Replies

Yet.

Well, that's exactly the point I'm making. Why ask the question, if it can't be answered? It was an opinion after all. I can point to lies, or charitably, mistaken comments, made publicly by Sutton concerning the Ramos and Compean incident. Those "misstatements" lend little support to the non-abuse position.

Because the opinion was stated with such authority I was wondering if there was something I had missed—some sort of a determination somewhere that Sutton abused his authority. In fact, I haven’t even heard that Ramos and Compean’s attorneys making that claim . . . and if they are not that is a pretty good indication of the strength of that particular argument.

Hard to keep up with the many and well stated opinions offered here, but I will offer one more. Sutton's actions have been a bit like our North Carolina's Mike Nifong. He was disbarred for ignoring evidence favorable to the Duke lacrosse players and making false statements about them so as to portray them in a bad light. The major difference I see is Sutton operates under the aegis of Pres. Bush. Nifong had no such guardian angel.

I would also disagree with the statement we have to wait to see if Sutton abused his prosecutorial powers. I have read enough to be confident he has. Whether or not the judicial branch concurs is another matter. OJ’s innocent verdict may have been a judicial victory, but I know of few objective people who do not think he murdered his wife.

The least I expect from the appeals court is a new trial, and in my heart I am hoping for more. Sadly, I have been disappointed by this administration and many sitting judges, so I will wait anxiously for the ruling. No matter my impatience, I think of Ramos and Compean imprisoned because we have people in our government who care more about Mexico than they do about America. And that is tragic.