Exclusive Guest Post For Polipundit: Free Compean And Ramos By Duncan Hunter

I would like to thank Polipundit and Michael Illions, who has been helping out my campaign, for giving me the opportunity to write a guest post about the injustice that has been done to two of our border guards, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, both of whom have been sentenced to jail for more than a decade each.

Now certainly our border patrol agents are not above the law and it is not acceptable for them to abuse or mistreat illegal aliens. That being said, the Border Patrol is America’s first line of defense against the terrorists, drug smugglers, and gangs who try to illegally enter the United States. Acting as the first line of defense for our country, the men and women of the Border Patrol are in a very dangerous position. Every day they risk their lives guarding our borders.

I have read the relevant portions of the trial transcript. Agents Ramos and Compean have a version of the facts that is different than the drug smuggler’s. However, it is not necessary to determine whose testimony is more believable (although I find the Border Agents’ testimony more credible than the drug smuggler’s) for this reason: even if you believe the drug smuggler’s testimony that he was slightly wounded while escaping to Mexico, his wounding cannot, by the greatest stretch of criminal justice, justify the 11 and 12 year prison sentences given to Ramos and Compean. The average convicted murderer in America spends less than 8 1/2 years behind bars. That means that Ramos and Compean have been given murder sentences for the slight wounding of a drug smuggler. Thus, the prison sentences of these two agents represent a severe injustice.

For those who point out that the agents picked up the expended brass from their pistols after the incident and did not report it to their superiors, the answer is simply that picking up brass and failure to report is not murder and does not justify a murder sentence in the federal penitentiary. As a member of the Armed Services Committee for 26 years, I have never seen a Marine or soldier treated as severely as Ramos and Compean.

We cannot turn our back on Agents Compean and Ramos or the rest of the public servants in the U.S. Border Patrol and that’s why I urge George Bush to pardon both agents. I intend to keep attention focused on this case to insure their safety while they are in prison and to secure their release as soon as possible so they can return home to their families. That is also why I introduced H.R. 563, which would pardon Compean and Ramos. The bill already has more than 85 sponsors in the House. If that bill fails and President Bush does not do the right thing, I pledge that if I’m elected President, one of my first acts will be to grant pardons to both agents.

"I don't see any leverage the prosecution had with the exception of prosecuting them for perjury if they did lie."

The leverage was the withdrawal of the proffer letters. In fact, the prosecutor threatened Juarez with that very thing because his story "didn't make sense to the prosecutor."

At that point they hadn't lost their jobs--but they could have been at the defense table with Ramos and Compean for obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence and lost their freedom.

Go read Win at all Costs for some examples of prosecutors physically tearing up proffer letters when witnesses refused to lie for a prosecutor.

It is beyond me why conservatives, who are disgusted by the federal bureaucracy at every level, are so trusting of federal prosecutors. There are no local checks and balances on them. A local DA can be voted out of office if he oversteps his bounds. The OPR of the DOJ does an absolutely crappy job of disciplining prosecutors who wilfully withhold exculpatory evidence and do other unethical things.

My ADA friend keeps warning me to keep my mouth shut in public about Sutton. He actually believes they'd try to do something to me. He is not tin-foily at all. I'm much more tin-foily than he is.

Put up or shut up.

Again...

"Aldrete-Davila said that he was about halfway through the vega when he heard multiple gunshots and could see the impact of the rounds in the dirt as he ran toward the border."

The shots began in the middle of the vega. I didn't make that up. And it wasn't stated as on the levee. Middle means somewhere near the middle not a quarter of the way in nor a third of the way in.

Put up or shut up.

That wasn't the way it went down. Juarez was second on the scene, right behind Ramos. You've got a fleeing perp, a shotgun butt to a head, 14 shots being fired, a struggle and chase...and Juarez said he didn't see anything? What you're saying is you believe that Juarez didn't see anything and only parroted what he was told.

Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test. It is more reasonable to believe what Juarez testified, that during the first two interviews he was covering for his brothers and himself (didn't want to be the snitch) and it was only when confronted by the prosecution during the third that he got was told to either spill everything he knew or he might be brought up on perjury charges, that he under the advice of his attorney, came clean.

Remember the first two interviews were by investigators, not prosecutors with the power to offer immunity or to press perjury charges, so the investigators had neither carrot or stick to offer. Juarez probably thought he could skate around the investigators but ran into a buzz saw with prosecutors.

Again, this makes sense to me.

The proffer letter was offered during the first interview:

Q. This incident occurred on February 17, 2005, right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And you gave a statement for the first time on March 17th

9 of 2005, about a month later. Is that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. At the same time that you gave that statement, on the
same

12 day, you signed a proffer letter giving you immunity for what

13 you had to say. Is that right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Okay. Who was present in the room when you signed that

16 proffer letter?

17 A. Mr. Sanchez and two more investigators.

During the third interview, he was threatened with prosecution.

Is that the testimony of OVD or the artful final summation of a prosecutor?

Important here, testimony or final summation? There's a big difference.

Because if it's two and you don't have one, just more proof that you're willing to mislead others and going so far as spinning comments that weren't given by any witness nor entered in the trial as evidence as something that looks and dances like it was.

SB, all this speculation from AC and CGG is just that, speculation. In any instance where a guess or judgment is called for, which are many, they use the most extreme that will support their position. ... A couple examples. I judging how fast the parties are moving, they use the 100 yard dash in 10 seconds by a world class runner as a baseline...

That is incorrect. I accepted the 15fps gauge as a reasonable estimate after doing some googling. What I found was that 30fps (100 yds in 10 seconds) would represent a Jesse-Owens sprint and 5fps would be a lively walk. 8fps would represent speed-walking. 15fps seemed reasonable. In one case, I posted what the resulting analysis would be at both 15fps and 10fps. I am not searching for any 'predisposed' answer.

What fps estimate would you prefer be used and why? What difference would that make to anything I have posted using the 15fps--specifically, what conclusion or opinion did I post, based on the 15fps that you find wrong? Please cite the post and be specific as to what you find "extreme".

Anyone who starts working through the various scenarios will find that the most important number is the relative difference in distance between the various players, not the fps itself.

As to the arrival times, there is no speculation--that is directly from their testimonies.

Ramos: 2-3 car lengths behind OAD (per Ramos and Mendoza testimony).
Juarez: 6-8 car lengths behind Ramos (per Juarez--Mendoza says 3).
Vasquez: 6-8 car lenghths behind Juarez (per Vasquez and Mendoza testimony).

Once you factor in these potential errors you can arrive at any conclusion which you are predisposed.

What the analysis lets you do is look at the statements made by the witnesses relative to each other to test their veracity. It is simple application of textbook logic: if A and B are true, then C must be true, or conversely, not true. This approach can be applied to various events that day.

I think at this point the inv and/or pros didn't know anything about Juarez picking up the shell casings and that may be why he took so long to come clean... it implicates him directly in the cover up.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying. You are closer to this problem and have read more on it, so I trust you. But I don't think we can go so far to say it happens every time an immunity is offered. As happened here, the immunities should be disclosed to the juries and let the defense tear them apart. It's up to each individual jury to weigh that question and decide to give any weight to the testimony based on what they have been told.

If it's as bad as you say, that's horrible and bad prosecutors should be weeded out like bad LEO's.

Jesus do I have to do this again?

Because all your estimates are based on people moving on a level hard surface, in a straight line, with no wind and not dodging bullets.

Recompute over a dirt surface, with gopher holes, soil mounding and brush, your target moving sideways and not straight line, with his hands covering his head, a 20 mph cross wind, and dodging .40 caliber bullets.

If you take Jesse Owens on an indoor track as a base line and based on the conditions present I'd say the speedwalking more closely represented how OVD might have moved across the field, but certainly not half of Jesse Owens performance.

But that's just me. You chose the figures you used because they fit your conspiracy theory, not because the theory arose out of the numbers not working. That's outcome based conspiracy theorizing and if you're going to engage in that then put some tinfoil over your cranium so at least we know you're not being influenced by the transmitters the guvmint implanted in your brain when you were 2.

SB, IMO the big question here is why Jua and Vas never saw Ramos. If this is a lie and helps the prosecution, tell me why you think so cause I can't see it.

I'm not sure what side of any of the vehicles Ramos claims he ran to after getting out of the car. If it was to the right side of the van, well that may explain why he wasn't seen by J&V who I believe were on the left. Juarez kind of slides part way into the ditch and had turned to climb out, he may have missed Ramos jumping down into the ditch. Vazquez arrives as the final shots rang out, at this point Ramos is in the ditch and climbing out. When he does get to the top he runs to the back of Compeans vehicle, probably to take some cover. I think here J&V are walking over to the van. They should still be able to see him I think. After that if Ramos runs around to the other side of Compeans truck, then he might be blocked from there on.

But based on both Ramos's story, I can't believe neither saw him. So there are two explanations, one that J&V were lying, but if so I can't see how anyone benefits either them or the prosecution, or two, Ramos is lying and got in and out of the ditch quicker than he testifies to and immediately runs to the south side of Compeans truck where he was blocked from their view.

The only reason I can come up with why Ramos would fib about this is because then he would have been in a position to see Compean running across the levee firing at OVD and that he knew he was uninjured, destroying his "My buddy was shot, our lives are in danger" justification for the shoot.

Because if it's two and you don't have one, just more proof that you're willing to mislead others and going so far as spinning comments that weren't given by any witness nor entered in the trial as evidence as something that looks and dances like it was.

Big talk from someone who has yet to show anything. You doubted the shooting from the middle of the vega to the river. I showed it to you. You said that Ramos testified that Compean was flat on his back. I showed you the real testimony. Now you refuse to show anyting about the casing in the south side of the ditch. Put up or shutup.

I think at this point the inv and/or pros didn't know anything about Juarez picking up the shell casings and that may be why he took so long to come clean...

Get the scene straight, Juarez did not pick up anything, Vasquez testified he picked up the 5 casings on 18 Mar 2005. That was 2 days after the first face-to-face with Davila in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico or about 29 days after the event.

Well, I'm the type that doesn't like to leave things hanging so whether or not you drop your head in shame and start representing evidence more fairly will be up to you. But this will be the another instance that I knocked one of your baseless accusations out of the park so you may want to think about wearing a mask or something if you continue posting drivel.

Me - "But Vasquez testifies he picked up Compeans shell casings on top of the levee even one on the south side of the canal ditch."

You - "You are pretty demanding about other people backing up their posts. I have. Show me in the testimony where that is stated. Until you do, your posting is nothing but "hot air". I'm specifically addressing the casing on the south side of the canal ditch."

Volume "Vasquez Testimony" page 41

Q. They were .40 caliber casings?
A. Yes Ma'am.
Q. Okay. And you said you found four of them on levee? Is that correct?
A. Yes ma'am.
Q. And the fifth one on the slope?
A. On the slope between the levee and the drain canal.

Boom. That was the sound of your head exploding.

This might be evidence that Compean threw casings into the canal except he testified he threw them ALL into the WATER at the bottom of the canal. Of course no one saw him do this and a metal detector search of the canal turned up nothing. Then you have Vasquez testimony that Compean counted 9 of them in front of him on his way OFF the levee and back to the station.

"That would be problematic for Juarez since the shooting would have started in the ditch."

No the shooting started as Compean ran across the levee after OVD, when Juarez testifies he hears shots but his back's to the scene as he climbs out of the ditch, and ends when Juarez climbs gets out, turns and sees Compean from the waist up finishing off his magazine and loading another on the south slope of the levee.

If his first shot was somewhere in the middle of the levee if would be consistent with a round ejecting to his right and rear and traveling on the fly or bouncing onto the south slope of the canal.

You may want to continue arguing and debating, but to be honest this is looking a little ugly for you even to me.

I'm not focused on Juarez and Vasquez seeing or not seeing Ramos. I'm focused on Juarez changing his story from the first statement to say he saw OAD attempt to "surrender" at trial.

Also, Juarez didn't say he saw Compean shooting on the levee from the waist up until, I believe, the 3rd interrogation. So, is it possible he didn't see any of this because his attention was on the van the entire time and he changed his testimony under threat of prosecution?

I don't know why neither saw Ramos. It may be that they were too focused on the load. Or, they could be lying.

The immunity deal taints all of it for me.

I think somebody else said that it helps the prosecution if they lied about never seeing Ramos. I just think these two guys were slackers who stayed at the van the whole time.

Jesus do I have to do this again?

DITTO!

Well then let's use 1 foot per second as the speed. My spreadsheet states that it would take Davila 218 seconds to go from the ditch to the middle of the vega. Vasquez would have to be 1.816666667 miles behind Juarez if he was travelling at 30 MPH. If Vasquez, in sympathy for Davila, got out of his vehicle and walked at the same 1 foot per second rate as Davila, he would be 218 feet behind Juarez or over 10 vehicle lengths. BULL!! The prosecution's story is false.

"You doubted the shooting from the middle of the vega to the river. I showed it to you."

No, you showed us a segment of a overly eager summation argument from one of the attorneys (the hated prosecution no less) that unfortunately doesn't reflect the actual testimonial record. Lawyer argumentation does not equal evidence. You've proved nothing and your continued devotion to this point is quite perplexing. Show is the trial evidence and quit quoting lawyers as if the witnesses said it themselves.

"You said that Ramos testified that Compean was flat on his back."

No I said Ramos testified Compean was "on the deck" and this could not possibly mean he was on one knee in a firing position. You misrepresent statements from the witnesses, then the attorneys and now you're me. Quite a track record.

"I showed you the real testimony. Now you refuse to show anything about the casing in the south side of the ditch. Put up or shutup."

Again if you think attorney argumentation is "real testimony" you don't know the first thing about our system of justice. What is that, like strike 12?

A. On the slope between the levee and the drain canal.

This is what you stated..

What about the casing Vasquez found on the south side of the ditch canal slope?

That is not the slope between the levee and the drain canal.

The south side of the levee slope is south of the the levee. The north side of the levee slope is on the north side of the levee. The south side of the levee slopes into the vega. The north side of the levee slopes into the ditch. The south side of the ditch canal is on the south side of the ditch, inside the ditch, and that internal slope is north of the levee.

The sound you heard was your story blowing up.

No, you showed us a segment of a overly eager summation argument from one of the attorneys (the hated prosecution no less) that unfortunately doesn't reflect the actual testimonial record. Lawyer argumentation does not equal evidence. You've proved nothing and your continued devotion to this point is quite perplexing. Show is the trial evidence and quit quoting lawyers as if the witnesses said it themselves

Bull! Summations don't have Q and A lines in them. When the person testifies "Yes" to the question, the question becomes the testimony, not the word "Yes".

"Well then let's use 1 foot per second as the speed. My spreadsheet states that it would take Davila 218 seconds to go from the ditch to the middle of the vega."

Really? Traveling at one foot per second over a vega length of 218 feet, if would take OVD 218 seconds to reach the middle of the vega? All this is meaningless because Compean didn't begin shooting OVD in the middle of the vega, that's where he ended his shooting. At 10 feet per second it would take about 12 seconds to reach the middle, just about the same time for Compean to empty his first magazine, reload and shoot four more times from the levee south slope. Ramos and Compean then chase after OVD and when they themselves reach the middle, OVD has reached the Rio Grande and Ramos takes the fateful shot. OVD drops, looks back to see R&C halfway across the vega, who then take their "half turn" and then head back to pick up the casings off the side of the levee slope. Makes perfect sense to me.

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.