The news this morning was that the government withheld evidence in defense of the patrolmen, that forensics proved byound a doughbt that the smuggler wasn't shot the way in which prosecuters say, and more or less raises a big question about corruption on the part of the u.s attorney and his side. McCarthy sounds more like one lawyer defending another.
That wasn't "the news", that's the latest rehash of defense information from Jerome Corsi of WND. The testimony in the story this morning is consistant with the claims of the prosecutor, and is being used by the defense to both show that Ramos DIDN'T shoot the guy, AND that Ramos shot the guy in a way that shows the guy was "blading" toward him (only in the wrong direction from the way you'd expect).
The medical evidence was consistant with a man running away while zig-zagging to avoid being shot. The medical evidence also makes it highly unlikely that the guy kept running without pause when he was shot, but rather that he probably fell over and crawled away.
Ramos says the guy just kept running, so he thought he had missed (at least that's what he says NOW). But the medical evidence opposes the view, thus the argument that Ramos didn't hit the guy at all. In THAT story line, the "chain of evidence" was deliberately broken so that government agents could hide the real bullet and substitute a fake bullet shot into a cadaver to make it LOOK like the real bullet -- although in doing so the official court testimony was that the bullet could NOT be tied to the agent's weapon, so whoever did the planting of evidence was incompetent.
But as I said, if you go with the "never hit him" story, then you can't show the guy turned toward Ramos. So in the SAME story where we learn the evidence was faked and Ramos never HIT the guy, we are also told that Ramos DID hit the guy, and the bullet path shows the guy was running away but twisting toward ramos as if he was pointing a gun at him -- showing Ramos was in danger.
See, if you don't care about logic, you can make both those arguments in the same "news story", as if they are consistant. In the real world, you can't argue that the bullet that never hit the guy penetrated him in a way that shows he was pointing a gun at you.
BTW, try this experiment. Run a few steps, and then "turn while running away" as if you are going to shoot at someone. Chances are, if you are right-handed you are going to twist your left shoulder back, hold your right arm across your body and bend your elbow, and then when you turn your head back you will be able to easily sight your weapon for a shot.
Which is exactly the way the "evidence" shows the drug smuggler turning. Except he was left-handed, and they are arguing that you would in fact turn your left shoulder and stick your arm straight back at an awkward angle if you wanted to point at someone. Which I guess you could do, but it doesn't seem natural to me.
Of course, what really doesn't seem natural is that the drug smuggler pulled a gun and TWICE pointed it backwards, but never pulled the trigger.