The case of Miguel Angel is entirely circumstantial, by its essence weak. All the evidence presented against Miguel Angel is hearsay. Each witness taken independently produces NO evidence to incriminate Miguel Angel or placed him at the scene of the crime or in possession (or proximity) of any of the physical evidence used at trial (weapons, car, other items). All the physical evidence if examined independently does NOT point to Miguel Angel, link him to the crime, or involve him in any way with the events of the crime, before or after.
No witnesses can produce any evidence against Miguel Angel without first incriminating themselves. Which would give any witness an incentive to say anything (even lie) if it will help them avoid prosecution, To wit: O. Lopez, M. Flores, A. Ibarra, and R. Gutierrez.
No physical evidence was founded in Miguel Angel’s possession. Neither weapons, stolen items, or anything that could directly or indirectly link him to the crime. Also, each witness that testified against Miguel Angel had either been in possession of physical evidence or involved in some other incriminating activity.
The case against Miguel Angel relies entirely on his statement; which coincidentally was NOT voluntary, entirely the product of what police narrated to him, and illegally obtained. All testimony and evidence follows the statement. No evidence or testimony was presented to reveal what activities (what was said or done) in the time before and after the crime, which would support the prosecutor’s case (independent of the statement) of Miguel’s involvement and culpability.
If the statement is taken independently and contrasted to the evidence, it will reveal that it can incriminate Miguel Angel, BUT only with the support of fabricated evidence and testimony and contrary to some physical and medical evidence.
Taking Milo’s (Manuel Flores) testimony independently and comparing it with expert testimony, police investigation, and other witnesses; it is clear what matches and what doesn’t. Contradiction, falsifications, and omissions are obvious.
Even more, what of those witnesses that were never called and hose testimony could add even conflict with Milo’s testimony, and the prosecutor’s case to blame Miguel Angel while protecting Milo and others. What about other evidence that was never presented or revealed because it would disrupt the state’s “PERFECT” CASE AGAINST MIGUEL ANGEL? From the beginning those police and prosecutors set out to pervert the system to hold Miguel Angel responsible for the criminal conduct of another and deny him the help that the law guarantees to protect him. To blind everyone with the horrible images of the crime, to forget justice, and instead seek unjustly revenge and political favors; while sacrificing the young life of a 17 year old boy with no criminal past—but, also no money, no voice, and no experience to fight a battle where the rules are made up along the way to win at all costs by those who lined themselves up against Miguel Angel.
Get your own Free Home Page