TBD writes; “For what it's worth I've had two people on another board who have been strident defenders of Ramos and Compean that have been railing at me for months over it. I pointed them to the trial record and after some initial quibbling over how some of the questioning went, they've gone totally and completely silent.”
What a bullshit answer. It seems that you want me to provide the “Burden of proof” in whether these guys were persecuted by Sutton at the request of the Mexican Consulate or got a fair trial.
There are 15 questions that need to be answered:
Time permitting, I will start with the first 7 of them...
1. Sutton says Ramos and Compean fired after Mexican Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who Sutton stresses was an "unarmed" drug smuggler. Davila escaped from the scene back into Mexico. Since he was never apprehended or frisked, no one will ever know for certain if Davila was armed or not.
Question: What definitive proof, besides circumstantial arguments about the behavior of participants at the scene, does Sutton have to prove conclusively that Davila was unarmed?
______________________________
2. Sutton claims the jury convicted Ramos and Compean after a trial, arguing this alone establishes conclusively the men's guilt. Yet, WND has documented that Sutton and prosecutor Debra Kanof withheld from the jury information about Davila's second drug bust while Davila was under immunity and had a border-crossing pass signed by a DHS agent. WND has also reported that withholding key information is a repeating pattern in Border Patrol agent prosecutions. In the decision to grant Border Patrol Agent David Sipe a new trial, the prosecution's withholding of evidence was a main factor. In his retrial, Sipe was acquitted, but the experience cost him seven years of his life, his life's savings and his marriage.
Questions: If Sutton and Kanof withheld material information about the prosecution's key witness from the jury, why should we assume the jury's verdict was conclusive on the issue of Ramos and Compean's guilt? What was Sutton's motive in withholding information about Davila's second drug load from the jury? Was Sutton only interested in winning the prosecution against Ramos and Compean, even if it meant withholding from the jury material truths that would have damaged the prosecutions case?
___________________
3. Sutton and Kanof allowed Davila to testify on the stand that he was an inexperienced drug smuggler who only committed this one offense, because his commercial driver's license in Mexico had expired and he needed money, supposedly to buy medicine for his sick mother. Yet, as WND reported, Sutton and Kanof knew Davila was lying on key material points, especially since his "second load" demonstrated that Davila knew how to find a safe house in Clint, Texas, without being led there by a lead car (as Davila testified was the set-up in the Ramos-Compean load). Davila's testimony at the Ramos-Compean trial that he was unarmed was central to the prosecution's argument. Yet, the Ramos-Compean defense was prevented from probing the second drug load with questions that most likely would have undermined Davila's credibility.
Questions: Why did Sutton and Kanof prevent the defense from questioning Davila about the second drug load? Were Sutton and Kanof convinced that the jury would vote for acquittal if they knew Davila had smuggled a second load of drugs across the border while he was under immunity for the first drug load?
____________________________
4. At trial, the prosecution argued that Davila tried to surrender and only fled because he was in fear of his life. The defense argued Davila was armed and that both Ramos and Compean feel he reached back at them with an object they perceived to be a weapon. Davila was wounded in the left buttocks, with the bullet traversing his groin, ending up lodged in his right thigh. The doctor who removed the bullet testified at the trial that the evidence of the wound was consistent with a "bladed movement," with Davila reaching his left hand back toward the officers as he was running away. The doctor testimony about the wound was consistent with the argument that Davila may have reached back with a gun while escaping.
Questions: Why does Sutton continue to claim Davila was shot in the back? Is Sutton's intent to characterize the wound incorrectly? Is Sutton's real intent in characterizing Davila's wound as "a shot in the back" to reinforce his argument that Davila was an unarmed victim who was shot maliciously by rogue Border Patrol agents who refused to arrest him, preferring to shoot him as he fled defenselessly for safety?
____________________
5. Sutton consistently says he does not have enough information to indict and prosecute Davila for the second load. Yet, WND has reported that both a DHS and DEA investigative report exist naming Davila as bringing the second drug load in October 2005 to a safe house operated by Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez.
Questions: If DHS and DEA reports exist naming Davila in this second drug load, is Sutton hiding behind the cloak of "an ongoing investigation" or "insufficient information," when his true intent is to protect his key witness against Ramos and Compean from prosecution for subsequent drug offenses? Why doesn't Sutton prosecute Davila? Has Sutton revealed the full extent of payments or other "deals" that Davila was offered in exchange for his sworn testimony at trial against Ramos and Compean?
_____________________
6. WND reported Sutton's office has arrested and indicted Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez for drug offenses involved in the Davila "second load" case.
Questions: Does Sutton intend to extend the immunity granted Davila to this second load? Does Sutton intend to call Davila to testify in Ortiz-Hernandez's case? Would Sutton seek to block the defense at the Ortiz-Hernandez case from calling Davila to testify?
_______________________
7. DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner, before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee Feb. 6, 2006, admitted that officials of his agency misrepresented DHS reports when they told Congress Ramos and Compean were "rogue cops" who had confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect. The DHS investigators further misrepresented that their reports stated the day of the incident Ramos and Compean said they "wanted to shoot a Mexican."
Question: Why does Sutton continue to rely on unsubstantiated DHS allegations when the DHS inspector general under oath to Congress has admitted these misrepresentations?
______________
Now feel free to jump right in with any of these answers.
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56649
