AZ - Gabriel Cuen-Buitimea, allegedly shot and killed with an AK-47 by rancher George Alan Kelly, 75, Kino Springs, Jan 2023

[NuttMegg]

No.
it is a fact, the victims body was found unarmed.
<modsnip>

Facts matter

I have a problem with the suggestion that the people with the victim remained next to him, while under gunfire that seemed to them as though they were being hunted, to recover any (so far imaginary) rifle.

If we accept imaginary rifles, then we could start theorizing that the accused murderer over the roughly 3 hours, went around picking up his casings, leaving just those 9 by his porch for le to find. Or that more than one shooter was in the ranch house. See? Once we start just inventing things it's wide open to any accusations for both sides.

 

[PriorTheCreator]

I have a problem with the suggestion that the people with the victim remained next to him, while under gunfire that seemed to them as though they were being hunted, to recover any (so far imaginary) rifle.

If we accept imaginary rifles, then we could start theorizing that the accused murderer over the roughly 3 hours, went around picking up casings, leaving just those 9 by his porch for le to find. See? Once we start just inventing things it's wide open to any accusations for both sides.

There was no weapon found, so I dont understand how people can just create stories saying there was and say its factual.

Facts matter

 

[Telltale]

No.
it is a fact, the victims body was found unarmed.
<modsnip>

Facts matter

I did note that in the witness testimony it said that Gabriel was wearing a backpack. Was he wearing one when found? It seems a bit unclear if he was or not.

If not, it would lend credence to the idea of things being taken from his body after death.

By the same note, if a self defence arguement can be made in this instance, I don't think it nessesarially has to be hard and fast that Gabriel was the one carrying a gun if others in the group potentially were.

Ahh found something

D.R.R. testified that he and Cuen-Buitimea, whom he called a friend, had paid a guide for passage across the border on Jan. 30 and were heading to Phoenix. He also said neither of them was carrying a weapon, and the guide had left them. Cuen-Buitimea was wearing a green camouflage backpack as well as a bag on his belt.

When his body was discovered he did not have any firearms or a backpack, but he did have a radio and tactical boots, the court filing says. The cause of death appeared to be a single gunshot wound and “it appeared that the body was fresh,” meaning he had likely died recently.

 Well isn't that interesting. That at least suggests that someone removed items from the body. Doesn't much make sense for Kelly to do it, nor does it line up with a scene where all other parties kept running until they hit the boarder.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

There was no weapon found, so I dont understand how people can just create stories saying there was and say its factual.

Facts matter

A backpack wasn’t found either. The witness said GCB was carrying a green backpack. I don’t think it’s a stretch to think a gun MAY have been removed as well. I wonder what was in the backpack.

 

[pentimento]

There was no weapon found, so I dont understand how people can just create stories saying there was and say its factual.

Facts matter

Right, and now I'm hearing that "other people" were there in addition to the group that was with the victim. What? Another invention.

D.R.R. testified that he and Cuen-Buitimea, whom he called a friend, had paid a guide for passage across the border on Jan. 30 and were heading to Phoenix. He also said neither of them was carrying a weapon, and the guide had left them. Cuen-Buitimea was wearing a green camouflage backpack as well as a bag on his belt.

When his body was discovered he did not have any firearms or a backpack, but he did have a radio and tactical boots, the court filing says. The cause of death appeared to be a single gunshot wound and “it appeared that the body was fresh,” meaning he had likely died recently.

This could just be somethig that needs clarification. However, if we're inventing a tampering theory, seems to me that Kelly was the one with the most time to tamper with the possessions. The other victims fled for fear of their life and Kelly had hours there unaccounted for. What motive would Kelly have? If it had a change of clothes and some food, the name of a farmer in Phoenix to contact, and a picture of his children inside of it, that wouldn't bode well for his drug-smuggler theory, would it?

 

[NuttMegg]

Correct - the man was found without a weapon. That was what I said. But you said he was "unarmed" and that was NOT accurate, in relation to these events.

He could have had multiple weapons on him as he went across Kelly's property illegally. We do know that the people with him left, and OTHER people were there and also left, and we have no way to know what weapons any of them had or might have taken as they went.

The victim was unarmed. He could have previously had a suitcase nuke, but none was found. You can invent anything the victim might have been carrying.

As far as the law is concerned he was unarmed.

He is the victim. He was shot in the back. He was a human being who was faraway from the person who is accused of shooting him. Maybe he was going to see a sweet heart in Phoenix, maybe some kids, maybe elderly parents on their deathbeds. Maybe to become a migrant worker.

Shot in the BACK.

 

[Telltale]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>


It doesn't make sense for Kelly to remove a backpack or a gun, since they point to the idea the victim was a people smuggler which only helps him. If he want d to interfere with the crime scene, why call it in at all? The police had already been out, he could have dragged the body to the edge of the property closest to the boarder, waited a few weeks and 'found' it. Forensic evidence would be long destroyed and it would just another cartel death in the desert.

The point is not that the backpack being missing means that Gabriel definitely has a gun. The point is items were potentially removed from his body after his death. So somebody had to do that. If somebody came back to the body for the backpack, it makes it far more likely that if he had a gun, they would have also taken it.

LE said Kelly's testimony was inconsistent, which is true. However, it appears that the witness testimony at times has also not matched up to LE version of events. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be the full transcript available to get a proper handle on quite what the witnesses are saying happened.

 

[PriorTheCreator]

It shows that items that the witness said he was carrying were not later found on the body. Hence somebody removed them.

It doesn't make sense for Kelly to remove a backpack or a gun, since they point to the idea the victim was a people smuggler which only helps him.

The point is not that it shows that Gabriel definitely has a gun. The point is items were potentially removed from his body after his death. So somebody had to do that. If somebody came back to the body for the backpack, it makes it far more likely that if he had a gun, they would have also taken it.

LE said Kelly's testimony was inconsistent, which is true. However, it appears that the witness testimony at times has also not matched up to LE version of events. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be the full transcript available to get a proper handle on quite what the witnesses are saying happened.

No it does not at all.
A witness misspeaking on an article of clothing doesnt prove that weapons were taken or that any existed at all there.
<modsnip>

Facts matter.

 

[PriorTheCreator]

So the STATE witness is going to come in and contradict his own testimony under oath? 10 yards is too far away to see such a thing? Because, that the distance the STATE witness gave, and testified in court under oath.

FACTUALLY, according to the testimony of both Kelly AND the state witness, he wasn't too far away to see.

Do you have a link on this claim?

 

[Telltale]

No it does not at all.
A witness misspeaking on an article of clothing doesnt prove that weapons were taken or that any existed at all there.
That is a huge huge huge leap. Its just a made up story created by someone who wasnt there.

Facts matter.

I mean this is the witness sworn testimony. Why would you dismiss it? Are they a reliable source of information or arn't they? You can't have it both ways.

Yes facts matter. The witness you are defending says he had a big backpack on. He did not have it when the body was found, or at least when LE saw it. Where that went and who took it is a fairly important part of the timeline as it suggests the body was interfered with rather than left where he fell.

Also, a large backpack isn't really a item you mistake for something else. On what basis are you suggesting he misspoke in his pre-recorded professionally and translated sworn testimony to the court?

 

[PrairieWind]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

The jury will decide if the witnesses are credible. and the defense will show that they have much reason to lie as the defendant. LE can only state that the body found had no weapon with it. But I suspect the defense will also claim they are talking about different events and different groups of people.

 

[cvaldez1975]

If they cross other than through a checkpoint they are not supposed illegal immigrants. By law they are illegal aliens, breaking the law.

"illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" mean the same thing.

 

[NuttMegg]

The point is whether or not there is enough evidence to prove that the crime was committed. He is accused of killing one man with a gun shot to the back from a great distance, too far to be called self defense. And of assaulting the other 2 by shooting at them. Sorry I don't remember the exact terminology of the charge. Imo the judge means that sure there are inconsistencies, but not about the specific crimes being charged. I believe they have proved ballistics, etc.

“Do I think there was some testimony that there might have been some holes on? Yes. I do,” the judge said. “But at the end of the day ... the court does find that the offenses were committed by this defendant and I will be binding this over to Superior Court.”

Judge OK's Arizona rancher trial in Mexican migrant killing

A judge has ruled that an Arizona rancher accused of shooting at a group of migrants on his property and killing a man will face trial on second-degree murder and aggravated assault charges.

apnews.com

 

[PriorTheCreator]

The jury will decide if the witnesses are credible. and the defense will show that they have much reason to lie as the defendant. LE can only state that the body found had no weapon with it. But I suspect the defense will also claim they are talking about different events and different groups of people.

What reason would the witnesses have to lie?

Why would LE say they are credible if they are not?

 

[NuttMegg]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

Kelly had roughly 3 hours from his first call to when le came for the body. What if the backpack, if it existed, had presents for some nieces/nephews and some special food items. Imagine how that would make his killing seem even worse. That whole story he told about going down to the pasture to see if the horse really had been hit, sorry my eyes were immediately rolling. He waited hours to check on his beloved "old" horse? And the body just happened to be there? And he didn't touch anything?

 

[PriorTheCreator]

Kelly had roughly 3 hours from his first call to when le came for the body. What if the backpack, if it existed, had presents for some nieces/nephews and some special food items. Imagine how that would make his killing seem even worse. That whole story he told about going down to the pasture to see if the horse really had been hit, sorry my eyes were immediately rolling. He waited hours to check on his beloved "old" horse? And the body just happened to be there? And he didn't touch anything?

This is literally just as valid as the other situations being vocalized.

 

[SteveS]

“Do I think there was some testimony that there might have been some holes on? Yes. I do,” the judge said. “But at the end of the day ... the court does find that the offenses were committed by this defendant and I will be binding this over to Superior Court.”

Judge OK's Arizona rancher trial in Mexican migrant killing

A judge has ruled that an Arizona rancher accused of shooting at a group of migrants on his property and killing a man will face trial on second-degree murder and aggravated assault charges.

apnews.com

We don't really know what evidence there is, or what is missing, other than the witness testimony we were allowed to hear. I've yet to see any report of physical proof that Kelly's gun was the one that fired the shot that killed the man, and imo that's a biggie.

Just as important to note, the role of the JP wasn't to render a verdict of any kind on the veracity and quality of the evidence provided. He's deciding if, should we take all the state's evidence presented and witnesses at face value, could a jury who believed them 100% legally convict Kelly. It's like a grand jury hearing, basically just an indictment that allows a trial. There's much more to be heard and decided.

 

[PriorTheCreator]

We don't really know what evidence there is, or what is missing, other than the witness testimony we were allowed to hear. I've yet to see any report of physical proof that Kelly's gun was the one that fired the shot that killed the man, and imo that's a biggie.

Just as important to note, the role of the JP wasn't to render a verdict of any kind on the veracity and quality of the evidence provided. He's deciding if, should we take all the state's evidence presented and witnesses at face value, could a jury who believed them 100% legally convict Kelly. It's like a grand jury hearing, basically just an indictment that allows a trial. There's much more to be heard and decided.

I think we both agree that people shouldnt be making up situations that dont fit the facts.

What we do know Kelly admitted to shooting at them when he saw them over 300ft away and there was no gun found on the victim.

So thats the only gun we know as a fact that was fired in the direction of the victim.

ALSO do you have a link for your 10yard claim?

 

[NuttMegg]

We don't really know what evidence there is, or what is missing, other than the witness testimony we were allowed to hear. I've yet to see any report of physical proof that Kelly's gun was the one that fired the shot that killed the man, and imo that's a biggie.

Just as important to note, the role of the JP wasn't to render a verdict of any kind on the veracity and quality of the evidence provided. He's deciding if, should we take all the state's evidence presented and witnesses at face value, could a jury who believed them 100% legally convict Kelly. It's like a grand jury hearing, basically just an indictment that allows a trial. There's much more to be heard and decided.

well this time I agree with you, it will come out in court. A judge thought there was enough proof which outweighed insignificant inconsistencies.

 

[SteveS]

<modsnip - quoted post and response removed>

The FACT is, someone did take stuff from Kelly's body and possession after his death. We don't know all that was included (which means a weapon could have been part of that). Both Kelly and the state witness testified that items were there when the interaction occurred, and then they were NOT there when LE first saw the body. Unless you think they dissolved into thin air, of course!

There is a LOT we don't know about this case yet, and the things that happened and the circumstances around it.