Replies

I'll be honest...I was expecting more from the record, given the assertions of the Ramos/Campean camp.

I can't comment on the chances of success of an appeal, because those are tricky beasts.

One thing does pop out though...the defense attorneys did not make a particularly compelling case for their clients. Whether that was because you can't make chicken salad out of chicken scratch, or just that they were not up to the task, I don't know.

I was also disappointed with the transcript. This trial strikes me as a mirror image of th OJ trial. OJ had a "Dream Team" defense that overcame compelling evidence that OJ did it. Ramos-Compean had less than a "mediocre" [IMHO] defense and the prosecution convicted with little concrete evidence. They used immunity and intimidation to weave their case. The White House will not go against their pal Johnny Sutton, so the remaining hope may be the Congressional route.

I was struck by prosecutor Gonzales saying that Ramos' intent to kill was self evident because the BP are "trained to shoot to kill." My perspective would be that if they are trained to shoot to kill, than they responded to a perceived threat in the manner that they were trained. Peters objected to the claim that Ramos, like Compean, said he did "shoot to kill". He did not say that. Peters moved for a mistrial at that statement saying it was prejudicial. The motion was denied.

[I am in Volume 15 at the moment.]

Is it possible they could not properly defend them because so much of their defense could not be presented due to "other cases?"

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?