Replies

There are numerous instances in this case of distortion and lying. The DHS I/G has admitted that his deputies lied to Congress about this case. A Border Agent who is a buddy of the smuggler is assigned custody of the smuggler and the ballistic evidence. The smuggler under oath says his BP pal briefed him, aided him, talked to him about ways to get medical attention and money from the USA. The agent denies it. These are two of the critical players in this drama.

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.

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.

The relationship with Renee Sanchez and Aldrete-Davila [OAD] has been bounced around in various coverages. He is specifically addressed as a "family/friend" in Vol. 15 pg. 46. Pages 65-66 develop the pretrial relationship a bit more.

What I think is ironic is that the prosecution's case hinges on OAD being believed as truthful. It is my opinion that his testimony of help from Renee Sanchez may be one of the few truthful statements he actually did make during the trial.

I do not think that a smuggler's word should be taken over that of a Border Patrol Agent's. But, if you build your case on that proposition, it is hard to simply choose those statements that support your case, and ignore those that do not.