Thread: Border Patrol Council issues rebuttal to Sutton

http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/rebut ... sutton.pdf


saw this link of dobbs websight

This should be forwarded to all congressmen and senators. Otherwise they probably will never hear of it!

Okay, while some of the points of this rebuttal certainly bear closer investigation (which will probably require actually poring over the trial transcripts), parts of it range from suspect to absurd.

Examples:

1. The rebuttal makes the claim that the only way that the wound channel could have been created was if the suspect turned to point a gun, but of course that is absurd. A similar body position could be caused by something like turning back for a look to see whether the agents were pursuing or even by "serpentining" to make himself a more difficult target. To assert that there is only one logical conclusion that can be drawn from the wound channel is silly on its face.

2. The rebuttal repeates the claim that the U.S. Attorney's office had "no trouble" finding the suspect after the event, but fails to address the explanation provided by the prosecutor that they were able to find him because he came forward through his attorney in Mexico.

3. In this rebuttal item, the false claim is again made that the physical wound evidence indicates that the suspect was aiming a gun at them. There appears to be nothing beyond a purely conjectural basis for this claim.

4. This is one of the items that bears further investigation. If the guy was cleared of later crimes in exchange for his testimony, I would say that was a bad deal for the American public.

5. The rebuttal states as fact a contested claim. As a matter of fact, another agent supported the claim of attempted surrender of the suspect (more on that later).

6. This claim again appears to contradict the testimony of Agent Juarez.

7. Immaterial to anything.

8. The rebuttal makes a claim of the withholding of exculpatory evidence, but provides no such evidence. It also again fails to address the damning testimony of Agent Juarez.

9. The argument is probably correct that the specific charge should not have been brought, but IF the agents did what they are accused of doing, there should have been some criminal prosecution, left to the discretion of a grand jury and a trial jury.

10. I would like to see the evidence that residency was offered and later rejected, but if it was offered at any point, that was a huge mistake and was too high a cost for his testimony.

11. Note that here the rebuttal defends the two accused agents by attacking the agent who testified against them. That is just bizarre especially given that no reason offered that agent Juarez would falsify his statement while the motive for the accused agents not being forthright is obvious.

12. Immaterial to the prosecution of the case.

13. There are numerous dubious statements made in the rebuttal of this point. The first is that procedure on "must report" activities is generally crystal clear. Claiming that they thought superiors were aware is no excuse. Furthermore, the rebuttal claims that Compean's disturbing of evidence by picking up and discarding shell casings should not be seen as an attempt to destroy or obscure evidence, but no explanation for this otherwise inexplicable act is given. Most peace officers and agents are trained to LEAVE THE EVIDENCE ALONE. Period. The statement that his disturbing the evidence was not meant to destroy the evidence or complicate issues is dubious.

14. This point would be well taken if it had been established that the suspect actually threatened the officers with a weapon. The testimony heard by the jurors clearly cast doubt on that claim.

15. This claim is significant but not damning to the prosecution's case. The agents admit firing at the suspect.

16. Immaterial to the case, and this rebuttal point takes as a given a claim that was rejected by the jury (that the suspect had threatened the agents with a gun).

In all, this is a pretty porous rebuttal, but at least it is a formal statement of alleged fact that can be compared against the evidence provided at the trial.

in regard to post 2. the only way they knew who it was, is because of the agent in wilcox az who called the DHS officer and told him where to find davila

3 the agents in the trial said they saw a gun or something shiny in his hand while he was fleeing. it must also be known that the family members have come forward to admit that he would not carry a drug load if he did NOT have a gun with him

post 4. its true, he was caught by el paso county officials and since he was under immunity for the earlier case, the indictment and charges were sealed

5 if its true that the other agents were on a lower levee and could not see over the higher road and levee as to what was going on then how would they know he tried to surrender? again remember, the agents have admitted in the trial that their statements were LIES

in regard to post 6 your agent in question has admitted on the stand during the trial that the statements he gave were LIES

post 7, sutton claims the myth going around that it happened in the middle of the nite. When i read this, i am like, what? because i had never heard anything like this and Ramos even admitted that he was eating lunch at the BP station

post 8 the agents given immunity have admitted to lying on the stand after being given immunity

post 10 it was offered, but when the second stop for the 1000 pounds was found out, this offer was stripped as was any further medical services at the Army hospital there in el paso

11 all agents who were given immunity for the trial have admitted on the stand during the trial that they lied in their given statements

post 12 shows that the supervisor didnt want to stay late and fill out paper work that the FBI would mandate be filed.

14 any person, law enforcement or otherwise have a right to defend themselves. the agents testified they saw a gun.

15 if the agents did not know the drug runner was even hit, why would one of them admit that the fragment was from his bullet if he didnt know the bullet actually hit him. the fact that when the bullet was not immeadiately turned over for tests and was in deed kept overnight is not appropriate. if its evidence, you cant wait 24 hours to turn something over like that

16 he was up for the nomination but it was removed once the incident happened. the spousal abuse, since it was not taken further than and arrest, should have never been spoken of, Sutton would have you beleive that he was arrested, charged and tried or something by stating that

Originally Posted by jamesw62

in regard to post 2. the only way they knew who it was, is because of the agent in wilcox az who called the DHS officer and told him where to find davila

3 the agents in the trial said they saw a gun or something shiny in his hand while he was fleeing. it must also be known that the family members have come forward to admit that he would not carry a drug load if he did NOT have a gun with him

post 4. its true, he was caught by el paso county officials and since he was under immunity for the earlier case, the indictment and charges were sealed

5 if its true that the other agents were on a lower levee and could not see over the higher road and levee as to what was going on then how would they know he tried to surrender? again remember, the agents have admitted in the trial that their statements were LIES

in regard to post 6 your agent in question has admitted on the stand during the trial that the statements he gave were LIES

post 7, sutton claims the myth going around that it happened in the middle of the nite. When i read this, i am like, what? because i had never heard anything like this and Ramos even admitted that he was eating lunch at the BP station

post 8 the agents given immunity have admitted to lying on the stand after being given immunity

post 10 it was offered, but when the second stop for the 1000 pounds was found out, this offer was stripped as was any further medical services at the Army hospital there in el paso

11 all agents who were given immunity for the trial have admitted on the stand during the trial that they lied in their given statements

post 12 shows that the supervisor didnt want to stay late and fill out paper work that the FBI would mandate be filed.

14 any person, law enforcement or otherwise have a right to defend themselves. the agents testified they saw a gun.

15 if the agents did not know the drug runner was even hit, why would one of them admit that the fragment was from his bullet if he didnt know the bullet actually hit him. the fact that when the bullet was not immeadiately turned over for tests and was in deed kept overnight is not appropriate. if its evidence, you cant wait 24 hours to turn something over like that

16 he was up for the nomination but it was removed once the incident happened. the spousal abuse, since it was not taken further than and arrest, should have never been spoken of, Sutton would have you beleive that he was arrested, charged and tried or something by stating that

Please provide evidence to support your repeated claim that the other agents admitted to perjury. I have not seen that alleged anywhere.

john and ken show, radio interview with joe loya, and andy ramirez
back in september.
i know there is an article on the net, i think sara carter did it, id have to find it myself cuz right off hand, i dont remember

Originally Posted by jamesw62

john and ken show, radio interview with joe loya, and andy ramirez
back in september.
i know there is an article on the net, i think sara carter did it, id have to find it myself cuz right off hand, i dont remember

well, if you can get anything in print I would appreciate it.