Drug smuggler left cell phone in van - Compean prosecutor claimed no evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
The more I read the sicker I get, of how this case ias being handled.:barf: :cuss: There seems to be some real higher ups, including judges, that need ran out of office.

Drug smuggler left cell phone in van
But Ramos-Compean prosecutor claimed no evidence against him
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54188

The Department of Homeland Security's report on the case of imprisoned Border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean notes the drug smuggler they pursued left behind his cell phone, but there appears to be no evidence investigators made any attempt to identify him.

Moreover, the disclosure directly contradicts prosecutor U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's repeated statements that there was no evidence that permitted law enforcement officers to track down the drug smuggler, Osbaldo Adrete-Davila, for prosecution.

The DHS report, which was heavily redacted, notes the discovery of the cell phone as follows:


Aldrete-Davila stated that he had nothing in his hands as he ran toward the international border. When asked if he possibly could have had a cellular telephone in his hands, Aldrete-Davila reiterated that his hands were empty. He advised there had been a cellular telephone in the van, but stated it was left behind. [Agent's Note: The Form I-44, Report of Apprehension or Seizure, completed by Jose Compean, noted that a cellular telephone was discovered inside the van.
The DHS report failed to include the Form I-44 referred to in the above paragraph.

WND also has obtained a transcript of the testimony of Border Patrol agent Arturo Vasquez at the Ramos-Compean trial. On page 84 of that transcript, Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso quashes the defense attempt to discuss Davila's cell phone.

Cardone comments:


Mr. Aldrete-Davila is not on trial. And everybody knows he's got a phone and everybody knows he was transporting the drugs, but, unless we're getting somewhere that's got to do with this case, I'm concerned we're going off …
At that point, the transcript indicates Cardone was interrupted by Prosecutor Debra Kanof. A full transcript of the Ramos-Compean trial has not yet been prepared or released by the U.S. District Court in El Paso.

In his Jan. 19 exclusive interview with WND, Sutton claimed he did not have any way to link Aldrete-Davila to the 743 pounds of marijuana found in the van, except by the smuggler's own testimony.


Now, if I could prove up the case another way, without using the words of Aldrete-Davila himself, we could prosecute the case. If I had a provable case that Aldrete-Davila had committed other crimes, I could prosecute him.
Sutton's contention about Aldrete-Davila was that, "We don't have any evidence."

The DHS report also makes clear that the agency made no attempt to pursue Aldrete-Davila's connections to the drug cartels in Mexico.


As the Limited Use Immunity only pertained to the investigation of the shooting incident, Aldrete-Davila refused to provide information on the drug trafficking organization (DTO) that had hired him to smuggle drugs on February 17, 2005. Aldrete-Davila also advised that he did not want to provide information on the DTO for fear of what the DTO might do to him and/or his family, adding that the DTO knew where he and his family lived and worked.
WND previously reported DHS had information independent of Aldrete-Davila's testimony which had identified him as the perpetrator in the Feb. 17, 2005, incident that led to the imprisonment of Ramos and Compean.

DHS first learned the identity of the drug smuggler through Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez in Wilcox, Ariz. Sanchez, who had grown up with Aldrete-Davila in Mexico, got the information from his mother-in-law, who had a conversation with Aldrete-Davila's mother on or about March 5, 2005.

Andy Ramirez, who has been involved with the case as chairman of the Friends of the Border Patrol, contended that if the investigators had the cell phone, they should have been able to track down Aldrete-Davila.

"It's shocking that Sutton continues to say there was no evidence on the scene against the drug smuggler, then we find out that DHS had Aldrete-Davila's cell phone all along," he said.

Ramirez also was critical of Sutton's office's choice to interpret the limited use immunity as prohibiting law enforcement from probing Aldrete-Davila's ties to Mexican drug cartel members.

"If Sutton had just focused on finding Aldrete-Davila through the family connections and the cell phone, he might have had a drug bust that could have blown open a drug cartel in Mexico," Ramirez told WND. "Instead, Sutton chose to view limited use immunity as giving Aldrete-Davila a free pass on all his drug activities."

Ramirez also was critical of Sutton's decision to issue Aldrete-Davila a multiple use border pass.

"I'd like to see the government's records on how many times Aldrete-Davila was in and out of the U.S. on that 'gold elite' government border pass Sutton gave the admitted drug smuggler. Who knows how many more loads of dope Aldrete-Davila brought into the U.S. with that card in his wallet?"

What is most outrageous, Ramirez said, "is that a known doper was given the equivalent of the old Disney 'E-ticket.'"

Explaining the significance of the government-issued border pass, Ramirez said, "It may not mean much to the average American who has never been to the border, but in El Paso, our U.S. Customs Agents want to thoroughly inspect traffic entering the U.S. from Mexico.

"The problem is that superiors often order agents to cease inspections as they're more concerned with getting traffic through than checking for dope or weapons of mass destruction."

Ramirez pointed out that anyone with a government-issued border pass bearing the signature and badge number of a DHS investigative officer would most likely just be waved through the border without inspection.

"All this makes me wonder who the drug smuggler Davila really is," Ramirez told WND, "and who Davila might have led to, provided Johnny Sutton had been interested in investigating. I can't figure out why so many high-ranking officials in our government are assisting this known doper and are actively trying to throw members of Congress off the trail by continuing to lie and misrepresent the facts."
 
I can't figure out why so many high-ranking officials in our government are assisting this known doper and are actively trying to throw members of Congress off the trail by continuing to lie and misrepresent the facts."

Uh....because it doesn't fit the NAU agenda???
 
Yeah, DD, what are you so upset about?:confused:

Just like the DHS testimony to Congress (in which my post there was left unanswered), what relevance does this have to the convictions of the convicted criminals?

What have the "higher ups" done that impact this trial? What have "judges" done in this case that so upsets you? Please explain, I just don't understand all the gnashing of teeth and rendering of garments.:confused:
 
+1 El T,

I just didn't feel like getting into it today.

You can lead a horse to water ya know?

There are none so blind as those who won't see comes to mind also.
 
What was the purpose?

I have always believed that immunity came with a price...give up the info on the crime...all of the crime.

Am I the only one here who senses that illegal drugs, and illegal "immigration" are somehow, and at some perverse federal level be condoned?
 
The Department of Homeland Security's report on the case of imprisoned Border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean notes the drug smuggler they pursued left behind his cell phone, but there appears to be no evidence investigators made any attempt to identify him.
Why not try to identify the owner of the cell phone?

In his Jan. 19 exclusive interview with WND, Sutton claimed he did not have any way to link Aldrete-Davila to the 743 pounds of marijuana found in the van, except by the smuggler's own testimony.
What about fingerprints in the SUV and on his cell phone?
Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso quashes the defense attempt to discuss Davila's cell phone.
Why quash a defense move? You should be able to present some defese before the court.
The DHS report also makes clear that the agency made no attempt to pursue Aldrete-Davila's connections to the drug cartels in Mexico.
Selective law enforement?

Thusly: The more I read the sicker I get, of how this case ias being handled. There seems to be some real higher ups, including judges, that need ran out of office.
 
hmmm

"Why quash a defense move? You should be able to present some defese before the court."


the judge outlined why pretty clearly.


"Quote:
The Department of Homeland Security's report on the case of imprisoned Border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean notes the drug smuggler they pursued left behind his cell phone, but there appears to be no evidence investigators made any attempt to identify him.

Why not try to identify the owner of the cell phone?


Quote:
In his Jan. 19 exclusive interview with WND, Sutton claimed he did not have any way to link Aldrete-Davila to the 743 pounds of marijuana found in the van, except by the smuggler's own testimony.

What about fingerprints in the SUV and on his cell phone?"

they need him there with the dope.he got away then he got immunity to testify
 
Those that do not think DD's points are pertinent need to take some time to read the rheems of information on world net daily as suggested. This case has more holes in it than a cat at the local dump. I just hope that nothing more happens to these two agents before we can get them out.
 
[what] bearing does this have on the agents case? their connvictions or their proven coverup?
It shows that there is certainly reason to believe that the prosecution (from top to bottom) was never interested in convicting a drug smuggler, but more interested in convicting “cops” who might (or might not) have been doing their job.

As to the “coverup”, surely you are aware that there is a DHS memo stating that both a first line supervisor and a second line supervisor were at the scene of the shooting and were aware of the shooting? As has been stated numerous times, Border Patrol policy states they agents involved in a shooting are only required to verbally notify a supervisor of the shooting. The fact that this memo was not allowed in trial is HUGE. A major aspect of the conviction is that the BPA’s covered up the shooting. This memo provides significant reasonable doubt that they covered up anything. That, taken in conjunction with the apparent misrepresentation of the prosecution regarding their “inability” to find and/or prosecute the dope smuggler changes the appearance of this prosecution from one of a legitimate attempt to keep law enforcement honest, to something else entirely.

That is why this is important
 
sigh

"Quote:
[what] bearing does this have on the agents case? their connvictions or their proven coverup?

It shows that there is certainly reason to believe that the prosecution (from top to bottom) was never interested in convicting a drug smuggler, but more interested in convicting “cops” who might (or might not) have been doing their job.

As to the “coverup”, surely you are aware that there is a DHS memo stating that both a first line supervisor and a second line supervisor were at the scene of the shooting and were aware of the shooting? As has been stated numerous times, Border Patrol policy states they agents involved in a shooting are only required to verbally notify a supervisor of the shooting. The fact that this memo was not allowed in trial is HUGE. A major aspect of the conviction is that the BPA’s covered up the shooting. This memo provides significant reasonable doubt that they covered up anything. That, taken in conjunction with the apparent misrepresentation of the prosecution regarding their “inability” to find and/or prosecute the dope smuggler changes the appearance of this prosecution from one of a legitimate attempt to keep law enforcement honest, to something else entirely.

That is why this is important
__________________"


the dope dealer wasn't on trial he got away.thats why that dog ddn't hunt in this trial.


you don't call having another agent return nto scene to recover and then dispose of shell casings a coverup? the jury felt different
 
The agents may not have been entirely blameless but their sentences were cruel and designed to make a political point.

Looked at from above this whole case screams "AGENDA!"

And when we compare, ultimately, once all the facts are finally out, the malfeasance of the agents with the malfeasance of our own government functionaries I think the coclusion to be drawn will be both depressing and infuriating to a great many honest and fair-minded citizens. It will underscore the real priorities of this Administration and the people who put it in power.
 
1/2 a bingo

"The agents may not have been entirely blameless but their sentences were cruel and designed to make a political point."


their sentences were a result of absurd mandatory sentence nonsense
 
Prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, "selectively enforce" laws every day. It's merely a part of prosecutorial discretion. In this case the USA thought that dirty cops were a more worthy target than a drug smuggler. Similar decisions are made every day across this country.

If what ahenry sez happened at trial did and the trial court short changed their defense, then I would anticipate a second trial.:scrutiny:
 
cassandrasdaddy,
the dope dealer wasn't on trial he got away.thats why that dog ddn't hunt in this trial.
You miss the whole point. The prosecution has repeatedly said that they only offered the smuggler immunity because they had no way to tie him to the dope load. Facts are now coming out that indicate otherwise. Whether they could have tied him to the cell phone or not, I can’t say. What I can say is that it appears that the prosecution overlooked possible ways they could have tied the smuggler to the dope in order to try and prosecute the BP agents. Moreover, they then tried to coverup that decision by claiming they had no way of connecting the smuggler and his load. This certainly throws doubt on their credibility...

their sentences were a result of absurd mandatory sentence nonsense
Negative! If they are actually guilty of shooting a surrendering individual that was offering no threat to those BP agents (their claim in public and at trial), then the sentences are reasonable. However, if even an iota of the evidence being reported now is factual, then it appears that the prosecution not only lied, but provided financial and other benefits to a criminal in order to try and convict two border patrol agents that were doing their jobs in order to further their own agenda. If the latter is true, then even one day in jail is excessive. Mandatory minimums (in this case) are not the issue.
 
El Tejon,
Prosecutors, especially federal prosecutors, "selectively enforce" laws every day. It's merely a part of prosecutorial discretion. In this case the USA thought that dirty cops were a more worthy target than a drug smuggler. Similar decisions are made every day across this country.
Sure. I have absolutely no problem with the prosecution choosing to do that very thing. I do however, have a problem with the prosecution lying about their reasons for making that decision. Kanof and Sutton both have made inaccurate claims to the public (and perhaps at trial), even going to far as to make some of those claims in official government documents. In my opinion, had they said from the beginning that they chose to go after “dirty cops” instead of the smuggler, regardless of their ability to convict the smuggler, I wouldn’t care less that there was a cell phone in the smugglers car.

You’re a lawyer, you must be intimately familiar with how character assassination works in a trial. As things seem to stand now, we have prosecution witnesses, the “victim”, and the prosecution themselves caught in a lie. It appears that the only ones that might be telling the truth are the convicted agents.
If what ahenry sez happened at trial did and the trial court short changed their defense, then I would anticipate a second trial.
I agree. Which is why I am firmly against any sort of a pardon. I want an appeal (or an entirely new trial) for these two agents. If what is being reported is true, then an appeal (or new trial) will surely bring that out. Being acquitted is far better for these two agents than a pardon.
 
A pardon would be a whitewash. Exactly right: another trial is called for here, along with a thorough investigation of what and who are behind the whole prosecution.

Follow the blood trail to the rotting carcass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top