BS PD

            This is the best example, so far, of why public defenders are so often

harmful to justice:

            1991: Corsicana Texas; police were directed to a fire. Three children

burned to death or died of smoke inhalation. One firecop, a Mr. Vasquez,

declared an arson, justifying it by simply mumbling vague, nonscientific

phrases such as "...pattern of burn indicates arson." The regular cops

assigned to catch the proposed arsonist immediately attacked the survivor,

            Cameron Todd Willingham, as is standard police practice; start close in,

work outward until convictable targets are acquired. Guilt is not re-

quired, only conviction. The imaginary crime established, the cops are

assigned their task: get a conviction.

            The sanitized, courtcrats' version of this is found in Willingham v.

Cockrell, 61 fed, appx 918 (2003). Trace this backward in time to find

the truthier parts left behind. Every word of Willingham's appeals are

excluded from this record. From this caselaw you can only see what the

cops, lawcrats and their dupes claim. The lawyers' edition may

provide more detail and less lawcrat propaganda, if we could obtain it,

because it is supposed to contain documents from the accused' side too.

If I ever find the citation, I'll include it here.

            The cops found Willingham to be an easy target. Other cops had ap-

parently previously convicted him of some minor crime of undisclosed       

type. Cops love it when their target is someone whose reputation has al-

ready been blackened because this makes it easier for jurors to believe

their primary conviction tool; character assassination. This tool is

essential when your only 'evidence' is nothing more than a state employee

simply declaring, without any proof what so ever, that a crime occurred,

and lying that an accelerant had been used.

            Fact is, no crime occurred except possibly negligence in babysitting.

It turns out that Willingham slept while his kids set the house on fire.

He might have been sedated by overwork, alcohol or other substance, but

we will never learn the truth for two reasons: the state killed him, and

the state scared him off the witness stand by giving him a public defen-

der who gave him the standard harmful advice of, "Do not defend yourself

to the jurors because the prosecutor will make you admit to any and all

previous crimes the state has put on you, (and do not talk to the media)".

            Easy as it is to convict a person who is convinced to, insanely,

remain silent during a lethal attack, the cop/prosecutor team took no

chances Cops came up with numerous 'confessions' which they put in

Willingham's mouth for the jurors, in order to prop up their declarations

of arson. Cop after cop claimed variously: Willingham beat his wife (and

kids) while pregnant; he wanted to trade one of his kids for a VCR; he

killed a dog and bragged about it; he explained away the cops' lies about

finding a flammable liquid used by claiming that he had spilled flammable

perfume all over the place without cleaning it up before going to sleep;

the guy burned his house down to cover up child abuse, and; he burned his

children to make it look like they'd set the fire. Also, "He refused to

go rescue his children", (as if firecops or ordinary cops would allow

this, which is the firecops' job, who are dressed for it and have the air

tanks, face masks, infrared viewers and other equipment that makes this      

possible). The cop/prosecutor team produced no evidence of any type of

flame accelerant being used. (Willingham and his jurors didn't know it,

but back then, firecops had hydrocarbon sniffers to detect arson sped by      .

chemical accelerants. This was given to them by scientists years prior

to this case.) Incidentally, Steve Barret ran into a fire to warn people

sleeping in the basement in Cleveland, Ohio. The firecop chief called him

a hero, but the regular cops fried him with their tasers and charged him

with 'misconduct at an emergency" Colbert Report, 11-10-2009.) The

cops went door to door and connived the neighbor-ladies to help them

assassinate Willingham's character. Cops are grandmasters at manufacturing

'evidence' by manipulating witnesses and their emotions. Caselaw books

and my site are full of examples of cops caught in the act of doing this

and how they do it. (See Innocents' Guide, Cop Culture and Training, Offi-

cers and Identikits, Eyewitness This:, et al.) Most telling are the twin

lies of "...to cover up child abuse" and the outrageous "...burned his

children to simulate their playing with fire." Cop/DA teams commonly

use accusations of child abuse to foment in jurors the unthinking hatred

that they require to induce mindless convictions. This tactic is standard

in all courtrooms. Not so easily believed is the accusation of torturing

children to simulate their playing with fire. By applying minimal logic,

we can notice that, in order to have a crime of arson, we must somehow

explain away the fact that all three children died of smoke inhalation,

and that one had burned hands and arm, exactly as if playing with fire.

            Now, no cop saw Willingham prepare for his no-motivation "arson" by

burning his child's hands. No witness testified to this. So, where did

this arson-saving crowbar come from? It came spewing at jurors directly

from the prosecutor's mouth as he testi-lied to them during his closing

arguments. Funny how the very thing that should have counted toward his

innocence and simple, common reality somehow got twisted into a sinister

tool for causing murder and political gain. Only the prosecutors could

pull off such a brobdingnagian deception, and the anonymous judges help

them get away with it by allowing cops and prosecutors to sue character

assassination to replace truth, facts and proof.

            Willingham had only his wife to deny this, which she did, but the

jurors were suckered by the quantity of evidence, not the quality. The

parade of cops, firecops, a conniving jailrat, the gullible neighbor-ladies

and the incessant media amplification, was a bandwagon that they could not

resist jumping upon. The complete, total lack of real evidence had no

effect upon the carnival of hearsay and fingerpointing that the conviction

team had created. The jurors all slapped their guilty buttons and raced

back to their busy lives to brag, then almost immediately forget what they

had been so cunningly duped into doing; allowing the state to legally mur-

der an innocent man for a crime that did not occur.

            The cops and courtcrats commonly hide their crimes by shoving them in

the graves of their victims. Willingham was different. Before they killed

him, he was weighed down by an anvil of a public defender named Dave Martin.

For death-seeking prosecutors, accusees are often saddled with two

public defenders, just to make it look extra legal when they get their

death sentences. This second PD was Rob Dunn. Not any PD's name is men-

tioned in the caselaw where I read of Willingham's appeal. Apparently,

PDs are able to expunge their names from cases that they wish to dis-

associate from. It's bad for business when lawyers can be too easily

traced to murdered innocents. Judges help the culprits of law conceal

these legal atrocities by marking them 'not for publication', and by

making citations from them problematic for the ones who would dredge up

criminal rulings.

            This murder by cop/DA/Judge/PD would have been safely concealed

forever except for the victim's family. They worked tirelessly for 5

years after his fraudulent execution and finally obtained media attention.

Somehow they got nine real arson experts to check the facts. They found

the obvious, then declared their findings: Vasquez and his two underlings

lied; no accelerant was used; the burn pattern did not indicate arson;

Vasquez and his two yes-men were arson investigators merely by claiming to

be so, with no real training in the physics of fire.

            Willingham's family and friends then managed to attract the attention

of Steve Mills of the Chicago Tribune. He managed to find someone at CNN

who would interview him about the case. CNN got interested in the case

when they were shown that at Texas Gov. Rick Perry let the innocent be killed

because he had a re-election to win. CNN pulled in Scott Cobb, a death

penalty moratorium activist. On 10-4-2009, they revealed that Vasquez was

some kind of "mystic" instead of a competent arson investigator. It was

also noted that Willingham's PD, Dave Martin, is an ex cop: (No wonder

Willingham tried to ditch this guy, even if it meant having No lawyer: No

one escapes a swamp by standing in the crocodile's jaws.)

            All these little dribbles of fact interspersed with layers of media

inanities piqued interest enough for editors to assign it to Anderson

Cooper, their prime time host. They also dug up the PD, Dave Martin, for

a gabfest broadcast on 10-15-2009. Martin revealed himself to be the worst

nightmare for Cooper, taking over his show, shouting him down, testifying

instead of answering questions and generally covering his ass by incessantly

spewing loud declarations of his client's undeniable guilt. Not one shred

of any type of real proof exists in this case. Willingham was murdered

simply because of the emotional ravings of a determined group of masterful

public- and self-manipulators hell-bent on 'justice' for three children

fascinated by fire and unsupervised. It is astounding how a multi-million

dollar legal catastrophe can mushroom from a chain reaction beginning with

one incompetent gov't employee. Vasquez' incompetence was even admitted

to by a nameless judge, but the judge, like gov. Rick Perry, decided to

'err on the side of (political) caution'. He declared that it was "harm-

less error" for Vasquez to create a crime out of nothing.

            Every case that is so vacuum packed that cop/prosecutor teams go get

some jailrat and trade leniency for lies under oath tells rational people

that abysmal corruption is occurring. Our lawyers' system is exploding

with these no-proof; only fingerpointing frauds that ethical people who

should vomit at their discover instead gaze away and gag, yet remain silent.

Do we really want these overpaid, underworked professional flimflam artists

to lie people to death for political gain? They've got billions of

dollars to waste and every high tech advantage ever created: It is not

too much to ask that the usual one-sided battle of the courtroom liars

contain some particle of real proof before they slaughter some poor fool

in our name!