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'll try this one more time. Just because OVD saw puffs in the middle of the vega is not evidence that is where they started. It's not evidence of where they ended. It's only evidence that at some point when he was in the middle of there was some shooting going on. Any other extrapolation on your part is conjecture.

Given that OAD's entire testimony largely mimics that written in the OIG report, and presumably the individual MOAs written by Chris Sanchez throughout the investigation, I believe the testimony is consistent with the OIG report that more clearly states "Aldrete-Davila said that he was about halfway through the vega when he heard multiple gunshots..."

If you choose to think that an interpretation that shots began sooner is more reasonable, so-be-it. We will just have to agree to disagree.

But that is the problem with a lot of posts on this thread. You post a bunch of generally unrelated stuff and imply we should "connect the dots" as some great epiphany will befall us if we do.

I have never implied that. If you don't understand something I post, or its relevance, go ahead and ask.

If you want to say something, say it. Don't leave a bunch bread crumbs and expect us to guess what you mean. We're not your pet gerbil.

Would my post have been more clear had I said "YOU ARE WRONG" instead of "You're confusing Compean with Vasquez." I was trying to be kind! My only point was to correct an erroneous post.

So you believe Juarez COULD have seen Compean in that position on the south side of the levee, but would not be able to see him shoot?

You screw up testimony and you screw up my statements. I said no such thing. I said he did not see Compean shoot, because Vasquez would have also seen Compean shoot. That directly states that two people would have been able to see him shoot. One of them did not see Compean shoot while he was looking in the direction that would have allowed him to see Compean shoot. Juarez is a testified liar. Therefore, Juarez did not see Compean shooting, he lied about it.

That construct of statements was your construct not mine. And thus the foolish logic is yours not mine.

"Juarez was lying when he said he saw Compean shooting from that position."

Do you believe that Juarez saw Compean shooting at all? I don't, because I think he was looking in the van at the time.

What I'm trying to figure out is how all the measurements help. Do they tell us that it was impossible for Juarez to see what he says he saw?

You give distance, measurements etc., but don't completely articulate your conclusions in a manner for those of us who aren't as math inclined. The thing is, the conclusions are obvious to you--but not to somebody like me because of my math and spatial deficiencies.

Bob, can you answer my question from #404:

He can't, or won't.

He has the habit of brushing off testimony that devastates his view of the situation. His touchstones as truth tellers, are Davila, Juarez, and Vasquez. There testimonies conflict with each other and those of other agents.

First, Davila definitely places two or three agents behind him to the north when he is in the ditch. They are all pointing weapons at him. Ramos testifies that he hears more than one agent arriving behind him as he yells "parate". Juarez says he never pulls his weapon and Vasquez places himself in the area when the shooting ends. Somebody besides Ramos has his weapon drawn.

Second Juarez testifies he was six to eight cars behind Davila and Ramos when they stopped(pg 166 vol 8). That is around 2 seconds behind. Mendoza places Vasquez 5 or 6 vehicles apart from Juarez while still on asphalt(pg 21 vol 10). That would place Vasquez 2 seconds behind Juarez while still on asphalt. With the testimony of Davila and Ramos along with Mendoza it is clear that Vasquez and Juarez were there within 10 seconds of each other and at the scene prior to the run of Davila. Both Juarez and Vasquez are lying.

Do you believe that Juarez saw Compean shooting at all? I don't, because I think he was looking in the van at the time.

As of now, I suspect the same as you write. I think both Juarez and Vasquez were there while OAD was in the ditch, probably at the edge with their guns drawn. When OAD made it past Compean, instead of going after them (and getting their feet wet), they shrug their shoulders and think--"Oh well, he just wanted to go home") and proceeded the van to check out the drugs. Hence, they never saw Ramos go into the ditch or cross the levee, never saw Compean shoot, etc. They were predisposed checking out the van.

What I'm trying to figure out is how all the measurements help. Do they tell us that it was impossible for Juarez to see what he says he saw?

Not yet, but they might. I haven't had as much time as I would like to go back through the testimony. What the calculations are doing for me is isolating the testimony that has credibility. The earlier calculations of car speeds and arrival times (IMO) give a clearer picture of who was there while OAD was in the ditch and deserves a baseline for looking at Ramos's next actions (i.e. heading over the levee) and the timing of that relative OAD and Compean's testimony.

The calculations relative to what Juarez could or could not have seen is just something that has bugged me since I first read his testimony--it was all too convenient. Gonzalez tried to guide him in testimony but he kept screwing it up. This one was a classic:

14 Q. Okay. Where was he shooting from? Where was he standing
15    when you saw -- first you heard the shots, right?
16 A. Yes.

I'll have to spend more time with the testimony of Ramos and the others before concluding anything, but when I get there, I'll ping ya.

You give distance, measurements etc., but don't completely articulate your conclusions in a manner for those of us who aren't as math inclined. The thing is, the conclusions are obvious to you--but not to somebody like me because of my math and spatial deficiencies.

Are there any of my calculations that you want me to explain more? I realize I just posted the results and not the actual calculations, but I could try to lay that out more if you were interested (basically I'm referring to my post #386).

Do you believe that Juarez saw Compean shooting at all? I don't, because I think he was looking in the van at the time.

Not only that, Compean was on the other side of the levee, so Juarez couldn't have seen Compean shoot.

Here is a picture

We can measure the difference in distance between the first two horses. We don't know the time difference between the two, because we don't know their speeds. But we can make educated guesses from data.

Okay, now let us imagine we can take a picture of the event at Fabens. We take the snapshot at the time Davila is beginning his run at the ditch, and then we take another snapshot when Davila is at the middle of the vega. We don't know the time difference we just know that there is a difference. We also know the positions of non-moving things. We are also certain of the position of Davila since his position is the reason the pictures are taken. The information we have from the pictures are distances between the non moving objects, for instance, the south edge of the ditch and the middle of the vega. That distance is 218 feet. Using reasonable values for the maximum speed of Davila we can determine that the pictures were taken 14 seconds apart. Now we can start adding players to the scenario using the testimony to see who may be telling the truth. They all may be telling the truth or they all may be lying or some variation, but the truth will always fit in those two frames. Davila's position is sane by definition. We can add Juarez in the ditch on the first frame and next to the van in the second frame. He can certainly get from the ditch to the van in 14 seconds. Ramos is in the ditch in the first frame and remains in the ditch in the second frame by his testimony and the testimony of Juarez- he does not see Ramos. Juarez places Compean face down in the ditch in the first frame and just beyond the top of the levee in the second, that may be problematic since he started face down in the ditch but for the moment it is acceptable as possible.

Now comes the hard part. We can place Vasquez on the second frame a few car lengths away from Juarez by Vasquez's testimony. But the position of Vasquez on the first frame is unclear. And that is the problem he has to be 14 seconds away from his position on the second frame. Any position we select using the 14 seconds and vehicle speeds puts Vasquez far beyond any reasonable distance. Consequently, he must have been present at the scene sometime before the second frame. He would have seen Compean go up to his purported levee firing position.

>>There is no evidence that the bullet that wounded OAD came from anyone else's gun other than from Ramos' gun.<<

That by itself is hardly compelling.

>>You do not stipulate to evidence that is disputed. This is testimony and evidence that was UNdisputed at trial.<<

I would not stipulate to that unless I saw conclusive proof. If the prosecutor did not have the evidence and was bluffing, it makes the defense team look pretty dumb. But we don't know what the defense saw.

>>Have you seen all the ballistics tests supplied to the defense team?<<

No. However, if the prosecution had stronger evidence, it is strange that they only presented testimony that showed that Ramos's gun could be a match. Since Stillinger had already stipulated that the gun matched, they didn't have to show any proof. If the prosecution had stronger ballistic evidence, why did they present weaker testimony in the trial? I am still wondering about this.

Possibly Ramos signed something that we have not seen. Probably somebody will write a book (I hope fairly showing both sides of the argument) some day. :)

"Under both Compeans testimony and my own opinions, Compean started firing either when OVD was entering the vega or some distance just inside. Whether that is 0, 20 or 40 feet, it certainly didn't start halfway to the Rio Grande, as AC keeps trying to insist."

I condenced the testimony to the relevent points as it covered a page or two.

10 Q. So you wind up tackling him. Is that what you're saying? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. What do you do then? 13 A. We both tumbled down. We went over -- down on the slope. 14 We rolled down to the ground. And once we stopped moving, I 15 had -- all I had was a grasp of his -- of his ankle.

-snip-

1 A. He started running. I looked up, and I saw him running 2 away. A few seconds later I saw him turn around, and he was 3 pointing -- he was pointing something at me.

-snip-

22 Q. Okay. At that moment, were you in fear for your life? 23 A. Yes, sir, I was. 24 Q. What did you do? 25 A. I immediately drew my weapon. I was -- I believe I was down on two knees. I came up on one knee and began firing.

Compean testifies he tackles OVD near the edge of the levee and they tumble down to the bottom, which places them in that drag area. They tussle, OVD breaks free and runs, we assume across the drag area and into the vega at a 45 degree angle. Comp looks up and after a "few seconds" says he sees OVD turn and point at him at which time he "immediately" drew his weapon and fired.

I don't remember how wide the drag area is. OVD is not running straight but at a 45 degree angle so that increase the distance some. He doesn't bolt out of a gate like a race horse, but has to get up and start his run from basically a standstill. A "few seconds" to me is 2-3, based on my estimate of his average speed as 8-10 feet a second he travelled approx 16-30 feet when Comp draws. Add another 5-10 to get a shot off and we are at 21-40 feet. Even based on AC's estimate of 15 feet per second, he would be no more than 55 feet. This is not halfway through the vega which I think we agree is somewhere around 230 feet across?

Whether that is 0, 20 or 40 feet, it certainly didn't start halfway to the Rio Grande, as AC keeps trying to insist."

It certainly does, because that is what the testimony states. Understand, Davila testifies that is is halfway through the vega. You can't change that. On top of that, his statements made to C. Sanchez corroborate that. Finally, a few seconds is indefinite, but you don't get to dictate what that means. A few seconds can relate to 3 or 4 or 5 etc. Three seconds at 15 fps is 45 feet and 5 seconds is 75 feet, the vega is 200 feet wide because the slope of the levee is 30 feet and the measurement from the levee road to the Rio Grande is 230 feet. Half of that is 100 so 6 to 7 seconds is not far off for half of the vega. 6 and 7 are a few. It takes time to raise to one knee pull your weapon, point and fire. This is not a standing quick draw contest. The time to raise to one knee, pull your weapon, and point is in addition to the few seconds. Finally, Davila's time to accelerate would be miniscule. He is evidently already face to the ground and has a foot pushing away from Compean, because Compean has just lost the grip on the other ankle. How did Davila provide enough force to free that ankle without pushing on the ground with his other foot? Face it, Davila was halfway into the vega as he testifies.

Calcowgirl, here are some pictures I found of the van. You can see in both images that the horizon which would be the top of the levee, is low, very consistent with the 4 degree angle calculated for a 12 foot high levee.

From the looks of the driver side door, I suspect Davila had to have left the vehicle before it got to where it is. It looks like the bottom of the door is blocked by dirt.

... halfway through the vega which I think we agree is somewhere around 230 feet across?

No. 230 feet is the distance from the Levee ROAD, at the top of the slope, to the Rio Grande. The drag road (aka vega road) is at the bottom of the slope, actually on the vega. You can see it on google maps. Below is the way I interpret it. When the testimony talks about shooting beginning at the midpoint of the 230 feet (115 foot point), that would be only 50 feet or so south from the drag rd.

North  <------------------------------------------------->  South 
                                                            | |
                                                            |R|
South          *                                            |I|
Slope of      |d|                                           |O|
Levee         |r|                                           | |
              |a|         VEGA Area (sand and grass)        |G|
              |g|                                           |R|
\.            | |                                           |A|
   \.         |r|                                           |N|
      \.      |d|                                           |D|
        ^ --------^---------------------------------------  |E|
- 30ft -^   40 ft*^              160 ft*                    | |
                                                            | |
<----- TOTAL 230 FEET - from levee ROAD to Rio Grande --->  | |

Down Slope of levee...           30 feet
To edge of drag rd*...           40 feet* 
Remaining vega area...          160 feet*
                                ---                                     
Total from Levee rd to RioG...  230 feet

*Viewing google maps, the south edge of the drag road, near the Jess Harris intersection, appears to be approximately 40 ft from bottom of levee. That would leave 160 feet of remaining Vega area (sand and grass area) before reaching the Rio Grande on the south.

There are many discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses. All the testimony is considered 'facts.' Some fact testimony may be considered more reliable than other testimony by the jury. They may entirely discount the factual testimony of a witness. I don't think a court will equate your analysis of the testimony with DNA tests. All you are saying is that the testimony, particularly of the other border agents, created a reasonable doubt in your mind. That does not make it a fact. Unfortunately for you the final arbiter, in a trial, of the facts didn't agree. Obviously the defense didn't agree with your analysis either, otherwise the would not have R&C testify and be subjected to the cross of the prosecutor.

If you are so sure about the testimony, why didn't the defense use this at trial? Probably because based on all the evidence, the jury would come to a much different conclusion than you did, which is what happened. That does not make your analysis a "fact." You have got realize that it was basically conceded that Compean took 14 shots at OAD and that Ramos shot OAD one time, all while OAD was fleeing. The only defense left at that time is legal justification. The creating a reasonable doubt defense is gone. And frankly, I don't see where it much of a chance unless defendants were going to perjure themselves, which I am sure their attorneys counseled against.

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.