[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, if we use your parsing, it doesn't say he was turned toward the agents, it just says he was not running away. The "turned toward the agents" is "just as they said", as surely as "pointing a gun " is "just as they said".

IN fact, the use of the term "just as they said" suggests that the medical examiner made a statement agreeing with their claim, which was the claim in the second sentence, which included the gun.

BTW, I doubt the med exam said the wound showed he was turned toward the agents. We don't have the transcript, but that would be kind of a major bombshell in the court case that would have made the papers during the trial.

Prior to this, I don't remember anybody disputing the claims that Davila was shot in the butt, a rather hard thing to do if he was facing them.

But, let's try again. Let's presume just for this moment that Bonner is correct, and that the medical exam proves Davila was facing the agents.

How does that jive with the assertion in defense of the BP agents that Davila wasn't actually hit, that Ramos said the guy didn't flinch, and that no blood was found on the scene? You can't argue both that he was shot in the front proving he was facing them, AND that he wasn't shot at all.

[WatchingInAmazement]

You really make the simple too complicated.

The agents didn't think he was hit because he was able to RUN!

The information you want is sealed by the judge.....WHY?

[1rudeboy]

You have Compean's testimony that the smuggler didn't have a weapon (while in the ditch), you have Ramos' testimony that he didn't see a weapon (while the smuggler was in the ditch), and you have the testimony of the other BP agents that Compean and Ramos said nothing of a weapon after they arrived on the scene. So for all practical purposes, there is no weapon, and all this talk of one is only an attempt to muddy the water.

Unless the smuggler had one before he tried to surrender, ditched it, and no one could find it.