|
It seems that the negative attitude towards the shooting victim trumps the details of the shooting and the attempt to conceal it. The prosecution informed the court that they trial would be delayed because of the discovery, sometime after the shooting, that the victim's urethera had been severed, and that a US government hospital would perform surgery to attempt to reattach it, but that this was delayed because of the Iraq war related workload of the hospital.....
The shooting victim was apparently someone who smuggled marijuana into the US in volume, and the US Attorney claimed that Compean and Ramos only knew, before shooting at him, that he had failed to stop his vehicle, earlier, when directed to by other officers, and that Ramos and Compean could not have known that there was any illegal cargo in the victim's van.
US LEO went to Mexico, found the victim, promising him immunity from charges related to his activity at the time of the shooting. They also promised him, in exchange for his testimony, medical treatment in the US for his bullet wound. A bullet was extracted from his body by a US doctor, and I read that Ramos's defense attorney and the prosecution stipulated that the recovered bullet cam from Ramos's weapon.
If the victim had died from the shooting, and the bullet had been recovered from his corpse, is there anyone who can post how, based on the bullet evidence and on the testimony of other witnesses, how the outcome of the trial would have been more favorable to defendants Compean and Ramos.
Didn't they forfeit their claim that they thought the victim had a gun in his hand when they were shooting at him...because, after they shot him, they left him for dead, removed evidence from the scene, persuaded at least one fellow officer to hunt for and also remove evidence, and by failing to report that they had fired their weapons?
|