Saturday, June 27, 2009

China's Great Wall of Silence: Publication in Observechina.

Thanks to long-time friends Harry Wu and Observechina, and Chow for writing an introduction to my articles.


观察 > 专题与评论
一位可敬的“洋鬼子”

周继能
本杰明.哈里斯(BENJAMIN HARRIS)博客http://publicoccurrenc.blogspot.com/


(一)

知道本杰明.哈里斯(BENJAMIN HARRIS)这个人,是在两年多前的一天。我在浏览一个网站时,见到一个介绍,说有位本杰明.哈里斯,是美国检察官。这位美国检察官,知道了四十年前发生在地球另一端的一件往事,就是在1966年的“红八月”,在当时自称“世界革命心脏”的北京,“北京师范大学女子附属中学”的女校长卞仲耘,被自己的学生,活活殴打致死。几十年过去了,究竟是谁人参与打死校长?不甚了了;众多学生,无论打人者或看客,没有一个出来道歉,或证言此事。

于是这位本杰明.哈里斯先生,实在看不下去,拍案而起,发誓全球追踪,要把行凶打人者,暴露在阳光之下。他在自己的博客中,披露搜索到的资料,并且留下联系方式,征集有关线索。

本杰明.哈里斯博客上的卞仲耘介绍


本杰明.哈里斯先生,他以检察官的职业本能,直觉地认为,罪行发生在众目睽睽之下,缕清真相应该没有什么困难。而以西方人基督教的文化背景,他又觉得,几十年过去,居然没有那怕一个人出来说一声对不起,简直是不可思议的事。

这个“洋鬼子”哈里斯,显然对“中国特色”东方政治的厚黑一无所知。当揭露罪行会影响这个体系的“合法性”的时候,正义就要让路,一切都要“宜粗不宜细”了。至于道歉忏悔,精神救赎,在枪杆子说话的地方,简直就不堪一提。

(二)

我与本杰明.哈里斯的交往,肇始于此。

我看到了对本杰明.哈里斯先生的介绍,为他的人文精神感动,于是向他发出一份电邮,对他表示敬意。并且向他表明,我自己当年就是一个“红卫兵”。

本杰明.哈里斯很快就作出了回应,他误以为我就是一个知情者。询问我知道什么线索,并答应替我本人的信息保守秘密。

我只得解释一番,说明我并非北京人,而且是个male( 男性),不可能在当年“北大女附中”这么一间皇族子弟学校就读。

现在说明一下,我根本不懂英文,中学时赶上向苏联“一边倒”,学的是俄文,因此,到现在连电脑键盘上的英文字都不认识。故此跟哈里斯先生的联系,统统仰仗儿子。

儿子虽然是大学英语专业本科生,但是对政治术语生分得很。我曾经把网上一幅照片拿来给他看,照片里展示美国总统布什出席纽约一个“受难者纪念碑”的落成仪式。儿子对纪念碑上communism这个单词竟然茫无所知,而我根据俄文的发音已经猜出来了。现在的教育,逐渐摒弃了“革命”,这与我们当年学外语,所学单词大量的是“革命根据地”、“革命斗争”等等政治术语,简直是大异其趣。

所以与哈里斯先生的联系就十分有限度了,有时只能简单问候一句。

2008年11月,哈里斯先生给我发来了电邮,称近日将赴北京,约我见一面:

Dear Chow,

I will be in Beijing fron November 20-29. Forgive me if I am mistaken that you live in Beijing but if you do it would be my great pleasure to meet you while I am there.

Yours,
Ben

可惜,我打开电邮的时候已经接近哈里斯先生在华行程之末,况且我在北京的千里之外,只能告声sorry了。

(三)

在博客里看到,哈里斯先生在北京的日子里,专程拜会了卞仲耘校长的丈夫王晶尭先生:

本杰明.哈里斯拜访王晶垚


还到访了今天的“北京师范大学附属实验中学”,即当年的“北京师范大学附属女子中学”:

本杰明.哈里斯在北京师范大学附属实验中学

本杰明.哈里斯在北京师范大学附属实验中学

本杰明.哈里斯在北京师范大学附属实验中学

本杰明.哈里斯先生在当年的“北师大女附中”的校园里思考着什么?

本杰明.哈里斯在北京参观徐唯辛工作室


(四)

熟识“文革”史的人都知道,北师大女附中校长卞仲耘是“文革”中第一个被打死的教育工作者。1966年8月5日她被打死,8月18日,学校的“革委会”负责人、红卫兵头头宋彬彬就获邀登上天安门城楼,为“伟大领袖”戴上了“红卫兵”的红袖章。并获赐“御名”:宋要武。

今天,“宋要武”已经成了美国博士宋岩,本杰明.哈里斯先生对她说了些什么话:



对于卞仲耘校长当年的另一位学生、现在的上海交通大学党委书记马德秀,本杰明.哈里斯又有一番话要说:

马德秀(左)卞仲耘(右)

本杰明.哈里斯给马德秀的信


(马德秀简介http://www.sjtu.edu.cn/about/2007/0828/6.html)

以上内容:
http://publicoccurrenc.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=50
* * * * * *
胡杰电影:《我虽死去》


《我虽死去》http下载:http://xxxking.oursm.free.fr/dl/wssq.rmvb

(五)

本人把自己收藏的两款“文革”图片传给了本杰明.哈里斯先生,他把图片收在自己的博客里,并作了评论。(他说了什么?可惜我看不懂)。

我的文革收藏

我的文革收藏-2

我的文革收藏-3


以上内容见:
http://publicoccurrenc.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=50

(六)

1939年,有一位“领袖”,在《纪念白求恩》一文中说过:“一个外国人,毫无利己的动机,把中国人民的解放事业当作他自己的事业,这是什么精神?这是国际主义的精神,这是共产主义的精神。”如果按这一说法,本杰明.哈里斯先生岂不是也体现了“国际主义精神”?因为他确确实实是把“中国人民的解放事业当做他自己的事业”的啊!——当然,这是从奴役中解放出来。

读者推荐 转载请注明出处
Sunday, June 21, 2009
本站网址:http://www.observechina.net
推荐此文给朋友
相关文章

  • 卞仲耘死难真相录 何燕凌 等
  • 燃烧两个红八月的“圣火” 祭园守园人
  • 红八月祭 王容芬
  • 为历史作证——评胡杰获奖纪录片《我虽死去》 王容芬
  • 致北师大附属实验中学校长袁爱俊的公开信 王晶垚
  • 请看宋彬彬在文革都做了什么
  • 邂逅王晶尧 徐唯辛
  • 宋彬彬入选“知名校友”是实验中学之耻 佚名
  • 卞仲耘与宋彬彬:符号的意义 文军
  • 二〇〇六年八月五日卞仲耘纪念会来宾发言纪要(上) 开放
  • 谁能站出来说一声对不起 阿木
  • 《我虽死去》网上直播 中国信息中心
  • 讲宽容要有条件! 刘自立
  • 一个人的网络大追捕 杨莉藜
  • 阳光灿烂的日子!?——纪念卞校长兼谈毛,刘异同 刘自立

  • ©2002-2006 China Information Center. All Rights Reserved.

    Thursday, June 25, 2009

    SAO Barquin Shooting Close Out Memo Conclusion: "Inconclusive."



































    1




    INTRODUCTION



    On Friday, January 16, 2004, at approximately 1:37

    p.m., the Miami-Dade Police Department received a 911

    telephone call stating that there was a burglary in process

    at 14773 Southwest 58th Street. The caller, who spoke

    Spanish, said that he lived across the street from the home

    being burglarized, and that he had observed two (2) white

    males jumping the fence and going into the back yard. Units

    were dispatched at 1:39 p.m., from the Hammocks District with

    Officer William Nelson assigned as the primary unit and

    Officer Jorge Espinosa assigned as the back-up officer.

    Officer Espinosa arrived first and, while checking the

    exterior of the residence, discovered that a sliding glass

    door in the rear of the house was open. Officer Espinosa

    entered the residence and confronted two male burglars in the

    master bedroom. One of them, later identified as Rolando

    Llanes, jumped out of the bedroom window, while the other

    man, later identified as Leonardo Barquin, allegedly pointed

    a weapon at Officer Espinosa. Officer Espinosa then fired

    two shots at Barquin, hitting him at least once. Barquin

    then jumped out of the window and ran to climb the fence in

    the backyard in an attempt to escape. Officer Espinosa

    followed Barquin who allegedly pointed the weapon at the

    officer at second time. Officer Espinosa responded by firing
    2




    one more shot as Barquin went over the fence.

    Barquin ran over to Southwest 57th Terrace, where

    he collapsed and was subsequently apprehended by Officer

    Espinosa. Barquin had been shot twice and was bleeding

    profusely. He was airlifted to Jackson Memorial Hospital,

    where he expired at 9:56 p.m. that night. Rolando Llanes

    continued to flee for several blocks and was later

    apprehended. Both Llanes and Barquin were in possession of

    items taken in the burglary of the residence at 14773

    Southwest 58th Street. Neither Barquin nor Llanes had a

    weapon when they were arrested and no weapon was ever

    recovered.



    SWORN STATEMENT OF OFFICER JORGE ESPINOSA



    On February 17, 2004, a month after the shooting

    incident, Officer Espinosa stated the following:

    On January 16, 2004, he was assigned to uniform

    patrol in the Hammocks District and was working the 6:00

    a.m., to 2:00 p.m. shift. He was in a marked unit on 147th

    Avenue approaching Sunset Drive, when he received a call for

    a burglary in process. He quickly arrived in the area of

    58th Street; however, he was having trouble locating the

    correct address. He saw an older Hispanic male in his front

    yard on 58th Street. When Officer Espinosa pulled up to him
    3




    to seek directions, the man said in Spanish "it is the pink

    house". Officer Espinosa then drove his vehicle to the front

    of the house (located at 14773 Southwest 58th Street), parked

    the vehicle and walked up to the front door, which was

    locked. He then saw that the gate leading to the backyard

    was propped open. He went through the gate to the backyard

    of the residence and noticed that the sliding glass door

    leading into the house from the patio was open.

    While announcing "police" several times, Officer

    Espinosa went into the house with his H & K USP .40 caliber

    pistol drawn. Upon entering the house, he heard "loud

    noises" in a room to his right, and heard "objects being

    thrown in the room." He walked to the room where he heard

    the noises, saw that the door was open and announced "police"

    two or three more times. Officer Espinosa then explained:

    It was a dark room and there was still

    throwing - there was objects being thrown inside

    the room. I again, announced "police" about two

    times and I heard from one of the subjects in the

    room, "metro" really loud. I then heard the

    shattering of glass inside the room and I saw a

    subject with a white sock over his hand, and what

    appeared to me as a semi-automatic handgun inside

    of his hand, at which point, he pointed it at me

    (indicating) and said "I'm kill you, cop" (sic)
    4




    and turned his body toward me. Simultaneously as

    he said, "I'll kill you cop," I just shot at him

    right after he said that. He was like at the

    window.

    According to Officer Espinosa, he was standing at

    the foot of the bed when he fired his weapon two times. (See

    sketch of bedroom attached as Exhibit A). When asked about

    the number of subjects in the room, he said that it appeared

    to be two; however, one had already gotten out of the window.

    Concerning the subject remaining in the room, subsequently

    identified as Leonardo Barquin, the following questions and

    answers ensued.

    Q. The person who pointed the weapon at you, where was he

    standing at when you shot him?

    A. He was going through the window.

    Q. Do you know if either leg was outside the window?

    A. I couldn't tell you.

    Q. Or his torso?

    A. It was dark and I couldn't tell.

    Q. The person who had the white sock on, and the weapon in

    his hand, could you tell if he had another sock on the

    other hand also?

    A. I couldn't tell, I was focused on the weapon in his

    hand. I was scared and I was in fear of my life and I

    couldn't see it.
    5






    Q. One question I didn't ask you was while you were inside

    the bedroom, could you tell if any objects were being

    thrown at you?

    A. Again, it was dark inside the bedroom. I couldn't see

    any objects being thrown at me, I just could hear a

    lot of objects being thrown.



    The foregoing quotations from Officer Espinosa's sworn

    statement constitute the totality of questioning by the

    Miami-Dade Police Department Homicide Detectives about what

    happened in the bedroom that day when Espinosa allegedly fired

    two shots at the suspect.

    However, the questioning does continue seeking to

    determine what happened after the subject escaped through the

    window:

    Q. What happened once this subject made it through the

    window?

    A. I noticed that they went through the window and I

    doubled back where I came in through originally and

    when I was approaching the sliding glass door to exit

    the house, I advised, "shots fired" on the radio. And

    at that time, I ran out toward the outside patio and I

    seen the first person get on the fence. It was a

    thinner white male. He got on the fence, which is on
    6




    the northeast corner of the home in question. He got

    up there and he stood up on the top of the fence. He

    was already on the other side, and the second male, the

    larger guy, got up there as the first guy helped him

    get on the fence. As I was getting to the fence to try

    to get him, to try to detain him, he turns around and

    points again his arm at me, with what appeared to be a

    semi-automatic black handgun. Again, in fear of my

    life, I thought he was going to kill me and I fired at

    him one more time.

    Q. About how far away from him do you think you were when

    you discharged your weapon?

    A. About six feet - five feet, six feet.

    Q. How many times did you discharge your weapon?

    A. One time.

    Q. While we are speaking about your weapon, how do you

    normally keep your weapon loaded? With how many

    rounds?

    A. I keep it loaded with the magazine full and one actual

    round in the chamber.

    Q. Did the subject ever fire any shots at you?

    A. Not that I know of.

    Q. Once the subject was at the top of the fence and he

    pointed a weapon at you, and you fired, what happened

    next?
    7




    A. I heard them fall onto the other side, which would be

    the northeast corner lot. They fell on the other side.

    Since I knew they had a gun on them and I was scared

    that they would shoot me if I got up on the fence, I

    decided to get on the air and run around back towards

    the entryway where the gates was, where I originally

    entered the property.

    Q. When you exited the residence after the first

    engagement, as you went through the patio area, which

    way did you run? Did you go directly towards the

    fence?

    A. I ran up a little bit towards the east. There was a

    table there and I ran around the table.

    The foregoing quotations are the entirety of

    the information provided by Officer Espinosa about the

    third shot fired at the subject.



    According to Officer Espinosa, he then ran through the

    side gate to the house back to the front yard. Leaving his

    marked unit parked in front of the residence, he turned left

    and ran down 58th to 147th Avenue(FN1) (FN1, Nine (9) houses

    away from the crime scene.) He turned left on 147th Avenue

    and then ran to 57th Terrace, which was the next street over

    running parallel to 58th Street(FN2) (FN2, The length of two (2)

    houses including the front and backyard). Turning left on
    8




    57th Terrace, he ran until he heard "wheezing types of

    noises3". (FN3, Six (6) houses away from 147th Ave.) Officer

    Espinosa then stated the following:

    On 57th Terrace, I turned left, which would

    be westbound on 57th Terrace, and I ran past

    about two or three houses to where I approximate

    the house would be, in back of where they jumped,

    to be where they would be coming out from. At

    that point, I heard wheezing types of noises. I

    was giving - I was trying to set up a perimeter

    on the radio, giving description of the subjects

    as I was running toward there, and at that time,

    I located the noises and saw the subject lying on

    the ground between a house and a fence, with a

    white sock on his arm and his hand. I drew down

    my weapon on him and advised him to show me his

    hands. He spread them out, at which point I got

    on the air and I advised that there was one

    subject in custody, and I started fire rescue.

    Q. Did you ever put handcuffs on that subject?

    A. No, I did not. As soon as I called for fire rescue on

    my radio, and I still had my gun drawn up on him, I see

    a white Maxima type of vehicle - undercover CST unit -

    drive up. Two detectives jump out of the vehicle and

    begin walking towards me. One detective, Serrano,
    9




    walks up to me and pulls me aside to where there is a

    parked vehicle, and told me to stand there. I stood by

    the parked vehicle, and that was like toward the center

    of the roadway. At that point, I had a view of the

    Southwest neighborhood there. At that point, he told

    me, "stay right here, are you okay?" He asked me if I

    had been injured. I told him no I didn't have any

    injuries.

    Officer Espinosa's sworn statement took a total of

    fifteen (15) minutes and provided only the information

    included above.



    OFFICER JORGE ESPINOSA'S INJURIES



    Detective Jaen-Rosello was directed to process the

    crime scene beginning at 14773 Southwest 58th Street (the

    residence where the shooting occurred), following the blood

    trail leading down Southwest 57th Terrace, culminating at

    14750 Southwest 57th Terrace (where Barquin was apprehended).

    He also processed the third crime scene at 14744 Southwest

    55th Terrace, where the second subject, later identified as

    Rolando Llanes, was apprehended. These crime scenes will be

    discussed in detail at a later point in this memorandum;

    however, it is relevant to discuss at this point what he

    observed, and Detective Taaffe photographed, concerning
    10




    Officer Espinosa. After taking the officer's weapon,

    detective Jaen-Rosello reports the following:

    The following injuries are observed on

    officer J. Espinosa. A redness of the skin is

    noted on his right rib cage, and abrasion on his

    let elbow, a cut of his left thumb, and an

    abrasion on his right hand (behind thumb).

    These injuries were observed and photographed on

    January 16, 2004, immediately after the shooting incident,

    and their description was included in a death scene

    investigation report approved by detective Jaen-Rosello's

    supervisor on February 11, 2004. However, in his sworn

    statement taken on February 17, 2004, Officer Espinosa was

    never asked about his injuries.



    STATEMENT OF OFFICER WILLIAM NELSON



    Officer William Nelson gave a sworn statement on

    January 16, 2004, at 10:50 p.m. on the evening of the

    shooting incident. On January 16th, he was assigned to

    uniform patrol in the Hammocks District, and was working the

    8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift. At approximately 1:39 p.m., he

    was dispatched as the primary unit to a burglary in process

    at a pink house across the street from 14798 Southwest 58th

    Street. The 911 call had originated from the latter
    11




    location. The dispatcher also advised Officer Nelson that

    there were two (2) male subjects in dark clothing. Officer

    Jorge Espinosa was also dispatched as the back-up unit;

    however, Espinosa arrived at the scene first. A few moments

    later, while Officer Nelson was still enroute, he heard

    Officer Espinosa in a "very excited" voice request emergency

    assistance. A few moments later, he heard Espinosa ask again

    for emergency assistance and stating that shots had been

    fired. Finally, he heard that Espinosa was at "57" and that

    Espinosa was requesting fire rescue.

    Assuming that "57" meant 57th Street or 57th

    Terrace, Officer Nelson sped to 57th Terrace arriving

    approximately two (2) minutes later. Upon arrival at 14750

    Southwest 57th Terrace, he saw Officer Espinosa standing in

    front of the house with the wounded subject a few feet away.

    Officer Nelson ran up to the victim (Barquin) and noticed

    that the victim had a white sock on his right hand, and that

    he was bleeding profusely. Officer Nelson got his first aid

    kit from his vehicle and began to assist the victim. He

    believed that the victim had been shot in the left buttocks,

    and the left thigh, and had a wound on his right elbow

    possibly a graze wound from a bullet.

    While administering first aid, Officer Nelson

    attempted unsuccessfully to get the victim's name. However,

    he did not respond and just "stared into space". Officer
    12




    Nelson then said, "So, is breaking into a house fun?" At

    that point, the victim made eye contact with the officer and

    replied, "No." The victim then said, "Please don't let me

    die." Fire rescue then arrived and took over the victim's

    treatment.

    While fire rescue was treating the victim, Officer

    Nelson retrieved the victim's pants, which had been cut off

    of him in order to facilitate treatment, and emptied the

    pockets looking for identification. He did not find any

    identification; however, he did recover a watch, a set of

    handcuffs, a couple of keys, an American Express card, and a

    clear plastic bag containing white pills.

    After the victim was airlifted from the scene,

    Officer Nelson helped secure the area and began to follow the

    blood trail backwards toward where the shooting had occurred.

    He lost the blood trail at the side of 14770 Southwest 57th

    Terrace, where he observed that the area appeared to have

    been recently washed down. He saw a White Latin male, in his

    mid-twenties, in the backyard of the residence behind a

    locked wrought iron gate; however, he did not speak to him.

    The Latin male at 14770 Southwest 57th Terrace was

    subsequently identified as Alberto Angel Ferro. (See Ferro's

    statement and interviews at page 15, infra)

    Officer Nelson told homicide detectives and crime

    scene personnel what he had heard and observed, and gave a
    13




    sworn statement later that night.

    MEDICAL TREATMENT OF LEONARDO BARQUIN AT

    JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL



    Concern has been expressed about the condition of

    the victim's body when viewed by the family; therefore, it

    would be both helpful and appropriate to discuss Mr.

    Barquin's emergency medical treatment at Jackson Memorial

    Hospital.

    After being treated at the scene by Officer Nelson

    and by Miami-Dade Fire Rescue personnel, Mr. Barquin was

    airlifted to Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital

    and arrived at 2:30 p.m. He was admitted with two (2)

    gunshot wounds, an open wound of the forearm, traumatic

    shock, and an extensive loss of blood. His estimated blood

    loss was forty-two (42) liters, and he was given fifty-two

    (52) units of blood products intravenously.

    In treating the gunshot wounds, the surgeons found

    that the victim had a through-and-through gunshot wound to

    the left thigh with massive bleeding through the femoral

    artery. He also had a gunshot wound to the right buttocks

    with massive bleeding into the abdomen. Before he could even

    be operated on, he went into cardiac arrest, and had to be

    resuscitated. In an attempt to stop the bleeding, the

    surgeons had to make multiple incisions and dissections, and
    14




    had to pack his body with special bandages. The wounds were

    then closed by suture after a very low systolic blood

    pressure was established. The open wound on his arm was

    determined to not be a gunshot wound, and was not life

    threatening. Despite all these efforts, Mr. Barquin expired

    at 9:56 p.m. that evening. One spent projectile was

    recovered from the body of Mr. Barquin and turned over to the

    Miami-Dade Police Department.

    Because of the extensive surgical intervention, and

    the packing of Mr. Barquin's body with bandages, there was

    significant damage to his body as well as significant

    swelling. The undersigned Assistant State Attorney reviewed

    the condition of Mr. Barquin's body with the Medical Examiner

    to determine if there was any evidence of beating or other

    trauma as suspected by some in the victim's family. We were

    assured by the Medical Examiner that all wounds and marks on

    Mr. Barquin's body were consistent with two (2) gunshot

    wounds, with injuries caused by jumping through a window and

    fleeing, and with surgical intervention at the Ryder Trauma

    Center. There was no evidence of beating or other trauma.



    REPORT OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER



    Dr. Mark Shuman conducted the autopsy on January

    17, 2004. Dr. Shuman determined that the cause of death was
    15




    multiple gunshot wounds. Leonardo Barquin had two (2)

    gunshot wounds, one was a penetrating gunshot wound to the

    right buttock, and the other was a perforating gunshot wound

    of the left leg. These wounds one described more

    specifically as:



    PENETRATING GUNSHOT WOUND "A" OF RIGHT BUTTOCK:



    An entrance type gunshot wound is 29-3/8 inches

    below the top of the head and 2-3/4 inches to the right of

    midline on the right upper buttock. It is a 0.9 x 0.5

    centimeter, horizontally oriented, oval, skin defect with a

    0.2 centimeter, circumferential, abrasion collar that is

    irregular inferiorly. No shoot or stipple is associated with

    the wound. The projectile continued through the sacrum, into

    the pelvis, through the distal descending colon, through a

    loop of small bowel that had been repaired surgically, and

    was recovered by the surgeons in the right side of the

    pelvis.

    The direction of the path of the wound is back to

    front and right to left.

    PERFORATING GUNSHOT "B" OF LEFT LEG:

    An entrance type gunshot wound is 38-1/4 inches

    below the top of the head and 2-3/4 inches to the right of

    the posterior midline of the left thigh. It is a 0.9 x 0.4
    16




    centimeter, horizontally oriented, oval defect with a 0.1

    centimeter, circumferential, abrasion collar. No shoot or

    stipple is associated with the wound. The wound is

    surrounded by an 8.0 x 3.5 centimeter, pink and purple

    ecchymosis. The projectile passed through the muscles of the

    left thigh medial to the left femur, injured the left femoral

    vein, which has been sutured, and exited the left anterior

    thigh. The exit wound is within a surgical incision on the

    left thigh. It consists of a 1.6-centimeter, semicircular

    defect in the left side of the surgical incision, 37-3/4

    inches below the top of the head; and a 1.1-centimeter,

    irregular, semicircular defect in the right side of the

    surgical incision, 39-1/4 inches below the top of the head.

    The direction of the path of the wound is back to

    front and slightly right to left.

    The victim also had multiple abrasions on his

    scalp, arms and legs, and two (2)-scalp contusions. All of

    the injuries were consistent with the victim's jumping

    through a window, jumping over a fence, and fleeing through

    the yards of several residences.

    Finally, the victim's body had extensive evidence

    of medical intervention, including a number of incisions and

    sutures.

    It was decided by the undersigned Assistant State

    Attorney to first cover Officer Espinosa's account of what
    17




    happened on January 16, 2004, juxtaposed with the injuries,

    medical treatment, and autopsy of the victim, Leonardo

    Barquin. With this knowledge, one can better understand the

    following crime scene reports and witness statements, and can

    better understand the many unanswered questions and

    unresolved issues in this investigation.

    Crime Scene # 1 (The residence at 147th 73 Southwest 58th

    Street)

    January 16, 2004



    The first crime scene is the location of the

    burglary, and the shooting, which is located at 14773

    Southwest 58th Street. The crime scene is described as

    follows and is depicted in Exhibits A and B.

    The scene is the three-bedroom, two-bath,

    single-family home, located on the north side of

    the street facing south, with the above listed

    address. The rear yard of the house is

    surrounded by a wooden fence. There is a small

    palm tree in the northeast corner of the yard.

    There is a plastic chair up against the tree

    facing the rear fence. The chair is

    bloodstained. There are also bloodstains on the

    fence, above the chair, on the side that faces

    south as well as on the side that faces west.
    18




    There is a toy gun on the ground in the southeast

    quadrant of the yardFN4. (FN4, According to the

    crime scene personnel, the toy gun had the

    appearance of having been in the yard for a great

    deal of time. It was not suspected to be the

    weapon allegedly wielded by Barquin.)

    The south master bedroom awning window is

    broken. On the ground, below the window, there

    are broken pieces of aluminum from the window

    frame, glass fragments, and broken pieces of the

    wooden Venetian blind. A set of storm panels and

    a white sweat sock are lying nearby. There are

    bloodstains on top of the storm panels on a glass

    fragment, on a piece of wooden slat, and on the

    white sock.

    The sliding glass door that leads to the

    rear yard from the family room is open. Beside

    the door is a sofa upon which is a piece of 2 x 4

    wood. Reportedly, the wood was used by the owner

    to secure the sliding door. The front door is

    secured from the inside bay chain lock.

    There is extensive ransacking in the master

    bedroom. The armoire, dresser, and chest of

    drawers have open drawers. Much clothing and

    many documents are strewn about the floor. The
    19




    dresser is located along the east wall, across

    from the bed. A small top drawer on the dresser

    is open, revealing women's lingerie. A casing,

    head stamped "Federal S & W", is located on the

    lingerie.

    The broken rear window is located in the

    north bedroom wall. On the floor, below the

    window, is a bent bloodstained screen. There are

    also bloodstains on the floor and windowsill.

    There is an exercise machine near the west side

    of the window. Under the machine is a

    projectile.

    January 17, 2004

    On January 17, 2004, the owner of the burglarized

    residence called the Miami-Dade Police Department with a

    surprising discovery. He had discovered another shell casing

    while cleaning up the debris. Mr. Lopez, the homeowner,

    reported that the casing was under the glass and debris, and

    that he had not touched or moved it. The following describes

    the crime scene as reported by Detective Jaen-Rosello at

    approximately 5:20 p.m., on January 17th, and depicted in the

    sketch attached as Exhibit B:

    The scene is the residence located at 14773

    Southwest 58th Street. The scene is confined to

    the Southwest portion of the back yard. Located
    20




    on the ground under the master bedroom window is

    a "Federal S & W .40 caliber" casing. The casing

    is observed among and under pieces of glass and

    other debris, which came from the broken window.

    According to Detective Gallagher the casing was

    found by the homeowner while cleaning the debris.

    The casing is approximately eight feet east of

    the west wooden fence, and one foot six inches

    from the bedroom exterior north wall. For an

    exact location, please refer to the backyard

    sketch prepared by Crime Scene Detective C.

    Green. The rest of the scene is unremarkable.

    The second casing was not all that was found on

    January 17, the day after the shooting. A third casing was

    discovered in the backyard near the fence where Barquin had

    fled. This scene is described as follows and is also

    depicted in Exhibit B:

    The scene is the rear (north) yard of the

    residence. The yard consists of grass with palm

    trees. There is a rear patio with furniture

    directly behind the house and a hot tub located

    at the northwest corner. A single chair is

    located in the northeast corner of the rear yard

    by the fence corner.

    Homicide Detective Chavarry requested that
    21




    a metal detector be utilized to locate a missing

    casing. One (1) Federal .40 S & W casing was

    visually found near the northeast corner of the

    rear yard. Photographs are taken of the casing

    and its location.



    The Blood Trail and Crime Scene # 2

    (The residence at 14750 Southwest 57th Terrace

    Where Leonardo Barquin was apprehended.)



    Detective Jaen-Rosello prepared the report on the

    secondary crime scene, which is sketched in Exhibit C.

    The secondary scene consists of 14780,

    14770, 14760, and 14750 Southwest 57th Terrace.

    The residences extend northeast from the primary

    scene located at 14773 Southwest 58th Street, and

    all face north. The first residence which is

    14780 Southwest 57th Terrace. Blood is noted on

    the inside wooden fence (Marker 1), and also on

    the concrete slab (Markers 2 & 3) located in the

    southwest corner of the yard. The trail

    continues on a northeasterly direction along the

    tile walkway (Marker 4), and on the inner and

    outer side of the gate (Markers 5 & 6) located on

    the east side of the residence.
    22




    The blood trail continues east onto the

    property of 14770 Southwest 57th Terrace. Blood

    is noted on the north end of the exterior west

    wall (Marker 7), on the southwest corner of the

    driveway, and also on the west side of the

    walkway (Marker 8).

    The blood trail continues east onto the

    property of 14760 Southwest 57th Terrace.

    Several planters with various types of trees and

    plants are located in front of the residence;

    each planter is enclosed by concrete borders.

    Blood is noted along the concrete borders, and

    also on the plants located in the planter in the

    west side of the walkway (closest to the front

    door), on the walkway near the front door, on the

    driveway, and along the planter's concrete

    borders located on the east side of the driveway

    (Markers 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 & 15).

    The end of the blood trail is located along

    the east side of 14750 Southwest 57th Terrace.

    This is the location where the victim collapsed

    and was apprehended. A concrete walkway is

    located on the west side of the residence, and

    leads to an iron gate, which is closed. Blood is

    noted on the west exterior wall of the residence,
    23




    which is situated along the east side of the

    walkway. Blood is also noted on the walkway

    itself, and on the outer side of the wooden fence

    located on the west side of the walkway.

    Discarded fire rescue supplies are lying on the

    grass near the north end of the walkway. Lying

    on the concrete walkway are a white "Polo" sock,

    a pair of light blue boxer shorts, a pair of

    black shorts, a book of matches, an "American

    Express" credit card with numbers

    "371128729711002" and the name "Gus Minguez" on

    it, several loose coins, a set of keys, a white

    metal watch, a cigarette lighter, a pair of

    handcuffs with the numbers "14324" on them, and a

    clear plastic bag containing several white pills.

    The shorts and boxer shorts were cut off the

    victim by fire rescue personnel. The clothing

    and all the before mentioned items were stained

    with blood. The rest of the secondary scene is

    unremarkable.

    Crime scene # 3 (The residence at 14744 Southwest 55th Terrace

    where Rolando Llanes was apprehended.)



    The third crime scene was where Rolando Llanes was

    apprehended. This scene is described as follows; however,
    24




    there is no corresponding sketch:

    One (1) floor CBI facing north. A

    stonewall is located in front of the house.

    Behind the stonewall, property taken from a

    residence located at 14773 Southwest 58th Street

    was recovered. The west side of the residence is

    bordered with a wooden fence. Inside the fence,

    markings in the soil indicate the fence was

    scaled to allow entry into the rear yard.

    The following was collected and signed over to

    Detective B. Nichols:

    One (1) Swiss Army watch, white metal, S/N

    700013131.

    One (1) Seiko watch, white metal, S/N 1D3580.

    One (1) Enicar watch, white metal, S/N Unknown.

    One (1) Flat head screwdriver.

    One (1) Electrical device.

    One (1) Pair of sweat socks.



    Laboratory Analysis Report from the Firearm and

    Tool Mark Unit.



    In a report prepared by Firearms and Tool Mark

    Unit, it was determined that the three (3) casings, and two

    (2) projectiles (one from the master bedroom, and one
    25




    recovered from the victim), all were fired in the H & K USP

    .40 caliber pistol used by Officer Espinosa on January 16,

    2004.

    Latent Fingerprint Report



    In a report prepared by the Crime Scene

    Investigation Bureau, Identification Section, only one latent

    print could be identified. The latent print of Rolando

    Llanes was lifted from the glass sliding door of 14733

    Southwest 58th Street.



    Forensic Biology Analysis Report



    On its Forensic Biology Analysis Report, the Crime

    Laboratory Bureau determined that all of the blood samples

    and swabs collected from the master bedroom, and backyard of

    14773 Southwest 58th Street, as well as the blood trail

    leading to 14750 Southwest 57th Terrace (where Barquin was

    apprehended) belonged to Leonardo Barquin.

    It should be noted that there is no report nor any

    indication that the projectile recovered in the master

    bedroom under the treadmill was analyzed to determine if it

    had the victim's DNA on it, and to possibly confirm that it

    was the result of a through-and-through shot to the victim's

    thigh.
    26






    Statement of Rolando Llanes



    Rolando Llanes was a friend of Leonardo Barquin,

    and helped him burglarize the residence at 14773 Southwest

    58th Street, on January 16, 2004. He was arrested shortly

    after the burglary, after fleeing and hiding in the yard of

    14744 Southwest 55th Terrace. After his arrest, Mr. Llanes

    was interviewed by Miami-Dade detectives, and gave a sworn

    statement at 6:58 p.m., on the same day. The following

    summarizes the information provided by Mr. Llanes:

    Mr. Llanes, who was eighteen years old at the time,

    was a friend of Leonardo Barquin, and was called on the

    telephone by him at approximately 11:00 a.m., on January

    16th. They agreed to meet at the Amoco Station on 152nd

    Avenue Southwest and Southwest 56th Street to "just chill"

    and to "just walk around". Mr. Llanes did, however, bring a

    pair of white socks with him just in case they decided to

    break into a house. Mr. Barquin had a pair of white socks

    also. The two met at approximately noon and began to walk

    around the residential neighborhoods looking for a house to

    burglarize. They located a house (14773 Southwest 58th

    Street), knocked on the door, and determined that no one was

    home. They went to the backyard and saw that a window was

    "cracked open." Mr. Llanes climbed into this window, which
    27




    turned out to be the master bedroom. He then went around to

    the family room, and opened the sliding glass door for Mr.

    Barquin. Putting white socks onto both hands, they both went

    back to the master bedroom, and began rummaging around

    looking for items to steal. After about five (5) minutes, he

    heard "police...stop...police! Upon hearing the police, both

    he and Barquin ran toward the window. Llanes managed to get

    out, being the thinner man, while Barquin got stuck. As

    Llanes ran to the fence in the backyard, he heard two (2)

    shots, and heard Barquin make "a hurt noise." He kept

    running, then heard two (2) more shots. As he heard the

    second two (2) shots, he jumped the fence, ran through

    several yards, and went to a nearby shopping center on 57th

    Terrace. He never saw the police officer who shot Mr.

    Barquin. He tried to hide in the restroom of the

    Blockbusters Video store; however, it was locked and he could

    not get in. When he ran back outside, he was spotted by the

    police and began running again. He ran to 14744 Southwest

    55th Terrace, where he hid and emptied his pockets of the

    items, which he had stolen in the burglary. He never saw

    what Barquin had taken in the burglary. However, he did

    state that neither he nor Barquin had a weapon.

    He was arrested a few minutes later. The following

    items were recovered on the ground adjacent to where he was

    arrested: A Swiss Army Men's watch, a Seiko Men's watch, an
    28




    Enican Men's watch, a flat head Stanley screwdriver, an

    unknown electronic device, and two (2) white socks, two (2)

    pair of silver earrings, one (1) pair of gold earrings, a

    gold I.D. bracelet ("Carolina"), a gold bracelet with

    multi-color stones, a gold ring, a silver bracelet, blue

    plastic bead bracelet, a silver necklace, and a gold "Angel"

    pin.

    Interviews of Daniel and Elizabeth Lopez



    Daniel and Elizabeth Lopez owned the home at 14773

    Southwest 58th Street, which was burglarized by Mr. Barquin

    and Mr. Llanes. Mr. Lopez was notified by his alarm company

    at approximately 1:50 p.m. that his home alarm had been

    activated. He was in Broward County and believed it was

    likely a false claim; therefore, he did not go home at that

    time. When asked about a weapon in the house, he stated, "I

    don't own a gun, nor have I ever had one."

    Elizabeth Lopez stated that she and her husband

    were having marital problems, and that she had not been home

    since Wednesday, (2 days before). She stated that when she

    left, there had been a black revolver with wooden grips in a

    zippered bag in the closet in the master bedroom.

    Daniel Lopez was questioned again about a weapon

    and he admitted that he had a felony conviction, and did not

    want to admit to possession of a firearm. However, he stated
    29




    that he did, in fact, have a .22 caliber black revolver with

    wooden grips, and that it was kept in a pouch. He also

    admitted that he moved the weapon from his house to his place

    of business, a tree farm, when his marital problems began.

    At 8:30 p.m., on the night of January 16th,

    detectives went to the tree farm at 21975 Southwest 264th

    Street in Homestead, with Mr. Daniel Lopez, and observed a

    black .38-caliber Colt Detective Special, two (2) inch

    revolver with wooden grips.

    As far as the items recovered from the pockets of,

    and nearby Barquin, and Llanes, Mr. and Mrs. Lopez identified

    all items as belonging to them, except for the white socks

    and screwdriver. The American Express credit card in

    Barquin's pocket was in the name of "Gustavo Minguez" who is

    the brother of Elizabeth Lopez.



    Statement of Sergeant Francisco Armendariz



    Francisco Armendariz is a Sergeant in the General

    Investigations Unit and is assigned to the Hammocks District.

    On January 16, 2004, he responded to the radio call for an

    officer needing assistance. He received the call at

    approximately 1:45, and arrived in the area a few minutes

    later.

    He went to the location where Rolando Llanes had
    30




    been arrested and saw him seated in the back seat of a marked

    unit. Sergeant Armendariz immediately recognized Rolando

    Llanes since he had investigated his activities for some

    time, and had, in fact, arrested him for burglary six (6)

    months before. When Sergeant Llanes spoke to him, Llanes

    responded: "Why did you have to shoot my homeboy, Leo?"

    Sergeant Armendariz asked if he meant Leonardo Barquin, to

    which Llanes responded, Yeah, that's him."

    Sergeant Armendariz also was familiar with Leonardo

    Barquin whom he (the Sergeant) had surveilled for numerous

    hours as a known burglar.



    Statement of Alberto Ferro



    Alberto Ferro was the individual seen by Officer

    Nelson in the backyard of 14770 Southwest 57th Terrace

    shortly after Leonardo Barquin was arrested. Mr. Ferro

    became an object of intense scrutiny by both the Miami-Dade

    Police Department, and the FBI in their attempt to locate the

    weapon allegedly pointed at Officer Espinosa by Barquin. As

    previously noted, neither Leonardo Barquin or Rolando Llanes

    had a weapon when arrested, and no weapon was ever recovered

    from the crime scenes. Therefore, in addition to the

    physical search of the ground covered by Llanes and Barquin

    during their flight attempt, the focus turned to Mr. Ferro
    31




    since he lived just behind, and to the east side of the

    location where Barquin had been shot and was at home during

    the incident. Additionally, the blood trail left by Barquin

    passed by and through Ferro's yard.

    Mr. Ferro was first interviewed and gave a sworn

    statement at approximately 8:00 p.m., on the evening of the

    incident. Mr. Ferro, who was twenty (20) years old at that

    time, stated that he lived at 14770 Southwest 57th Terrace

    with his parents, and was at home on the day in question. In

    the interview, the detective asked about events happening at

    approximately 2:30 p.m., however, one can properly assume the

    meant approximately 1:30 p.m., since Ferro responded by

    discussing the incident in question. Ferro stated that he

    was in his room playing videogames, and saw a person in black

    running past his window wearing "a long sleeve black - kind

    of looked like a hoodie." A moment later, he went to his

    front yard to bring in the garbage a can and saw an officer,

    firearm drawn, running toward him from the east approximately

    from four (4) houses down. The officer yelled at him to get

    down, to which Ferro raised his hands. He told the officer

    that he lived there, and then he walked to the back of the

    house. According to Ferro, while in the backyard, he heard

    what he believed was two (2) gunshots. He did not see anyone

    fire the shots; however, he returned to the front of his

    house and saw two (2) officers this time walking toward him.
    32




    He stated that he heard one officer (the one that he had seen

    first running toward him) tell the other officer that he "had

    to shoot him because he saw a weapon, and the person had a

    weapon or something." The sworn statement was concluded with

    Ferro denying that he had neither seen nor retrieved any

    evidence from his yard.

    Before the sworn statement, Mr. Ferro was

    interviewed by detective P. Diaz and Detective C. McCully.

    According to the report filed by Detective Diaz on January

    29, 2004, Ferro repeated almost verbatim what he had told

    Detectives Diaz and McCully in the sworn statement taken

    later that evening at police headquarters. Detective Diaz is

    also the individual who took Ferro's sworn statement.

    However, Detective McCully's report, prepared on

    April 28, 2004, tells a different version of the interview

    with Ferro conducted before his sworn statement. Detective

    McCully wrote the following:

    On January 16, 2004, Ferro had acknowledged

    to this investigator and to Detective Diaz that

    he knew Barquin and Llanes. Detective Diaz went

    on to take Ferro's statement, which stated in

    part that although he knew Barquin and Llanes, he

    was not involved in this burglary, and that he

    did not receive a firearm from either of the

    above subjects after they exited the burglary
    33




    victim's residence....

    Detective McCully recontacted Ferro on February 27,

    2004, and asked him to take a polygraph. Ferro agreed and

    the examination was scheduled for March 12, 2004.

    After Detective McCully made repeated attempts to

    contact Ferro about his scheduled polygraph examination,

    Ferro finally called him. Slattery Associates conducted the

    examination. In the pre-interview, Ferro admitted that he

    was involved in a burglary attempt with Leonardo Barquin and

    several others in approximately April 2003. Ferro also

    stated that he believed Barquin was a member of the Latin

    Kings; however, he denied his own membership.

    Ferro was asked three (3) relevant questions during

    the polygraph examination:

    1. Did you take part in the burglary

    involving Leo Barquin?

    [Writer's note: "that burglary" is not

    identified].

    2. Did you take or conceal a gun, which

    Leo Barquin may have had on January 16, 2004?

    3. Are you intentionally withholding

    information about that burglary and shooting

    involving Leo Barquin?

    Ferro answered "no" to all three (3) questions to

    which George Slattery determined the answers were consistent
    34




    with deception. Unable to explain "why he failed the

    polygraph examination, Ferro was allowed to go home.

    Ferro was re-interviewed and given a polygraph

    examination by the FBI on December 10, 2004. He was asked

    two (2) questions:

    1. Did [you] plan with Leonardo or Rolando

    to steal from that house?

    2. Do you know for sure if Leonardo had a

    gun that day? (Emphasis added).

    Ferro responded "no" to both questions and it was

    the examiner's opinion that his responses were indicative of

    deception.

    After being told of the deceptive results, Ferro

    admitted the following as contained in an FBI report dated

    December 27th, 2004:

    Ferro admitted that he knew and associated

    with Barquin and Rolando. Early in 2003, Ferro,

    Barquin and Michael last name unknown (LNU)

    attempted a burglary in the South Miami area.

    Also, in June 2003, Barquin was supposed to do a

    burglary with Ferro, but he never showed up.

    That day Ferro was arrested by MDPD in the

    process of committing said burglary. Ferro has

    been present at Michael's house when Barquin and

    Rolando talked about prior burglaries and planned
    35




    future ones.

    On more than one occasion, Barquin offered

    to sell Ferro items that he stole from homes he

    burglarized. Ferro denied purchasing any of the

    stolen property offered by Barquin. Ferro added

    that one time Barquin was selling two guns that

    he (Barquin) claimed were stolen. Ferro saw the

    guns, described one as a black pistol, possibly a

    Glock and the other a small "silver pistol"

    similar to the ones "seen in James Bond movies."

    Barquin bragged that he had burglarized a police

    officer's home and stole a gun. Ferro observed

    Barquin was always talking about having guns and

    selling stolen guns. Ferro never purchased a gun

    from Barquin.

    Ferro described Barquin as a violent

    individual who was always talking about fighting

    and hurting people. Ferro stated that Barquin

    claimed he was Latin King gang member. One time,

    Ferro observed Barquin produce a baseball bat and

    attack someone he was having an argument with.

    Ferro stated that Barquin and Michael sold

    marijuana and cocaine. Ferro frequently

    purchased marijuana and cocaine from Michael, but

    admitted that he has purchased marijuana from
    36




    Barquin. Ferro, Barquin and Michael regularly

    gathered at Michael's house to socialize and

    smoke marijuana.

    Regarding the burglary and police shooting

    on January 16th, 2004, Ferro stated that he was

    home with his grandmother and housekeeper that

    day. Ferro explained that he was in his bedroom

    playing a television game when he observed

    through his window someone running across the

    front of his house. Ferro could not describe the

    person, but said the individual was wearing a

    black sweatshirt with a hood. He stated that

    this is the attire that burglars wear because it

    helps conceal their faces. Ferro immediately

    proceeded outside to investigate what was

    happening. As Ferro exited the front of his

    house, he observed blood dropping on his driveway

    and two MDPD officers running towards him. The

    MDPD officer closest to him was holding a gun and

    a police radio, and shouting, "freeze." Ferro

    stated that he stopped and raised his hands.

    Moments later, Ferro observed said officer turn

    away from him and point his weapon towards the

    back of his neighbors house. Ferro could not see

    from where he was standing who the officer was
    37




    pointing the gun at. Realizing that he was not

    the person that officer was shouting at, Ferro

    grabbed a garbage can that his grandfather left

    outside earlier that day and returned it to his

    backyard where it is normally kept. Then Ferro

    entered his house through the rear sliding glass

    door and told his grandmother and housekeeper to

    stay in the house, because there was police

    activity outside. Ferro later opened his front

    door and stood in the doorway, smoked a cigarette

    and watched the police activity outside. While

    standing in the doorway, Ferro observed a large

    police presence in the neighborhood, and was

    instructed by an MDPD officer to say inside.

    Ferro claimed that he did not know at that time

    who the police were chasing. It was not until

    later that evening that a neighbor informed Ferro

    that Barquin had been shot and killed by the

    police.

    Ferro denied finding a gun on his property

    that day or anytime subsequent to the incident.

    He denied knowing that Barquin or Rolando were

    going to commit a burglary in his neighborhood

    that day. He advised that he has never

    burglarized houses in his neighborhood, but
    38




    stated that in 2003, Barquin and Rolando

    burglarized a house about four blocks from his

    house. Ferro denied having any contact with

    Barquin and Rolando on January 16, 2004. Ferro

    stated that a couple of days after the shooting,

    he was outside his house when Michael drove up in

    his car, and commented about Barquin's death.

    Michael did not say anything about Barquin having

    a gun the day of the shooting.

    Ferro believes that Barquin probably had a

    gun the day of the shooting. He explained that

    Barquin stole guns from the houses he

    burglarized, sold guns and talked about carrying

    a gun on his person. Ferro added that Barquin

    talked about having a gun on him when he

    burglarized homes. Ferro believed that Barquin

    was capable of shooting someone, but Ferro did

    know if Barquin ever shot or attempted to shoot

    anyone.

    Ferro advised that a few days after the

    shooting, a man claiming to be Barquin's

    step-father tried two times to make contact with

    him. Ferro did not know the man's name. The man

    came to Ferro's house twice wanting to talk to

    him, but he was not home. The first time the man
    39




    spoke with Ferro's father and the second time he

    spoke with Ferro's grandfather. Ferro believes

    that the reason for the visit was to influence

    his statements to the police and attorneys

    regarding the shooting and his knowledge of

    Barquin's past. Ferro added that Barquin's

    family stands to make a lot of money for the

    shooting and want him to help them with the

    lawsuit. About three weeks ago, Ferro was

    approached by Michael's older brother, Ramiro

    (LNU) at the Dadeland Mall. Ramiro brought up

    Barquin's shooting and told Ferro that Barquin's

    mother wanted to talk to him about the shooting.

    Ferro stated that Barquin's mother wanted to talk

    to him because she is suing the MDPD. Ferro

    said, "I know she wants to offer me money to say

    things to the police that would help her with the

    lawsuit." Ferro stated that someone at TGK, Dade

    County's Correctional Facility, made two, three

    attempts to call him at home. All the calls were

    received by his grandfather and occurred at 2:00

    or 3:00 in the morning. Ferro advised that his

    grandfather never said if he spoke with the

    caller, but Ferro believes it was Rolando trying

    to make contact with him.
    40




    Ferro did not provide any further

    information at this time.

    Two points should be noted in Ferro's FBI

    interview: (1) He does not mention hearing two gunshots

    while he was in his backyard, and (2) he continues to deny

    finding a weapon belonging to either Barquin or Llanes on the

    day of the shooting.



    The Professional Compliance Bureau Investigation



    Officer Jorge Espinosa resigned from the Miami-Dade

    Police Department on March 1, 2006. From at least as early

    as May 2003 until at least the date of his resignation,

    Officer Espinosa was under criminal investigation by the

    Professional Compliances Bureau (PCB) of the Miami-Dade

    Police Department. According to PCB reports and interviews

    conducted by the undersigned Assistant State Attorneys with

    PCB investigators, Officer Espinosa was suspected of engaging

    in a wide range of criminal activities including acting as a

    lookout for narcotics rip-offs, arson, insurance fraud,

    credit card fraud, and involvement in residential burglaries.

    In fact, on January 16th, 2004, the day of the shooting

    incident, Officer Espinosa's vehicle was secretly equipped

    with an electronic tracking device (Teltrac) so that PCB

    investigators could monitor his travels while on duty.
    41




    Upon learning of this information, the undersigned

    Assistant State Attorneys decided to keep the police shooting

    investigation open to determine if any of Officer Espinosa's

    suspected criminal activities related in any fashion to the

    shooting of Leonardo Barquin of Leonardo Barquin (specially

    the allegations of involvement in residential burglaries).

    It was also decided to keep the shooting case open in the

    hope that, if Espinosa or any of his associates were arrested

    as a result of the PCB's or any other police agencies'

    investigations, new witnesses or new information might be

    developed which could shed new light on the shooting of

    Leonardo Barquin.



    UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND OPEN ISSUES



    At the outset, the undersigned Assistant State

    Attorneys are concerned that, despite the known issues with

    the crime scene and the placement of the casings and

    projectiles, despite the fact that no weapon was found, and

    despite the fact that Barquin had been shot from behind, the

    sworn statement of Officer Espinosa took only fifteen (15)

    minutes. The statement was taken a month after the incident

    after the problems listed above were well known; yet the

    interview was cursory and made no attempt to resolve these

    serious issues. Furthermore, it is the policy of the
    42




    Miami-Dade Police Department and the Police Benevolent

    Association (which provides union and legal representation to

    the police officers) to not allow prosecutors to interview

    the officer, to attend the talking of the sworn statement, or

    even to provide any questions or input to the detective

    conducting the interview. Therefore, the office of the State

    Attorney had nothing to do whatsoever with the taking of the

    sworn statement.

    As can be seen, Officer Espinosa was simply allowed

    to state his version of the events with no follow-up

    questions and no attempt to address the inconsistencies

    within his own statement. The detectives who conducted this

    investigation are experienced professionals who would never

    allow a civilian witness to be questioned in such a cavalier

    fashion. Allowing such minimal questioning to occur creates

    the perception that police officers do not effectively

    questions one of their own. Once the reports are turned over

    to the prosecutors months later, the crime scene no longer

    exists, the shooting officer will not speak to prosecutors,

    and there is little that can be done by prosecutors at that

    point to obtain additional information. Yet flawed

    investigation or not, we are required to make the important

    determination of whether or not the killing of a human being

    is justified.

    With this background, and in addition to the issues
    43




    previously noted in this report, the following is the list of

    the serious and significant unanswered questions that we

    have:

    (1) Why were the crime scene sketches of

    the bedroom and the yard not used in the

    questioning of Officer Espinosa? The exact

    locations of Espinosa and Barquin at the time of

    the three (3) shots, both in the bedroom and the

    backyard, is invaluable information in

    determining whether the shooting was justified or

    not.

    (2) why did the officer advance so far into

    the bedroom (from the door to the foot of the

    bed) before firing a shot? Officer Espinosa is

    never asked and never addresses this point.

    Instead, he implies that the shooting happened

    immediately upon his entry into the bedroom.

    (3) were the two (2) shots fired in the

    bedroom fired from the same location or did the

    officer move between the first shot and the

    second shot? This answer would assist in

    answering question number four (4).

    (4) How do you explain one casing in the

    open desk drawer and one casing outside of the

    window, on the ground, under the grass and
    44




    debris? Did the officer fire out of the window?

    (5) How do you explain the officer's

    statement that the victim was facing the officer

    and pointing a weapon at him with the officer's

    other statement that the victim was going out the

    window? Some explanation and a reenactment would

    have provided essential information on this

    point.

    (6) Was it possible for the victim to point

    a gun at the officer, yet be shot from behind?

    (7) How do you explain the officer's

    statement that he saw the victim pointing a gun

    at him in the bedroom, yet it was too dark to see

    anything else? What were the lighting conditions

    in the room at the time?

    (8) Could a person with a sock on his hand

    also hold a weapon and point it at someone?

    (9) Could the officer tell what shots

    actually struck the victim? How did the victim

    react physically when the three (3) shots were

    fired?

    (10) Was the projectile recovered on the

    bedroom floor under the treadmill the result of a

    through-and-through shot to the victim's thigh?

    (11) Was the victim struck two (2) times
    45




    inside the bedroom or one inside and one outside

    in the yard?

    (12) What was the explanation for the bent

    screen (with blood) on the floor in the bedroom?

    Was it bent and knocked out upon Llanes entry

    through the window?

    (13) As for the shot fired at the victim in

    the backyard, if the officer knew that the victim

    had a weapon, why did the officer get so close to

    him? On his sworn statement, the officer said

    that he was five (5) to six (6) feet away from

    the victim when he fired.

    (14) Where exactly was the officer when he

    fired the shot at the victim as he was climbing

    over the fence? Is this consistent with the

    location of the shell casing?

    (15) Was it possible for the wounded victim

    to climb the fence with a sock on his hand and

    still turn and point the gun at the officer? The

    officer should have been closely questioned about

    this point.

    (16) Why did the detectives and crime scene

    personnel fail to find the casing below the

    window and the casing in the backyard until the

    next day when the homeowner called? This failure
    46




    rendered the finding of the casings virtually

    useless as evidence and leaves open the

    speculation that they could have been improperly

    placed there after crime scene personnel left the

    scene.

    (17) Was it physically possible for Rolando

    Llanes to be standing on top of the fence helping

    the victim to get over the fence like the officer

    testified?

    (18) Why did the officer run so far (i.e.,

    down 58th Street, up 147th Avenue, and down 57th

    Terrace) in his attempt to apprehend the wounded

    victim, rather than using his police vehicle

    which was parked in front of the residence and

    which the officer had to run past? It is

    possible that Officer Espinosa jumped the fence,

    like Barquin and Llanes, and followed behind

    Barquin to where he collapsed. This possibility

    was never considered in the officer's interview

    and could have provided an explanation for

    Espinosa's injuries.

    (19) What was the explanation for the

    officer's injuries? Nothing in his statement

    explains the injuries noted and photographed by

    crimes scene personnel immediately after the
    47




    shooting.

    (20) Did the officer know the victim?

    According to the statements of other officers,

    Barquin was reasonably well known in the Hammocks

    District.

    (21) Why was ASA Miller-Batiste kept away

    from the crime scene while the PBA attorney was

    given full access?

    Because of these unanswered questions and the

    ongoing criminal investigations of Officer Espinosa, the

    undersigned ASA's have been reluctant to issue a final

    closeout memorandum in this case. We have serious doubts

    about the truthfulness of Officer Espinosa and the

    investigation conducted by the Miami-Dade Police Department

    did nothing to dispel these doubts. In fact, several aspects

    of the investigation, as discussed above, increased our

    doubts and made clearing or charging Officer Espinosa even

    more difficult.

    After being provided with the investigative file

    concerning the shooting, the undersigned ASA's engaged in

    several efforts to gain additional information so that this

    case could be brought to closure with either a clearance or

    an arrest. For example, we contacted the attorney for

    Officer Espinosa and requested an opportunity to speak with

    him in order to clear up several issues not covered in the
    48




    police investigation. We informed the attorney that we were

    unable to close out the shooting investigation until we could

    resolve these issues and that the investigation would remain

    open and "hanging over the officer's head." The attorney

    declined our request without a subpoena to compel his

    testimony. Since the subpoena, by operation of state law,

    would confer immunity on Officer Espinosa, we of course

    declined.

    We also contacted the Office of the United States

    Attorney and the FBI on two (2) occasions to request that

    they take a fresh look at the case by utilizing the

    investigative power of a Federal Grand Jury. The undersigned

    ASA's contacted both agencies in July of 2006 and Chief

    Assistants Jose Arrojo and Don Horn made the same request in

    December of 2005. The State Attorney herself even wrote a

    letter to the United States Attorney and the FBI in August of

    2006 requesting their assistance. To all of our entreaties,

    we were informed that the FBI had reviewed the case in late

    2003 and early 2004 and had determined that no federal

    investigation was warranted.

    When Officer Espinosa resigned from the Department

    on March 1, 2006, we felt that some of the pressure for

    acting swiftly had been relieved since he was no longer

    carrying a badge and a gun. However, we still wanted to keep

    the case open hoping for new information. We had hoped, and
    49




    in fact still hope, that the criminal investigations

    involving Espinosa might develop new information. That is

    why, as we have previously explained, we kept the case open.

    We originally requested in the summer of 2008, that

    the Miami-Dade Police Department release Officer Espinosa's

    PCB investigative file so that we could discuss it in the

    present report. For reasons that are unclear, this file was

    finally produced on April 3, 2009.

    After all of these efforts and with all of the

    aforementioned unanswered questions and unresolved issues, we

    have now reluctantly to close out this investigation for the

    reasons that follow.



    Legal Analysis



    The legal analysis must consider (1) whether the

    shooting of Leonardo Barquin was justified by Officer

    Espinosa's belief that he was in fear of imminent bodily harm

    or death from Barquin's pointing a gun at him on two

    occasions; (2) whether Officer Espinosa was justified

    shooting Barquin as a fleeing felon or (3) whether Officer

    Espinosa's shooting of Barquin was not justified and,

    therefore, Espinosa should be subject to criminal charges.

    Florida Statute 776.05 provides in pertinent part:

    A law enforcement officer need not retreat
    50




    or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest

    because of resistance or threatened resistance to

    the arrest; the officer is justified in the use

    of any force:

    (1) Which he or she reasonably believes to

    be necessary to defend himself or herself or

    another from bodily harm while making the arrest;

    (2) When necessarily committed in arresting

    felons fleeing from justice....



    Based upon the flawed and incomplete investigation

    in this case, there is simply not enough information to make

    a determination that the officer was attempting to defend

    himself from bodily harm. Likewise, there is an insufficient

    record to make a determination beyond a reasonable doubt that

    the officer did not believe that he was at risk, thus making

    the use of force not legally justified.

    Because of the aforementioned insufficient evidence

    and incomplete record; it is our determination that, Officer

    Espinosa can be neither cleared nor charged criminally under

    the provision of the statute relating to the defense from

    bodily harm.

    Next we turn to the use of force necessary to

    arrest a fleeing felon. Although, this justification was not

    offered by Officer Espinosa, legally it must still be
    51




    considered. Despite the flawed investigation, three (3)

    pertinent facts are known: (1) The victim, Leonardo Barquin,

    and his accomplice, Rolando Llanes, were burglarizing the

    residence at 14773 Southwest 58th Street; (2) Both Barquin

    and Llanes fled the scene of the crime of burglary, and

    burglary is a felony; (3) Barquin was shot while attempting

    to flee from justice after committing a felony. The only

    element remaining for a legally justified use of force under

    this provision is, was such use of force necessary? This

    requirement has troubled the undersigned ASAs from the

    beginning of this investigation. Was it necessary to shoot

    Barquin to prevent him from fleeing if he had a weapon? Was

    it necessary to shoot Barquin to prevent him from fleeing if

    he did not have a weapon? Unfortunately, the law in Florida

    instructs us that it does not matter whether the fleeing

    felon was armed or not. A fleeing felon can be shot in the

    back while unarmed and while not posing any risk to anyone,

    and the law makes it perfectly clear that the officer's use

    of deadly force is legally justified.

    Under Florida Statutes, and given the flawed and

    incomplete records before us, we are unable to state beyond a

    reasonable doubt that the shooting of Mr. Barquin was not

    necessary to prevent him from fleeing. Yet despite this

    conclusion, we are reluctant to, and will not, conclude that

    the shooting of Mr. Barquin was necessary and thereby render
    52




    Officer Espinosa's use of deadly force legally justified.

    The sad and unsatisfying conclusion to this case is that

    since we are unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

    Officer Espinosa's actions were unlawful, and likewise unable

    to prove that his actions were legally justified, we have no

    other choice at this point to close the case as inconclusive.

    This will allow the matter to be litigated in civil court,

    where the burden of proof is different and the standards for

    the justified use of force against a fleeing felon are

    different, should the parties wish to do so.



    Prepared by:







    Assistant State Attorney Assistant State Attorney