Posted on 07/28/2008 11:46:09 AM PDT by Nachum
Mark Stelmach opened his remarks at the hearing with the admission that OAD told "some lies on the stand", well, shouldn't have the prosecution been that forthright with the jury...? The prosecution was required to make that kind of admission during the trial.
He clearly had to exit the van prior to the stop. He was the driver. Compean testified Davila jumped from the moving van. Davila testified he did not jump from the van while it was moving. This picture doesn't lie.
He wasn't the only prosecution witness that lied. Juarez testified he saw a magazine drop from the pistol that he says Compean fired at just beyond the levee road on the south. This picture takes at the scene the day of the event shows two officers standing on this side of the levee road which would make them over 15 feet closer. Juarez was out of the ditch and heading towards Davila's van so with relation to where the photo was taken he could be up to the length of the van from the drivers seat back closer than the photo position. With that in mind I find it very doubtful that he could see a magazine fall out of a pistol.
I don’t know who would be lying about whether he jumped from a moving van or not. It is clear he exited the van. The court ruling should not indicate someone “saw him exit” if that person did not. It could have been a clerical error, maybe they put the wrong name in that part of the description, but it should have been reviewed and corrected.
However, as “errors” go, since there is no dispute that Davila got out of the van, whether or not a specific person SAW him get out of the van seems immaterial.
As to this picture, I would ask how did the van door get closed if he jumped out while it was moving? There’s no way to swing the door closed WHILE jumping out, and if the van then came to a quick stop, the door would be pushed further OPEN, not CLOSED, and would probably have broken the hinges.
I do agree it doesn’t look like that door was opened after the van stopped in that position. I thought an agent had opened the door to get the cell phone out, but that agent may have gotten in the passenger door. I admit I skimmed over the “van search” part of the testimony as I don’t think there was any real controversy there either.
It never ceases to amaze me how government entities get so many things wrong (newspapers as well). But I guess I’m just not as surprised by it, maybe I’m jaded. I presume that a newspaper article will have wrong things because anytime I know what really happened I see how many things they get wrong.
So it doesn’t shock me that the court description of events has errors, although there’s no excuse for it because proper review should find the errors.
But that particular piece of information had no bearing on the appeal, so it’s a harmless error.
I'm not arguing that he did not exit the van. I am arguing that he lied about something on the stand. That goes to his credibility. The stupid picture is direct evidence that he lied. The van was moving when he exited. Compean testified that he saw Davila exit the van while it was moving and the picture corroborates Compean. That adds to Compean's credibility. In the final analysis the verdict comes down to the testimony of Davila and Compean and Ramos. I am denonstrating that evidence independent of the witnesses establishes that Davila is lying.
Your question about how the door became closed is answered easily. The dirt did it. As the van's front wheels fell over the edge while traveling forward the dirt impacted the open door. As the vehicle traveled forward the angular moment on the door hinge caused the door to slam shut. Contrarily, Jaurez testimony establishes that the door of Ramos truck remained open. Ramos came to a normal stop.
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.