(originally from AP, Feb. 5, 2007
"Former U.S. Border Patrol Agent David Ham
points toward the location at Fabens, Texas")
Posted on 03/05/2007 9:16:23 AM PST by pissant
Are you dense? I didn't say that. I stated that I was told three jurors indicated that.
My statement about the decision was preceded by an "If". And I did not know that the decision had been made, but my statement was then essentially correct about the necessity of a decision. For the record, please provide a link to that decision if it is available.
"Juarez and Vasquez weren't even interested about the gunshots they heard."
Because R&C has alienated themselves from every agent at that station. They were trigger happy glory hogs who had no intention of letting others in on their big hauls.
If I were Juarez and Ramos butted me out of the "eye", there would be a situation back at the station. But the others were just short timers and rookies who could be abused and have their chances at making a nice bust stripped from their jaws by the veterans.
Nothing to see here, move along.
I judge denied the motion for new trial on the record, I believe in the last volume of the transcript. I am sure there is a written order reflecting the denial in the clerk's record.
Compean - Cross by Mr. Gonzalez 49-50 22 You climb out, and you do what, sir? 23 A. I started walking to the end of the ditch. 24 Q. And, now, let's talk about that. From the levee to the end 25 of the ditch, do you know the distance? 1 A. No, I do not. . . 13 Q. All right. So from point C to point D, 73 feet. And would 14 you agree with that, or do you disagree? 15 A. It doesn't seem that far. But if that's what it says 16 there... 17 Q. Okay. Thank you. 18 So you take your shotgun, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And you walk 73 feet, at least? 21 A. Yes.
Erton... I didn't think Ramos was a bad witness--I thought Kanof was a witch! With what she threw at him, I don't know how anyone could come out looking great (or any better). She misstated his testimony, didn't let him finish answers, etc. I can't see a single witness that testified, had they had the same garbage thrown at them, faring any better. With the glad-handing and spoon-feeding of prosecutors, Juarez still came out looking like a full-blown liar, IMO.
Did you find Juarez more credible than Ramos?
"If I were Juarez and Ramos butted me out of the "eye", there would be a situation back at the station."
What does that mean?
I didn't think he was a bad witness either. erton1, what did you think was bad about his testimony?
More ditch pictures from America's Most Wanted...
at approximately 45 second point of video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFitU65zDTY
Anybody else have any links to pictures of the ditch?
There would be words, at least. Ramos bumped Juarez off the lead position then told him to turn off his lights. Jaurez let it happen for the only reason I can think of...it's SOP.
No wonder the newbies didn't back up the veterans at the canal or in court. Juarez went out of his way to say he main reason he wasn't forthcoming in his initial interviews was because he was covering for himself...covering for his BP brothers R&C was way down on his list.
But that would also present an example of bias against R&C which also muddies the water regarding what he did say in court. In Sipe, one of the reasons for granting a new trial was the suppression of evidence regarding personal animus held by one of the agent-witnesses who testified against Sipe.
I think most defendents believe there was a bias by the people that testify against them. I guess R&C's attorney would have to argue the bias was so bad it resulted in perjury by the other agents which they also would have to show to a convincing degree.
However, I think the bias in this case resulted in no one wanting to go out of their way to help. No "silence" from the thin blue line you see in other cop cases.
BTW - Would you agree there might be bias by a victim against their rapist? Or by a minor against their molestor or a mother against the murderer of her child?
Bias is not de facto evidence of any shenanigans in court. Bias goes to motive, not actual evidence of a crime.
Oh be real, you haven't read the testimony. Davila, the drug smuggler said two or three agents north of him were pointing their pistols at him. Only Ramos stated he was pointing a pistol at him. So who was telling the truth? Davila claimed he couldn't tell what was in the back of his van. You can see what it is. Only Mr Magoo would have trouble identifying it as marijuana. Cell phone? what cell phone? Cell phone charger? What cell phone charger. Etc. Etc. Davila was clearly a liar.
And you know this how?
If I were Juarez and Ramos butted me out of the "eye", there would be a situation back at the station. But the others were just short timers and rookies who could be abused and have their chances at making a nice bust stripped from their jaws by the veterans.
That is because you would be an idiot. What hallucinatory drug are you taking?
"Davila, the drug smuggler said two or three agents north of him were pointing their pistols at him."
Hmmm, you seem to be saying it may be possible for a person to be lying when they say they believe someone is pointing a gun at them.
"Davila claimed he couldn't tell what was in the back of his van"
No, OVD testified he didn't know for sure because he didn't look in the back and couldn't smell it, but he did say he assumed it to be mj. Evidentally, thats mostly what they smuggle along that portion of the border.
BTW - At least one BPA testified they couldn't smell it either. I know there are ways to package the stuff to evade drug sniffing dogs. It may be something as simply as that and the direction and strength of the wind.
But to be fair, this did seem strange since other agents did smell it.
If a victim is truly raped, that victim would have an interest in seeing the correct perpetrator convicted. Same with the minor and mother. Their bias would become apparent as to the punishment the perp should undergo once convicted.
If these victims had a personal dislike of the perp prior to the alleged crime, that would be relevant to the issue of whether the victim is telling the truth about the perp.
In Sipe, one the agents expressed dislike of Sipe. That was relevant to the veracity of that agent's testimony agaisnt Sipe, which is why the court used that as one of the justifications for a new trial because the information was suppressed.
If Juarez disliked R&C because they hogged the limelight, that is certainly relevant to the veracity of his testimony. I would have made hay about jealousy and hatred in cross-examination.
By the way, have you ever had a bunch of employees? You wouldn't believe some of the lies I've been told about other employees hated by the liars. Human beings can turn ugly and dishonest because of hate and envy.
That's one of the reasons God commanded that the penalty for bearing false witness is the penalty that would have been borne by the person against whom the false witness was made. He knows how tempted we are to lie and get people in trouble when we envy them.
It's called reading between the lines, filling in the dead spots and trying to explain the inexplicable, something every juror has to do as well.
Why do you think neither Juarez nor Ramos saw each other?
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.