NN: House of Death informant fingers Mexican, U.S. governments

[whatelseisnew]

http://www.narconews.com/

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2006/10/12/23833/369

By Bill Conroy,

The House of Death informant Guillermo Ramirez Peyro on Aug. 11, 2005, provided testimony, under oath, as part of his deportation removal proceedings before a U.S. Immigration court in Bloomington, Minn.

Narco News just obtained a copy of the transcript of that testimony, which can only be described as startling in parts and puzzling on other fronts.

But it is important to share some of the highlights of that testimony now, so you, kind readers, can put together a few more pieces of the House of Death puzzle.


The case, for those who might be new to Narco News’ coverage of this bloody mystery, involves the torture and murder, between August 2003 and mid-January 2004, of up to a dozen people in a house in Juarez, Mexico, at the hands of narco-traffickers associated with the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes crime organization. Present for many of those murders, and participating in carrying them out by any reasonable standard of moral complicity, was an informant, Ramirez Peyro, who was under the watch of U.S. federal agents and
prosecutors.

-----snip----

[gorbal]

1. This is bizarre, are there any other sources?

I would assume this would be front page news....if it was allowed. (But then, I would assume the "School of the Americas" would have been front page news as well.)

[whatelseisnew]

3. There are 'msm' sources for much of the developement

if you read through their multiple articles on this case

[whatelseisnew]

5. "WIRED NEWS: Court: Online Scribes Protected"

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C48996%2C00.html

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,48996,00.html

Online journalism is the same as print, radio and TV news when it comes to free-press protections against charges of libel.
That's the decision of the New York State Supreme Court in the widely watched case of the National Bank of Mexico against Narconews.com.
The court ruled that online journalists reporting on matters of public importance, like their colleagues in other media, can only be found guilty of libel if their actions are deemed malicious.
This "higher standard" for defamation cases was codified in the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan. It, of course, did not deal with Internet journalism.

[leftchick]

8. and how about the Chavez coup attempt?

some things are just too HOT for M$M! For the life of me I do not understand why this is not LBN!

[Greyhound]

2. Nice piece, sorry it is destined to sink like a rock.

Keep fighting the good fight. :hi:
:kick: & R

[whatelseisnew]

4. Why is that so? Narco News not allowed in DU LBN forum?

Was there a rule change I missed?

[Greyhound]

7. No, no rule, just an utter lack of interest in anything of real substance.

We'd much rather post and read 100 threads saying the same thing about the distraction du jour, than address what is really happening.

FOLEY, FOLEY, FOLEY! HRC is great! HRC is terrible! Elect Democrats, they are not re:puke:s.

Dog forbid you bring up something like Pelosi and Reid both saying that there will be no impeachment, that isn't important either.

[leftchick]

10. sad

but true. :(

[whatelseisnew]

6. You are right, it just keeps sinking

wtf?

[leftchick]

9. Thank You!

One will NEVER find this information anywhere else!