Bolivia terror plot: The smoking gun(s) of forensic evidence

smoking-gun.jpg

So, there are still those who think the three dead mercenaries shot by the Bolivian police were innocent, and that they were executed in cold blood, rather than killed in a firefight? Well, now the ballistic evidence is in, and guess what it says…

Experts from the Institute of Forensic Investigations (IDIF) found gunpowder residues on the hands of the suspected terrorists killed on April 16 in a confrontation with an elite unit of the Bolivian federal police in the Hotel Las Américas, according to judicial sources.

“The IDIF report indicates that there were gunpowder residues on the hands of Eduardo Rózsa Flores, Arpad Magyarosi and Michael Martin Dwyer,” said prosecutor Marcelo Soza, head of the investigation.

[…]

Soza said the IDIF findings constitute evidence that the deceased fired at the police during the confrontation in which they were killed.

Translation mine.

There WAS a firefight, and these guys were killed because they were shooting at the police. Any questions?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in All About Evo, Fascism Without Swastikas, Fine Young Cannibals, Guns, Guns, Guns, Isn't That Illegal?, Law-Law Land, She Blinded Me With Science. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Bolivia terror plot: The smoking gun(s) of forensic evidence

  1. Even if they weren’t, would there be any complaints had the dead guys been non-white and the shooters white?
    I think even the RCMP, going into a roomful of armed terrorists would have gone in guns blazing… politely of course, being Canadians, and all 🙂

  2. Larry says:

    BINA, you are very naive. Dead men tell no tales.
    The Bolivia caper is so far inconclusive and that is the governments fault for not getting their facts straight and timely.
    You have a lot to learn about being believable.

  3. Oh really, LARRY? Educate me…how does one do this “being believable” thing of which you speak? Be precise, now, and give me all the details. I like to know what the punchline is before I laugh at a joke.

  4. JMB says:

    Did these people being mostly foreigners have license to hold firearms? If not, what were they doing in possession?
    Police do not need to wait to be fired upon before shooting armed miscreants.

  5. Excellent point, and very pertinent questions. They were not licenced to carry firearms in Bolivia; as I understand it, the law forbids foreigners bringing in weaponry of any kind. (This story illustrates one such incident, in which a US citizen brought in 500 .45-cal bullets and the treacherous US ambassador, the infamous Philip Goldberg, who has since been expelled for coup plotting, claimed to be surprised at the notion of having to declare them. And this was a man who ought to have been up on the laws of the land–he had no excuses for being “surprised”!)
    No, there’s no question about it: Those guns were illegally trafficked in. And they had lots of them, as the pictures here clearly indicate. It would be naive to assume that they were NOT planning to use them in something deeply nefarious. And it would be even more naive of the police not to shoot anyone they saw merely brandishing one.

Comments are closed.