Replies

you said..."Seems to me any so-called discrepancies would be hear-say without a legal record of what was said in the verbal and not admissible."

The way I would look at these transcripts is to see what evidence was admitted...what exculpatory evidence was excluded..and what 'evidence' rests on hearsay testimony....particularly evidence provided by the smuggler which is not corroborated..or corroborated by witnesses which have also changed their testimony in other places, thus making their credibility suspect...or evidence provided by those who had a prior association with the smuggler.

Did Suttons office prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Ramos and Compean actually intentionally and deliberately committed a Crime of Violence....based on what physical evidence...EXACTLY.

From the beginning of this case...Ive been wondering about the ability of the BP lawyers to mount an adequate defense...either due to their own incompetence...or due to an unspoken silent partnership between the judge and the prosecutor in what evidence was admitted, and how the trial was conducted.

I seem to recall that the background of this judge is in Family Law...this means Divorce court. Here, the judges rule as monarchs. I have a friend who has been going through this process for quite a while with his ex...the stories of how the Family Court system actually works with renegade judges are interesting.

This judge, being a Bush political appointee, may (consciously or subconsciously)...have been overwhelmed by the case and simply deferred to the US Attny politically connected to the man who nominated her to her position.

Im bothered by the fact that, according to the DHS report section I read, Compean first waives his Miranda rights, states in interrogation that he saw what he believed to be a gun...then later RECANTS (THEIR WORDS) and admits that it may have not been a gun..implicating himself and Ramos in the shooting.

The report slyly implies that Compean pleads guilty you see...without actually pleading guilty...but of course later admitting guilt...he also refuses a plea bargain deal!!

How incompetent would his attorney have to be to allow this???

Or...is the DHS report biased.....and deceptive..hmmmmm....whats that mean?

Reading some of these threads...I see where the spinmeisters try to spin this as a battle between the crazed PRO PARDON folks and the sensible, fair minded PRO LAW N ORDER folks.

Its crap...this is all about DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW.

Did these guys receive it..or were they railroaded.

Did Sutton's office prove MOTIVE, INTENT, and have the FORENSIC evidence to make a solid case...and of course...did they apply the USC statute calling for mandatory 10 year sentences for Crimes of Violence where a gun was used in the commission of the crime....APPROPRIATLY, AS CONGRESS AND PRECEDENT dictates..