for Ramos to attend his sister-in-laws wedding.
We also learn that Davilas needed special surgery to repair the damage (we knew there was serious damage, saying "he was shot in the butt" downplayed the seriousness of his injury). From the transcript: The Army is willing to, and agreeable, of doing surgery to attempt to reattach the urethra, but it has to be done by a specialist. There's only a couple in the country. And this specialist is at Brooks Army Medical Center in San Antonio
The military would have experts in handling gunshot wounds, and this explains why he was taken to a military hospital.
His surgury was scheduled for October 23rd, which I presume was expected at the time to be after the close of the trial. According to the transcript, Davilas had to use a bag to drain his pee, and there is reference to him having to go to the bathroom every hour when he didn't use the bag: But he needs some recovery time, Your Honor. Because, after the surgery, he's going to be required to wear two catheters. One catheter -- right now he doesn't have to always wear the bag, because if he excuses himself once per hour, he can empty through the catheter.
I hope we can all agree that this section of the testimony can put to rest the incorrect speculation that the prosecution asked for a postponement because their witness was picked up with marijuana. It is clear Compean asked for the postponement, not the prosecution.
bttt
Your violins are killin' me!
• Yes, Compean's attorney requested a continuance because Kanof had piled on to the indictment the Civil Rights and Crime of Violence counts and argued she needed time to prepare.
• Yes, Ramos' and Compean were allowed removal of electronic monitoring.
• Yes, the smuggler had a serious injury.
• Yes, the government made an appointment Aldrete-Davila to have special surgery on Oct 25th at Brooks Army Medical Center (because he needed a specialist and there are "only a couple in the country"). Brooks made special arrangements "to fit him in between all of their war people."
One wonders why Aldrete-Davila still hadn't had the surgery as of the trial in February. What else was he doing in October that made him miss this critical appointment?
Perhaps the answer is over here with respect to the "October load":
The Government represented to us last week that they haven't given him immunity for the October load, but they don't think they have sufficient evidence to think he committed a criminal offense in October, which I think is ridiculous, based on the evidence.
If the government is in fact correct here (and we have no evidence one way or another at this point in the transcript, simply the word of the defense attorney disagreeing with them), this suggests that the circumstances of the "2nd drug bust" was not in fact a drug bust in which it was clear Davilas was both involved and knew what he was doing. Meaning that, if the government is not lying, there must be something about the case that makes it a non-trivial matter. For example, maybe someone stashed drugs in his trunk without him knowing (total speculation, I'm just wondering what circumstances could lead to a non-trivial disagreement over whether a case was prosecutable or not).
In any case, the judge at this time, noting that the objection is to claim that Davilas lied about his previous statement, and the subsequent act did not disprove his previous statement, refused to let the 2nd occurance enter; so we don't find out the specifics of the case. It does appear though (because of the way the defense references it as the "October load"), that Sutton was not lying when he said Davilas was not arrested, and that Davilas was not given immunity for the incident.
Further, it is clear from this section that, contrary to speculation, Sutton wasn't playing word games with the terms "arrested" vs. "indicted", as Davilas does not appear to have been indicted or arrested for this, as the Government has stated they don't think they have enough evidence to do either.
However, it does provide the backdrop as to where the rumors of his being arrested, or indicted, or being given immunity, for an October drug deal came from, because it is clear from the testimony that he was involved in an incident involving a "load". I don't know if you can give a half point to WND for a misleading report simply because it had a kernel of truth, but I'll do so anyway, because frankly they need all the points they can get.
Summary: There was an "october load", it didn't cause the prosecution to postpone the trial, Davilas was neither arrested, nor indicted, nor was immunity granted, rather the government claims (disputedly) that there isn't enough evidence to try Davilas for the "load". The story was ruled inadmissable at this point as not germaine to the specific question of the immunity agreement.
I didn't see anything in this transcript about Davilas having his surgery postponed, much less why it was postponed.
I'm sorry, I thought the point of the transcripts was for Freepers to read them and provide a synpopsis of the testimony for those who didn't have time to read the entire transcripts. By posting here I intended to provide ample opportunity for the pro-pardon folks to correct anything in my statement that might be based on my opinion rather than what was stated in the transcript.
If you are upset with the picture it paints of the case, talk to the transcript, not me.
I quoted that section about the specialists because people have asked why a drug dealer got to be treated at an army facility, and not just a normal hospital. The transcript gave a possible explanation, being that his injuries were not trivial and the army hospital had the expertise in the type of wound he had suffered.
It should also cool speculation and some outrage over why he had to be treated in the U.S. at all, rather than the local clinic in Mexico -- again, because the injury appears to be complicated and require a special skill that I imagine is lacking in Mexico.
I assume by your LACK of complaint that you do agree that we can dismiss the speculation that the court delay was requested because of the "october load" incident. I see you have now moved to speculating the the surgery postponement (assuming there was a surgery postponement, I simply haven't seen that because I wasn't looking for it and I don't remember anybody mentioning it before) was because of the "october load" incident.
But since that has no more basis in fact than the speculation of the trial postponement, I am not inclined to accept the speculation at this time (nor do I think it really matters why his surgery was postponed).
It doesn't explain why he was initially taken to an Army hopital. He got treated at TWO Army facilities, Beaumont and Brooks (or at least he was scheduled to go to Brooks, I have to read more about why he hadn't had the surgery as of the trial in Feb/Mar 2006). At Beaumont, Col. Warme, who removed the bullet, was an orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine specialist--not some nationwide specialist in reconstructing body parts. He said he took some x-rays and simply made an incision and removed the bullet--that it was "superficial" and he could "palpate" the bullet with his finger. That could have been done at the local clinica by a 1st year intern. Heck, according to his testimony, Chris Sanchez actually stood there as he did the procedure.
As to your other questions, I haven't concluded anything. I do take exception to you trying to put every individual into a particular camp of belief. When I question things you post, it is because you have jumped to conclusions that simply aren't supported by facts. Those conclusions may be one possible explanation, but they are not the only explanation. When I've read the whole transcript, or adequate amounts to reach a conclusive opinion, I'll let you know.
Post 178 was meant for you.
It's not a side. There were questions as to why he was sent to an army hospital. Army hospitals know how to deal with gunshot wounds, and while the bullet could apparently be removed by a skilled orthopaedic Surgeon in the U.S., it may explain why the mexican clinic didn't try to pull the bullet.
That's all I was saying. It's not some indictment of the BP agents that the guy got treated in an Army hospital.
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.