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 required, 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 apparently previously convicted him of some minor crime of undisclosed type. Cops love it when their target is someone whose reputation has already 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 defender 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, Officers 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 murder 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 mentioned 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 “harmless 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!