I absolutely love this brief (parts of it anyway)…The first 29 pages are just the noise of the case. It is the “he said-he said” chaos that is wholly inadmissible when dealing with co-conspirators when it cannot be independently corroborated by other evidence, which doesn’t include other co-conspirator testimony. (2 or 30 co-conspirators does not evidence make without tangible evidence of guilt)
The basis of this appeal is simply these 2 issues :
Yesterday was the 8th anniversary of the most infamous murder in Pensacola history. Two citizens of Escambia County were ambushed on a quiet summer night inside their own home. Seven people were arrested in break-neck time. The case was wrapped up with all the elements tucked into a nice narrative that made everyone feel as if they were safe again.
In the last few years, 2 of the people arrested for the crime died in jail of excruciating deaths; both literally wasting into nothingness. The “happily ever after” Ashley & Blue Markham, are embroiled in a low key divorce that was originating prior to the death of Ashley’s parents. The looming divorce was sidelined to make the facade of a loving family play better in the media–local and national.
The theater at each and every trial, as well as each of the 2 compassionate release hearings were full of drama from the ever sobbing Ashley Markham and her doting husband, Blue.
As for the main face in the media for this crime, David Morgan has proven himself to be an absolute buffoon and more worthy of Barney Fife’s one bullet than a sheriff’s star. Morgan has turned Escambia County into a joke on a national scale, with proclamations of witches killing citizens, the youth of the community being “Super-Predators”, likening his “Welsh-ness” to “Black-ness”, and even that the motive of the murder of a child on his watch was “not his concern”. Most recently, after being completely worked around in a multi-agency murder case, he declared in a press conference a nonsensical assertion about the rate of “solved” cases in the area. With all the buffoonery that has come since this case, looking back, doesn’t the pattern of forcing a scenario despite the facts, fit?
To anyone who has any knowledge of criminal justice, law enforcement or even people who have watched a cop show, David Morgan makes every person trying to make the county a better place, look like some sort of “Jackass” version of policing, because he is supposed to be their leader, not their mascot.
In the Billings case, someone on the inside took the easy way out by going after the “robbery” angle rather than the most legitimate answer being, Billings was killed for some interaction in his business, illegal business. When you play with cartels and then are murdered, should anyone be shocked? The fact this case was investigated excluding the theory that business associates of either his previous strip club affiliation, or crossed colleagues and/or ripped off clients from his “Buy Here, Pay Here” lot. Even the most traditional motive, greed of someone looking to inherit was NEVER INVESTIGATED.
Veteran law enforcement from ECSO and outside agencies have come forward to say that they knew this case was improperly handled from seeing it handled from a perspective different than that of the average citizen. The magnitude of the case (multiple agency involvement, number of suspects & people of interest) was such that there was no scenario, even with confessions, that could have been adequately investigated to rule out other theories and suspects of this heinous murder. A narrative was formed that was clean and fit the public relations option the agency took in keeping Bud Billings’s life “clean” when it was far from that. Seven people with sketchy, questionable or who were black, were arrested, bullied into confessions to stay off that pesky death sentence needle. None of the stories match up and so many loose ends, simply dropped while national media watching, some of which are criminal justice experts were fawning over Morgan for his stellar performance as a new Sheriff in a complex double murder. He took that praise and spun it to his own political gain.
Ashley & Blue got the bulk of their parents’ estate, cutting out siblings like Justin and Kristen. They also took over the disabled kid cash grab with the number of kids ( roughly $3000 a month per child in state assistance), along with the predatory car lot. To top it all off, Ashley got Oprah’s sympathy as well as the infamous “hug” by Sheriff Morgan.
Unfortunately, the justice in the Billings case will be reserved for now, but this is temporary. The truth is still out there with no statute of limitations on murder (Thank God). As long as I have breath, David Morgan is my focus. His downfall is my goal, not by making “salacious” posts, but for unveiling this charlatan for what he is–Barney Fife with one bullet. He has effectively run the ECSO into a place of ruin that many cops say will take YEARS to remedy.
So in the long line of people who cashed in, exploited and turned a blind eye in the Billings case, I want to welcome Bill Richbourg to the cast of characters who should be on the other side of the bars that they put their clients in. Mr. Richbourg could arguably be the most deplorable of the attorneys who rolled over and played dead in this case. Mr. Richbourg was hired by Gary Sumner to represent him. He paid Mr. Richbourg. For 6 weeks seemingly, work was done to further the defense case for Sumner. But on April 25, 2011, the day set for the jury selection, Mr. Richbourg tells Sumner (as they approach the courtroom) that he could not win this case, Sumner had no option but to take a plea. Richbourg strong-armed a disadvantaged young black man. Then the state had the gall to sue Sumner for the time they wasted for trial.
But the best part here is that Richbourg had an agenda from the onset of representing Sumner. He represented Bud Billings in the adoption fraud suit that somehow left the “stolen” child with the captor. Richbourg organized that circa 1989-90.
Can you say CONFLICT???? Representing a man that killed a past client and then tanking the representation? Cheryl Barnes, Gary Sumner’s mother, should be suing this man on Gary’s behalf. Not only unethical, but it rises to level of criminal when he forced Gary into signing away his life rather than actually representing him. Any civil rights lawyers out there should be on top of this.
But the people who failed to do their job in this case is so numerous. Richbourg is just ONE of the highly respected attorneys who dropped the ball.
Tony Henderson forced Lenny Gonzalez into his plea and signed off on the man’s legal mental competence, despite the SSI ruling that states the man has brain damage, dementia, and numerous mental health issues. Also his VAN WAS INOPERABLE. That was a defense within itself, but Henderson managed to negotiate Lenny’s fate which led to his death. Shouldn’t that be beyond malpractice as well?
What about the public defenders who handled Florence & Thornton? There was a huge case for coerced confessions but they never represented their clients. They took the money the state paid them and walked those boys into prison. Now their lives are cast in stone. Statistics say that uneducated black men imprisoned early (18-25) build “criminal capital”. They turn prison into a community that they are comfortable with, can network in, to feel a sense of inclusion into SOMETHING. It is the same psycho-social phenomenon that draws people into gangs. That is on Joel M. Cohen (Florence’s public defender), & Cheryl Alverson (Thornton’s public defender).
Richbourg has a great deal of company in his criminality. I hope to see them punished just like Eddins, Geeker & Sir David.
When a person is murdered, standard procedure is to do a victimology profile. That includes understanding why victims were targets, what motivations were most likely, what was going on in their lives the day they were murdered. Another relevant factor is, why were they killed there? Why was this location chosen? The obvious answers would be.
a.) that is where things of value were to be taken
b.) to send a message that no one is safe even in their home
d.) controlled environment.
Opportunity is ruled out because this wasn’t a spontaneous crime.
Also, why was THIS method and tHIS mode of murder used? why so many guns? why the manpower?
a.) guns used for assured kill
b.) manpower of that magnitude needed for crime
No real need to have 5 men enter to subdue elderly man and woman who were not armed and not suspecting anything. Couldn’t one, maybe two men have entered–zip-tied them for the remaining to come in carry safe. That way if something went wrong, only the 1st two would be inside the residence. Again, for a planned, military style approach, strangers with no real bonds to each other wouldn’t have been used. Extra measures would have ensured video cameras were taken care of. By the way, if this was a robbery, why not knock Byrd off leaving or coming in a car? He’d have the money with him and be an easier target. Also why leave the briefcase behind if there was that much money in it. They walked right passed it, supposedly with the knowledge of its contents.
Forget all the confessions. They only muddle the facts and contradict the evidence. No one tells a story that fits the physical evidence or the known concrete facts of how the murder went down. There are variations that cannot be squared. Who was where, for example? Who drove? What happened after? Not one of the 4 people who talked have a story that is consistent with each other or the crime scene evidence. So disregard those entirely and focus on just what can be seen, smelled, or touched.
The family had the most to gain. The family was never properly investigated. The son had gunshot residue. It’s Ockham’s razor. “A principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.” (Source: Wikipedia)
No matter what you believe happened in this case, the one thing that cannot be disputed is that this case was not properly investigated. That begs the question of why? Why not rule out all the possibilities before taking the case to trial or settling into one theory that is outside the logical flow of everything known about how and why murders happen?
Next step: Look at anomalies in investigation. What happened that shouldn’t have happened? What didn’t happen?
Transcript of Bill Eddins speaking at the Rotary Club on Sept 17, 2013
….They located the owner of the red van as a result of that being publicized or where the red van was. It was Leonard Gonzalez Sr. On Sunday, he was brought in, July 12th, he was brought in to the Sheriff’s office to be questioned and we expected that..we had developed enough evidence to charge him with accessory after the fact. We expected that is what he would be charged with. We developed evidence that he had tried to put on some paint, he started painting and had it hid behind his house. I decided to contact the Sheriff’s office and I went down to the Sheriff’s office and determined while he was talking to them he was not being honest. He was BS’ing them were the words I used. Paraphrasing. I asked the Sheriff if he thought it might be helpful if I spoke with him. He decided it would do no harm. I decided I would speak with him. So I did and indicated to him who I was and that I was the State Atty and that my office would be prosecuting these cases. And that we knew there were a large number of people involved based on what we’d seen on video tapes and we knew sooner or later some of them would talk and confess and tell on everybody else. I knew he wasn’t being truthful. I wasn’t gonna be there but 5 more minutes and our office decided whether-who we will seek the death penalty against. And I found in matters of this nature that it is always better to tell the truth. The train is leaving the station and if you want to get on it all you got to do is tell the truth. He started BS’ing me (I’m paraphrasing). I told him I was leaving and I walked outside. I told the Sheriff and the Sheriff and I discussed it. Sheriff Morgan and I agreed we could arrest him for accessory after the fact anyway since he obviously wasn’t gonna talk. A high bond was placed on him and we went back and told the investigators what we had done. One of the senior investigators got very upset and said “now you ruined it, we will never solve this case. This man is not gonna talk. WE could have got him to talk and here you go ruining it”. Just as he said that, a knock at the door came and the man said Mr. Gonzalez wants to know if you would possibly come back and speak to him again. So I did. I expected him to confess. He was an older man who lived a hard life and I expected him to tell me about being accessory after the fact, but when I sat down and gave him his rights, he let out the whole story. …from there we were able to round up the rest of the people. Some of them confessed; some didn’t
If this “confession” lead to the other arrests, wouldn’t it be ironic if this confession proved to be fruit from the poison tree? The poison tree being this inadmissable confession.
People with mental disabilities have often falsely confessed because they are tempted to accommodate and agree with authority figures. Further, many law enforcement interrogators are not given any special training on questioning suspects with mental disabilities. An impaired mental state due to mental illness, drugs or alcohol may also elicit false admissions of guilt.
Above is the Social Security Determination that establishes Leonard Gonzalez Sr. as suffering from dementia, concentration problems, memory impairment, and paranoid personality disorder, “Having marked difficulty in maintaining social function and deterioration of adaptive behavior”.
“After careful consideration of the full record” an Administrative Law Judge declared Mr. Gonzalez Sr. totally disabled under the standards defined by the SSA due to organic brain injury and mental impairment resulting from that injury. Gainful employment for any sustained period is unforseeable. Dementia and memory impairment are acknowledged and documented.
Being in Mr. Gonzalez Sr.’s presence, NO ONE can have the sense that he wasn’t mentally impaired. It is reported by family that on the day in question, that he was arrested, Mr. Gonzalez Sr. had been up for 3 days, smoking crack. Again making him far from sound mind and less apt to cover the deficiency he had psychologically and mentally, yet, Mr. Eddins took a confession of this man which led to 7 more arrests.
This confession is tainted by the knowledge of this man’s incapacity. All info stemming from this “confession” should have been inadmissable and this may have saved Mr. Gonzalez Sr.’s life as well as Pamela Wiggins.
Then as the investigators follow the breadcrumbs to Palm Court to Leonard Gonzalez Sr., lo-and-behold, there sits a red van that has been covered in an attempt to disguise it. Which van is the crime van? The one found on the BOLO that was Mr. Hartsfield’s old van who he says he sold to Terri Poff for her son Patrick Poff aka Patrick Gonzalez Jr. that was being housed at the property of Lenny Gonzalez Sr. where it had not moved for weeks. So when investigators follow the trail to Sr’s home, there is another van there. But if they have the van found by Smith then what necessity is there to take this van into custody, because based on VIN numbers they are supposed to be ONE van.
Lest we not forget Blue Markham’s statement prior to any of the vans mentioned are located claims that he sold the van in the video footage to one, Cab Tice from the lot owned by Billings a few weeks before the murder.
Now the van supposedly taken from Lenny’s home was destroyed as it was damaged by water in the jail explosion. The secret of the van may never be unearthed.
As I have been saying for 3 years, Sheriff Morgan is no criminal investigator. He develops a theory and with tunnel vision. To the exclusion of actual facts and evidence, he plumps up his cheeks and gets in front of the media and touts his own truth. This is what happened in the recent triple murder of the Smith Family. He claims, “this is witchcraft”. Thankfully the public knew enough not to believe it. That has not always been the case.
On July 27, 2009, Morgan staged one of many national press conferences and with all the drama he could muster, he told Ashley Markham, “We found them (the people who killed your parents)”. He hugged the sobbing woman, resting his head upon hers in an embrace, of course, at an angle so that there is good exposure to publicity shots.
This very act should have been the first red…
View original post 598 more words