One mistake of many. Over half a year looking at the "facts" of the testimony and they can't get the "facts" right!?
Agent Juarez testified that, after arriving at the scene, he saw Aldrete- Davila get out of the van and move quickly into the ditch and up the other side.
NOT in the testimony. Juarez first saw Davila in the ditch.
Ramos testified that, after he had stopped his car behind Aldrete-Davila’s van, he saw Aldrete-Davila evade Compean at the ditch, but saw no confrontation of the type described by the other witnesses.
Ramos saw that Davila was likely to evade Compean. Ramos then lost visual contact with the two as he entered the ditch to cross and help Compean.
After making sure that he was alone, Agent Vasquez found four spent casings and threw them into the water in the irrigation ditch.
Four?
Yeah... it was four (pg 40, Volume 20, Vasquez testimony). They did get that one right.
If the Appeals Court ruling truly had error of fact, that would be brought out quickly by the lawyers and other interested parties, just as the errors of fact in the recent Supreme Court cases came out quickly.
Three men of character and decades of experience took on, as a job assignment, the task of reviewing every scrap of evidence from the case, along with filings from the defense and the government. They reviewed all the evidence, and concluded that no substantive errors were made, and that the facts supported the verdict.
In the absense of any real evidence to the contrary, I will trust their judgment over those expressed here.
Q. Did you actually see the alien as you were driving up? Did you see the driver of the van go into the ditch?The direct testimony said about the same thing, but this was more succinct.
A. No, I did not.
Q. But you saw that's where he went?
A. Yes.