So today, I was reminded of why it is important to not make concessions based on trying to be politically correct. For the last almost 9 years, I have made my life’s mission to help someone who was wrongfully convicted. I don’t make any money and I damn sure don’t make any friends. But it is important and I have no disillusions about the person I am focused on helping. He’s got baggage but the one thing I can say, without hesitation, is his trial was a mockery. If advocating for him is politically incorrect, so be it, but it is the right thing.
Most of all, I want to make one thing absolutely clear, I help the people I help because they have gotten a raw deal. Most of the time, they are marginalized people. I vet the cases and I stand behind all of them. I do that because it is the right thing to do. It is literally that simple. I don’t befriend people because they can advance me or my causes, and I don’t ostracize people for their own peculiarities or because they are politically toxic. That’s not me. I am very much the person who follows my own moral compass, rather than the popular views of others. I call few my friends and I rarely have been proven wrong because I have an instinct for people. If I call you a friend, I will go through hell and high water for you. If I don’t call you a friend, don’t expect that to change.
Having said all that, I recently went against my better judgment and welcomed someone I called a friend back into my life. This person walked away because of my views on national politics. I was floored because it never crossed my mind to isolate or cut a friend loose over something so ridiculous. This person felt it was perfectly ok and my intuition told me that letting them walk was in my best interest. After the absurdity of the national election, this person wanted to reconnect. Against my own inner voice, I decided maybe it was a good thing to let bygones be bygones. But today, because Trump was acquitted, I was told that an agreement among friends might not be honored.
If national politics determines whether you help a friend or support a cause that is right, then you have no place in my life. I knew, inevitably, this situation would crop up again, because this person clearly only sees me as a one dimensional person who is the sum total of my national political view; I’m not a friend; I’m not a confidant. I’m not someone they value, warts and all. I can’t accept that. I give more than that and if that kind of mutual respect isn’t a reciprocated, The relationship is done. Being my friend can be difficult because I have strong beliefs that aren’t always shared, I realize there is a huge majority of people who have no backbone to stand for what’s right for that simple purpose it is right and nothing else. I get that. But when a friend, or a supposed friend, decides that national politics trumps a friendship, then it’s time to cut the loss and move on.
"I never had to hang my head in shame
For puttin' a price tag on my name
Never turned my back on what I believe
Or let my heart be ruled by greed
'Cause buddy if I didn't earn it, I don't want it
That way I can always say, I got it honest
Now you ain't looking at some dude
That was born with a Silver spoon in his mouth
And I might seem like some kind of low-life
To that high-falutin' crowd
But I'm plain spoken, straight talkin'
And damn proud of what I have accomplished
Some folks appreciate that and some don't
But, I got it honest"
In honor of today’s holiday, I read some of Dr. King’s speeches and am humbly inspired to say a few words.
In the “Beyond Vietnam” speech, I felt an affinity by the following words:
I come to this great magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization that brought us together, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.
A time comes when silence is betrayal. A true call to action is in those words. Silence is betrayal when that silence results in harm to any other person or people. That was the accord Dr. King must have felt. Those words ought to convict every person’s soul when they are read. Are we not all guilty of letting our silence betray another person?
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on.
Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement, and pray that our inner being may be sensitive to its guidance. For we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us
POWERFUL WORDS! While the conflict mentioned is Vietnam and it is a horrific and confusing conflict at that, inwardly, we are all heart broken with the conflict around us.
Those that know me know that I have been re-investigating the Billings Case because something never seemed right to me about how that was said to have happened. I also knew Patrick Poff or as most know him Leonard “Patrick” Gonzalez Jr. I have made no secret of the fact, I had nothing but contempt for this man, but my conscience told me there was something wrong here. Then came the inevitable question, is Patrick worth saving? Many said, NO and justified it by saying “if he didn’t do this, he probably would have done something this bad in the future” or “if he didn’t do this, what hasn’t he been caught for that he IS guilty of?”.
Both of these justifications are flawed. Our justice system runs on the premise that the guilty should pay for the crimes they have been charged with. The crimes for which no one was “caught” are moot as are the crimes not committed yet. And in looking at this case, Pat was not the only one who was wronged, many of the others were too. I have no way of knowing for absolute sure if Pat is guilty, but I tell you that the one thing he didn’t get was a fair trial. Based on the evidence used to convict him, we should all be afraid for our own safety, because he is on Death Row and there is NO physical evidence, no legitimate eye witness; he didn’t own the gun used nor the vehicle seen in the famous video the ECSO destroyed.
None of these things happened to people who could defend themselves. All the people jailed had history of crimes, drug issues, were minorities, or were brain damaged, and all were indigent with the exception of Donnie Stallworth’s first 2 trials. But in the final trial, after being driven into indigency, he was convicted. That alone should be noted. Wayne Coldiron, a serial criminal and Pam Long are the only ones not in the racial minority. This case is a cookie cutter example of what is wrong with the justice system. Rush to judgment followed by stereotypical victimization of people who cannot defend themselves.
It is the biggest anathema among us—taking advantage of those who are marginalized (minorities, lower class, victims, people weakened by life for one reason or another). Wrongful conviction is ultimately the most consummate act because it takes the only thing broken people have left—freedom. In all exonerations, there are people who were aware of the misinformation that led to such convictions. Silence, indeed, betrayed the exonerees. Isn’t it likely that Dr. King would be advocating for those who have been convicted due their socio-economic status or race, rather than actual guilt?
Patrick Gonzalez Jr.’s latest appeal was denied, but it was expected by his attorney, Eric Pinkard. I, personally, was taken aback. During oral arguments, it seemed as if at least a couple of justices “got it”, but I suppose, they did not. The fight is not over; next is the re-sentencing that the PNJ is ensuring will end in the same result (death penalty) with their assertion of Patrick being, “the Mastermind” and writing articles stating he is a murderer as a fact, rather than saying he was convicted of murder. The two are vastly different, but why would they portray the case objectively now? They spew the nonsense the public regurgitates and that is just one way a person gets wrongly convicted.
But to get more FACTS out about the case, I put together 10 major errors by the ECSO. These 10 are not the absolute ONLY errors (by any stretch) but they are ones that may have changed the outcome.
So after Mike Thomas was convicted of being a sex offender, the 4 or the 5 deputies that testified as to Thomas’s character overall prior this incident have now become the subject of Internal Affairs investigations for different, very random things since their testimony.
The targeted 4 deputies, according to sources, testified that Thomas was a good cop to their knowledge prior to these charges. The 5th deputy was less definitive about any attributes in Thomas’s past. Apparently, his indifference or lack of positive character testimony neither helped nor hurt the case and left him himself free from retaliation by the vindictive ECSO.
Now this could be coincidental but why hold off 4 simultaneous investigations until the couple of days after the case was over? Surely, if there were questions as to these peoples’ character it might be relevant to their testimony or could these 4 people with 4 different situations become suddenly culpable of these 4 acts within one week’s time? The odds must be astronomical.
On the same note, a 2 key character witnesses in the most high profile case in Pensacola history got just as lucky. Lonnie Douglas Smith & Tony Eisa testified in Gonzalez Jr’s trial the last week of October, 2010 that Gonzalez Jr. approached them about participating in the robbery. They testified that Gonzalez Jr. was shady and a liar. His character was, in their testimony, that of a person capable of this crime—without a doubt.
Bill Eddins allowed these two men to testify in the trial that took place beginning on 10/25/2010. Strangely enough, Tony Eisa plead guilty to filing a false police report on 10/12/2010 in Santa Rosa County.
ADJUDICATED GUILTY OF FALSE REPORT TO LAW AUTHORITY 10/12/2010
Damn good character witness.
Lonnie Smith is even better story. After being arrested 2/24/2010, Smith was arrested for heroin trafficking, oxy possession, crack and cocaine possession.
Now despite the fact there was significant diversity in drugs and the weight of the heroin, after almost 8 months, Eddins decided not to prosecute the upstanding Smith, just in time for him to testify against Gonzalez Jr. Funny, how that works…
Sir David’s narcissism is going to be his undoing in the “case of a lifetime”. Sir David’s greeting of the GRAND JURY on August 11th, 2009 (and prior indictment on July 31st, 2009), was wholly unconstitutional. This has been brought up in another case. Daniel Levitan vs. David Morgan, a federal case in 2012 that is still under litigation. Mr. Levitan claims biasing the jury was the only way Sir David had of obtaining an indictment. This has not been decided due to pro se errors by the defendant, Levitan, currently an inmate in Century prison. Procedural errors and Sir David’s being afraid of being deposed in this case have drawn this case out indefinitely. But make no mistake the question of legality of jury tampering has not been dismissed.
In the Patrick Gonzalez Jr. case, the following is just 1 claim asserted in the Motion for Postconviction Relief ie Motion to Vacate due to State’s Violations of Due Process. Judge Nickolas Geeker is still the judge but the motion to get his ass out of that seat is pending in the Florida Supreme Court. That is another story entirely.
However, read the claim as to the many pleas by federal judges and the head of the public defenders office. They make the case for Gonzalez Jr. The appearance of impropriety is ridiculous. A defense attorney would not be allowed to the things Morgan did nor would a paralegal or even the family of the victims or accused. Yet Morgan continues to this day…
COUNSEL FOR MR. GONZALEZ WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE GRAND JURY INDICTMENT ON THE GROUNDS THAT ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF DAVID MORGAN ENGAGED IN OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT BY IMPROPERLY INFLUENCING MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY WHO ISSUED THE INDICTMENT AGAINST MR. GONZALEZ.
On March 17, 2011 United States District Court Judges M.Casey Rodgers, Roger Vinson, and Lacey Collier wrote a letter to Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan as follows:
Our court utilizes the parking area at the corner of Gregory and Alcaniz Streets for the parking and transport of potential jurors to the courthouse for jury selection via the city trolley service. Recently, when a prospective juror appeared for service in our court with your business card, we became aware of your practice of regularly greeting and interacting with the prospective jurors as they await the trolley.
Your interaction with these prospective jurors raise legitimate concerns about the court’s ability to seat fair and impartial jurors, especially when considering that the majority of those selected will serve on criminal juries. The potential for bias created by a senior elected public law enforcement official greeting prospective jurors and handing out business cards to them just prior to jury selection is undeniable, as is the disruption to out local criminal justice system that would result if the court were unable to seat fair and impartial juries to hear these trials. Even if no actual bias results, the court nonetheless is concerned that your practice at a minimum gives the appearance of bias, which in our view seriously undermines the public’s confidence in the fair administration of justice.
As a result of these concerns and in an effort to ensure the fair and equal administration of justice to all who appear in federal court, we must request that you refrain from any further contact with our court’s prospective jurors. We make this request in the hope we are not put in the very difficult position of being unable to seat juries in criminal cases. Your prompt response to this matter is appreciated.
On March 17, 2011 Sheriff Morgan responded by letter to the Federal District Court Judges tersely defying their request stating:
I am in receipt of your correspondence dated March 3,2011. Since no one has extended the courtesy of a call, or request, for what exactly (as sheriff) I am communicating to prospective jurors I will begin with that; “Good morning, I’m Sheriff David Morgan, I attempt to get down here on as many Monday’s as possible to thank you for answering the jury summons. I know this is a disruption of your business or personal day, but you are an integral part of the judicial process. Thank you for your service.” This is the extent of my alleged “interaction”. I continue this practice of putting a complimentary face on law enforcement for the antithesis of a potential juror failing to respond (voluntarily) to a jury summons is getting to see the “sheriff” by virtue of an arrest warrant.
The assertion that only recently the court has become aware of my practice of greeting prospective jurors is inconceivable. I have been engaged in this activity since January of 2007, first as a candidate and continuing as sheriff. Additionally, approximately four months ago Judge Vinson communicated his knowledge of this practice through local attorney Roy Kinsey, to my Chief Deputy Larry Aiken, who communicated with me. More recently, Judge Vinson sent an email again to Mr. Kinsey who then called Escambia County Sheriff’s Office staff attorney, Commander Darlene Dickey, who communicated this call to me. Additionally, my practice of greeting jurors has been covered extensively by the local media (Independent News and PNJ) both as a candidate and as an elected official. This activity is conducted in the open, on public property.
On December 2, 2010, Sheriff Morgan signed an affidavit concerning his jury greeting activities swearing under oath as follows:
In Escambia County, jury selection day is normally Monday or Tuesday in the event that Monday is a holiday. Prior to my election as sheriff I regularly went to the juror parking area, located near the Civic Center, Pennsacola, Florida, on each jury selection day. The juror parking area is where prospective jurors for Escambia County Circuit Court and County Court are directed to park their vehicles and be transported by bus to the EscambiaCounty Courthouse. At the juror parking area my practice was to introduce myself to as many potential jurors as possible, thank them for appearing to serve as a juror, and provide them with my business card.
I have routinely continued this practice after my installation as Sheriff. Although I do not do so for every jury selection day, I continue the practice on most jury selection days. I did not do so on October 25, 2010, which was the jury selection day for Gonzalez, accused of the Billings murders. . . .
On March 24, 2011 Sheriff Morgan wrote a letter to State Attorney Bill Eddins stating:
There is no honor in this acquiescence. Yet what can only be defined as an impending media circus must be avoided. I cannot and will not be a player to a diminution or denigration of the judicial process. This is evidenced by the most recent filings by local defense attorneys asking that as Sheriff and Executive Officer of the Court, I stay away from prospective jurors in an upcoming Billings Trial. The Criminal Defense Bar and the Public Defender’s Office are well aware that I had voluntarily agreed to suspend these greetings during these selections because I was the “public face” of these cases. I will not be a party to this. Furthermore, it has been suggested by members of the local media that I be photographed greeting prospective jurors. This is also something I will not be a party to, as a public official, it would be unavoidable. Therefore, I am ceasing the greetings of prospective jurors effective immediately.
On September 17, 2010, J. Christopher Klotz the President of the Society of the Criminal Defense Bar of Escambia County, wrote a letter to Circuit Court Judge Terry Terrell concerning Sheriff Morgan and his jury greeting and stated:
I am writing on behalf of the Society of the Criminal Defense bar, the local chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Having discussed the recent conduct of the Escambia County Sheriff, our Board of Directors has authorized me to reach out to you on behalf of our association. We recently became aware that Sheriff Morgan is initiating some type of one on one contact with prospective jurors as they are assembling at the Pensacola Coliseum and again at the Escambia Courthouse. As an organization, we agree with the Office of the Public Defender that contact of this nature has a great potential for harmful impact on citizens on trial in Escambia County. Respectfully, we are requesting that you exercise your authority under Florida Law to curb the inappropriate contact of the Sheriff with prospective jurors.
The above stated letters to, from, and about Sheriff Morgan’s jury greeting practices, establish that (1) From the time Sheriff Morgan was sworn in as Sheriff of Escambia County he has routinely and consistently greeted jurors in the jury assembly parking lot and giving them his business card for the express purpose of putting a “complimentary face” on law enforcement; (2) Sheriff Morgan admitted the impropriety of greeting jurors on any “Billings” case as he was the “face of the investigation;” (3) Sheriff Morgan claims he did not greet the jurors on October 25, 2010, which was when the jury was selected on the Gonzalez case.
Mr. Gonzalez asserts that if it is improper for Sheriff Morgan to meet with prospective jurors on any Billings case because he was the “face of the investigation,” it is equally improper for him to meet with prospective members of the Grand Jury charged with the decision of whether there was sufficient evidence to charge him with first degree murder. This is especially so as to the Gonzalez Grand Jury because Sheriff Morgan was far beyond just the “face ” of the investigation, but rather had appeared on local and national television, and, as was established in Claim One of this motion, referred to Mr. Gonzalez as an inveterate liar, a psychopath, and a lying con man. The Grand Jury in this case issued the indictment against Mr. Gonzalez on August 11, 2009. It is the undersignedcounsel’s understanding and belief that the potential Grand Jurors arrive in the same general assembly parking lot where Sheriff Morgan engaged in his jury greeting and influence activities. Based upon the time frame Sheriff Morgan says he greeted the prospective jurors and when the Grand Jury was convened to issue the indictment,counsel has a good faith belief that Sheriff Morgan greeted some or all of the members of the Grand Jury who indicted Mr. Gonzalez at the jury assembly parking lot, and he did so to put a complimentary face on law enforcement.
Counsel for Mr. Gonzalez had to have been aware of Sheriff Morgan’s jury influencing activities, based on the letter from Mr. Klotz, President of the Defense bar, and the admission from Sheriff Morgan that he would not greet any prospective jurors on the Billing’s case, and from the news reports Sheriff Morgan referenced in his letter concerning extensive press coverage of his jury greeting practices.
Wherefore, counsel for Mr. Gonzalez was ineffective for not challenging the Grand Jury indictment against Mr. Gonzalez due to Sheriff Morgan’s greeting of them at the jury assembly parking lot for the express purpose of putting a complimentary face on law enforcement. The proper means to challenge the Grand Jury is by motion to dismiss the indictment. Failure of defense counsel to make that motion results in a waiver of any challenge to the Grand Jury. In Rudd v. Christian, 310 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1975), the Florida Supreme Court stated:
if a State Attorney, and his assistants should in any way attempt to influence the finding of the Grand Jury, other than presenting evidence and rendering legal advice, any indictment returned may be set aside for improper influence. An overstepping of the State Attorney’s function could constitute an invasion of the function of the Grand Jury and interfere with their independence.
Although Sheriff Morgan is not an Assistant State Attorney, he clearly is an arm of and part of the prosecution team, as the lead investigative law enforcement officer in the Gonzalez case and self -professed “face” of the investigation. He may not in any way attempt to influence the Grand Jury. Accordingly, Mr. Gonzalez’s counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss the indictment due to Sheriff Morgan’s greeting of some or all of the Grand Jurors with the express purpose of influencing them to have a positive view of law enforcement.
In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the Court held that counsel has a “duty to bring such skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process.” Strickland requires a defendant to plead and prove (1) unreasonable attorney performance, and (2) prejudice. The prejudice prong is met if “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694. See also Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 130 S.Ct. 447 (2009) (explaining that the Court does not require proof “‘that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome’ of his penalty proceeding, but rather that he establish ‘a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in [that] outcome.’” 558 U.S. at 44, 130 S.Ct. at 45556 (2009), quoting Strickland).
Prejudice under Strickland is established for this claim because the legal debacle of the elected Sheriff of Escambia County improperly influencing members of the Grand Jury undermines confidence in the entire trial proceedings and the proper administration of justice due to indictment procedure compromised by a governmental official.
So the only SOLID case, if you would call it that, that Sir David has as his “claim to fame”–as does Bill Eddins, is unconstitutional. That isn’t even to mention that the composition of the Grand Jury room was violated by David Rimmer by allowing Barry Brook and/or Corey Aittama inside the jury room instead of the statutorily required second attorney. So while Morgan basks in the glow for now, come election day, his undoing awaits…Damn I love Karma!
I am working on a project that is beyond myself. I found a cause in helping a dear friend. His life is in peril and you and I can save him.
You might ask how and it is very simple. I need a following. I need people to look at his story wholly and completely, seeing the injustice done . Why should we care? Because an injustice against one is an injustice against all. There is a tale that has been told that is not true but is being paraded as truth. We, each, have experienced that. Someone speaking untruths about you. Someone causing trouble in a sea of peace.
This is what is happening to Patrick Gonzalez except he lost his home, his wife, his kids, his name and he may lose his life, but for people standing up with righteousness behind them. I need your help in making that stance. You merely have to follow me and read Patrick’s story. Producing a web-presence of truth takes masses of people and I know the people who are reading this have a spare moment to view, to click, to follow the course to Patrick’s exoneration.
First off, let me tell Cab Tice, Justin Billings, & Mr. Hugh Wiggins: YOUR TIME IS APPROACHING. I know your pride and arrogance prevent you from that on a daily basis. However, there is a collaborating effort of some very intelligent, previously distant people with information who have your head in their sights. The worst news about this is that I AM ONE OF THEM.
To say the least, the last week or so, in perusal of the evidence in the public domain, some fascinating devils hidden in the details that have been long overlooked have been found as well the keys to the conspiracy. It seems the diligence is paying off. Things are happening in quick succession and will culminate in the overturning of the death sentence of Patrick Jr.
I have had the opportunity to understand this crime a bit from another perspective. An advocate of Lenny Gonzales aka Sr, his brother Richard, is on a mission to get his brother out of his current death sentence from cancer in prison. We found that we had similar goals with which we may be able to create an alliance. That along with the collaboration of others who lost the political roll of the dice that sent innocent men to prison for murders they did not commit, will be the downfall of the collusion and corruption. I have always believed that the more I knew about each of the people involved and their reasoning for ending up in a part of the best and most overwhelming conspiracy in Pensacola, I would have the advantage. Knowledge is power. It is cliche but it is also absolutely true.
Who had the primary motive to kill Bud? Everyone has unanimously pointed the finger at the one and only Cab Tice. Although Justin did so initially, he later pointed a finger at a cartel and a friend of his Walter Davis from Colorado. A connection possibly links Mr. Davis of Colorado to a random text received 4 days after the murders to the current Escambia County School Superintendent Malcolm Thomas. The text merely said “Pat Poff!”. He deleted it but when another came in, he was compelled to make a police report. The number the text came from goes back to a lady in a community south of Austin, Texas, ie just on this side of the Mexican border. One of her previous addresses is in Colorado. Maybe this a tenuous connection to Mr. Davis spoken about by Justin. But why would anyone have felt it necessary to send such an ambiguous text to someone with apparently nothing to do with this case? The timing is post-arrest of Pat. The clandestine “Good Old’ Boy” system never leads to anyone to Superintendent Thomas, yet someone the conspiracy does. This point of this is lost on me but it is something I am sure is important.
So the latest facts uncovered this last week via a cooperative effort of people who have come forth who knew Patrick or the conspiracy are these:
1. Someone had GSR on their hands the night of the murder. It is deemed transfer and inconsequential. However, this person was not known to have touched either victim or the gun.
2. Cab Tice was interviewed FIRST by Homeland Security prior to deputies.
3. Blue Markham was a co-worker/ friend of Patrick’s at Allen Turner. They had a relationship.
4. Dr. Berkland, a pathologist had human organs stored in a storage unit about a month outside the murders. The hypothesis I have is that these organs are the pieces of the 4 bodies found in the white van left to scare Gary Sumner just prior to the murders. Dr. Berkland was also the doctor that did the second autopsy of Willie Junior at the family’s behalf. Not knowing if the family came to them or him to the family, I have little doubt he could be scared into doing something for a power higher than a conventional boss but lower than the hand of God.
5. The DNA reports were worded a bit off. Most of the different items of evidence are worded oddly. Most of the evidence has a statement that reads: “DNA profile could/count not be identified”. If it could, the name of the people included or excluded as possibilities are listed. There are several things where it says simply: “DNA profile could be identified” without any further statement. It doesn’t say who could be implicated or who absolutely cannot be, like other results, page after page, in these reports. Absent info….makes me question what or who the profile linked to.
6. The text to Superintendent Thomas, just the curiosity of the connection.
7. Assuming Patrick did lead these men/boys into this fatal act, why would Patrick bring in so many people HE DIDN’T know? Only way 2 people can keep a secret is if one is dead. Now we have 5 people who don’t know each other from Adam trusting their lives, safety and mission is secure. The logic of the conspiracy prevents me from seeing any benefits to bringing unpredictable elements into this situation. With every additional person, the likelihood of getting caught goes up exponentially.
8. This wonderfully modern van used as the getaway car. An unreliable vehicle is the most ridiculous thing to ever take to any type of crime with any forethought. This well thought out plan to “invade” the home Billings’ is being left to novice strangers and vehicles that are older than many of the participants. The common sense threshold is completely absent.
9. During the testing of the blue fibers of carpet in Lenny’s van, FDLE is notified to by John Molchan to stop processing the evidence. The fibers are literally in the midst of processing. The only conclusion raised prior to the call was the fibers were consistent with what should be in that van, meaning the original carpeting. Then it is set off to the side along with a list of other evidence with is NEVER tested at all. Now that van is disposed of with no way to prove it was or wasn’t the correct van.
All of this is just an example of the things that independently don’t seem relevant but when put into the puzzle with other facts have to make even the most skeptical question the convictions and witch hunts that were carried out in the name of the Billings family.
Throughout this entire case, the one anomaly from start to finish–aside from the incompetency of the justice system–is the involvement of Pamela Long Wiggins. In asking Patrick, the answer I got was not exactly what I expected. His explanation clears up a great deal.
According to Patrick, Pam was the “golden goose”. Hugh took an interest in her because of her assets: her antique shop, yacht as well as a few real estate properties. She was a good front for laundering money and was easily manipulated. Patrick’s involvement was to protect the “golden goose”. He hung out with her and ran errands with her. Hugh’s involvement with the ultra-bad guys made her a target especially when he went out “offshore”. “Offshore” in his case consisted of his various rendezvous excursions with his Mexican connections.
In the process, Patrick found he genuinely liked Pam. This is the reason Hugh wasn’t concerned about the time Patrick spent with Pam. The bigamy charges? That was all Hugh. He was concerned if Pam was ever questioned about his illegal businesses, she wouldn’t be compelled to testify if they were married. The fact the marriage wasn’t valid wouldn’t be initially known by the police. It would work until he could get her out of any trouble.
So she was a commodity to Hugh, his Golden Goose. Well played, Mr. Wiggins…you hung your Sugar Mama out to dry.
Shortly into my research in this case, I found that there were a great deal of elements that were not as they appeared. Byrd Billings was NOT a pillar of city. The mirage of thoroughly investigated case was broadcast nationally. But it really wasn’t investigated at all. Like I have said in the past, it was like being down the rabbit hole in “Alice in Wonderland”. Right was wrong and wrong was right.
A very curious thing that I had never questioned came to light. The last name Gonzalez. My perception tells me that is a Hispanic or Spanish name. In this case, it isn’t. It is Italian. So when DNA is “consistent” with that of someone with Hispanic heritage, I must step back and realize that the smoke and mirrors of this is there to mislead people. Patrick Gonzalez’s heritage can be traced back Spanish heritage. No trace of Hispanic blood.
Another thing that I studied quite a bit at Eastern Michigan University was something called a “cross-race effect”. It is a simple concept really. In the first 30 seconds of coming into contact with a person, heuristics take over. The definition from Wikipedia is a very good and simple one. “Heuristics refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery that give a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal. Where the exhaustive search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution via mental shortcuts to ease the cognitive load of making a decision. Examples of this method include using arule of thumb, aneducated guess, an intuitive judgment, stereotyping, recalling past experiences orcommon sense.”
It is what we use to sum up someone as a friend or foe. It is what makes us nervous about a homeless man talking to himself as he walks towards us on the street. It may be absolutely benign but the mind recalls all the stories of encounters with homeless people, schizophrenics, or just someone who may have looked like that person without us being conscious of it. That’s the were cross-race effect comes in. All of us ,in general, of course, have walked met someone who reminds you of someone else. Maybe your grandfather’s nose or the fine looking man or woman walking towards us. Very few of us notice people’s features that are not those we commonly see. Think about the common cliche that all Asians or Hispanics look alike. It’s because those of us not in that race, simply don’t recognize the subtle differences unless we have become extremely familiar with people.
This is what I believe is happening in this case. I believe it ispossible that the Rakeem Florence and Frederick Thornton, who only picked Pat Gonzalez out of a lineup once, may have been less likely to remember a face they only saw a few times in a layout of similarly looking men. Also what if the investigators told them the Pat he knew was Pat Gonzalez? Would that possibly be a cue to them to try to find the person in the lineup who has a darker complexion? If I know I am looking for a Hispanic male, I would identify with the one that strongly looks more Hispanic vs the others in a lineup. It is human nature.
These boys called Lenny by the name “Frank” who was Lenny’s brother. Why? Did they ever meet Frank and due to the subtle differences mix up the two men. This fact alone leads me to believe the person these boys knew as “Pat” may have been another man who could have been altered to appear more like Pat.
An example: Wayne Coldiron.
Wayne Coldiron circa 2008
This Wayne Coldiron after his arrest for the murders:
This is Pat Gonzalez the day of his arrest:
I know that to those of us who know Pat there is no denying which of these pictures are him but to someone who only knew him in a very tenuous way, under a great deal of pressure, may have misidentified him. There is no question the first pic of Coldrion put next to Pat looks nothing like him but the day of the murders he looked a lot more like Pat than he had in the Pat.
Last thought, think about the very first issues with the internet. The chat rooms were full of people showing people pictures of themselves that wasn’t them at all. They assumed a better look because of the anonymity of the internet, unless they met face to face, how do you know who is behind the fake profile and picture? You don’t. If you meet someone and are told his name is Joe for instance. You see him a couple of times, maybe didn’t even really notice much about him. When you are under pressure and the face put in front of you looks similar to 5 others, could you know how Joe is for a fact? What about the guy at the fast food window or the clerk at the post office, could you pick them out of a lineup with absolute certainty? Probably not. I think that is what happened here.