N0, 201404527 RESPONSE OF JOHN H. JACKSON T0 GRIEVANCE FILED BY EUGENIA WILLINGHAM AND PATRICIA COX IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS Submitted by: Juhn H. Jackson State Bar No. 10477500 PRO SE N0. 201404527 RESPONSE OF JOHN H. JACKSON T0 GRIEVANCE FILED BY EUGENIA WILLINGIIAM AND PATRICIA COX IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS Submitted by: John H. Jackson State Bar No. 10477500 PRO SE LIST OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Petitioners: Eugenia Willingham Patricia Cox Representing Petitioners: Barry C. Scheck Brice Benjet The Innocence Project 40 Worth St, Suite 701 New York, NY 10013 Neal 3. Mann Alex Kaplan Susman Godfrey, LLP 1000 Louisiana St, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77002 Gerald H, Goldstein A. Orr Golstein, Golsteia Hilley 301 St. Mary?s St, Suite 2900 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Respondent: John H. Jackson PO. Box 1 Powell, Texas 75153 Pro Se List of Parties and Counsel Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi Response to Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedural Objection One, the Grievance Is Barred by Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Procedural Objection Two, the Grievance Is Barred by Laches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Procedural Objection Three, Rule 309 is Not Applicable to this Proceeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 8 Response to Speci?c Allegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Was there a PreuTrial Deal with Webb? Part One (Webb March 13, 2014 InterviewSheriff Cotton Groomed Webb as Informant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cotten and Jackson Offered Webb a PremTrial Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 c. Charles Pearce Furnished Money for False Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 d. Jackson Was Part of a Conspiracy . . . . . . . . . . Jackson Conspired with. Pearce and Others at Pearce?s Home . . . . . . . . 10 f. Webb Expects To Be Killed . Webb?s Wife Has Been Victimized Recently . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Webb Was Mistaken About aekson?s Presence at Meetings . . . . . . 10 i. April Sikes: Webb?s Attorney is Part of Conspiracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 j. Cotton Met With Webb Several Times . . Pearce Followed Orders from Jackson to Buy Vehicle . Webb Communicated with Willingharn In. The Governor Wouldn?t Help Webb . . . . . . . . . . State Of?cials and Others Engaged in Stealing City Property . . . . . . . . . 11 0. Local Businessman Confesses Pending Murder to Webb . . Webb Says He Was lntirnidated by Trial Judge . . . . . . . . . . Lots of Innocent People Went to Jail . . . . Webb?s Attorney Didn?t Do Anything . . . . . Webb says Newspaper Is In Cahoets with State Office . . . . . . . . 12 Webb says Cotton and Jaeksen Encouraged Perjury waw Webb Reveals That His Father is Part of Conspiracy is}: v. Webb Says Jackson Was Author of Perjury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 w. Webb Contradicts Own Prior Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 X. Webb Says Jackson Hirn Robbery Would Disappear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 y. Jackson Said Pearce Would Send Webb to Diving School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 z. Webb Says He, Jackson, and Pearce Shot Guns at Pearce?s Ranch . . . . . . . 13 aa. Webb Says asks-on Told Him About Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 bb. Webb Says Jackson Arranged for Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 2. Was There a Prev-Trial Deal With Webb, Part 2, (Webb Interview, March 27, 2014Webb?s Concern About hnrnunity/Leniency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 b. Webb Called ?Feds? from Jail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 c. Pearce Was a Bribery Agent for the Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 d. The Barnett Brothers Were Part of Conspiracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 e. Pearce Was An Agent of John Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 f. The District Attorney Was A Co-Conspirator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 g. Webb?s Drug Addiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 h. Law Enforcement Of?cers ConSpired at Pearce?s House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 i. Webb?s and Counsel?s Admission of No Credibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 j. Webb Repeats That He Expects To Be Killed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 k. Conspiracy to Terrorize Webb?s Wife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 1. Jackson Conspired At Pearce?s House But Was Not There . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 In. April Sikes, Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 n. Webb Sold Controlled Substances te Willingharn In Jail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 0. Jackson and Cotten Conspirators, Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 p. Jackson and Cotten Conspirators, Revisited Again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 q. Jackson and Cotton Conspiraters, Revisited Yet Again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 r. Webb Denies Culpability for Robbery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 s. Webb?s Father Part of Conspiracy, Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 t. Webb Says ?They Told Me What To Way? Again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 u. Webb Says ?Cotton Was At One MeetingJackson Tells Webb He Can Help Clean Up His Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 w. Jackson Says, ?Robbery Will Disappearacksen Says, ?Pearce Will Help You With Diving SchoolJackson Con?rms to Webb that ?Pearce Can HelpWebb Says He Was Sexually Assaulted by Kerri Danica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3. Allegations That Jackson Tempered with a Government Document . . . . . . . . . . 17 4. Is the Clerk?s Record or Notatien Evidence at a Pre~Trial Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 5. Did Jackson Falser Direct the Clerks to Communicate Erreneous Information the District Attorney?s ile Notation Evidence of a Pre-Trial DealWebb?s Petition for Protective Order Evidence of a Pre?Trial DealWas the Pro Tune Judgment Improper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. Is the Nunc Pro Tune Judgment Evidence of a PreuTrial Dealthe Jackson Letter to the EFF False or ImproperImproper to Protect a Witness12. Was Respondent Part of a Conspiracy with Charles Pearce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 13. Did Respondent Take Steps to Keep Documents Out cf the Record14. Are Respondent?s Letters to the and Governor Improper15. Did Jackson Provide Misleading Information to Lowell Thompson For the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 16. Did Jackson Provide Extraordinary Assistance in Protecting Webb and Obtaining an Early Release17. Did Jackson Improperly Divert Webb?s False Recantation from the Willingham Court File18. Were ackson?s Post~Convictien Statements and Letters Regarding the Willingham ease Misleading or ImproperThe :Cleirn 0f Innocence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . its: LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1, Af?davit of Respondent, John H. Jackson Exhibit 2, Af?davit of Alan Bristol Exhibit 3, Willingham Polygraph Report Exhibit 4, Lowell Thompson Af?davit Exhibit 5, Dallas Morning News Editorial Exhibit 6, Webb Motion to Recent Exhibit 7, Respondent Polygraph Report Exhibit 8, Letter from Webb to Pearce AB Harrassrrient, etc. Exhibit 9, Letter from Webb to Pearce, explaining Willingharn?s brother is an Aryan Brotherhood member, corrupt correctional officers, etc. Exhibit 10, Letter from Webb to acksori, confirming truthfulness of trial testimony, pressure from Reeves, etc. Exhibit 11 Letter from Webb to Pearce, re: threats, welding rod in spine, etc. Exhibit 12, Letter from Webb to Pearce, forced recantation Exhibit 13, Letter from Webb to Pearce, ?Did not lie? in trial testimony Exhibit 14, Letter from Webb to Jackson, ?1 never lied? Possley attempted bribe Exhibit 15, Letter from Webb to Jackson, con?rms AB threats, correctienai of?cer threats Exhibit 16, Af?davit of Jimmie Hensley, CPD Exhibit 17, Affidavit of Jack Michael Cox, NCSO and CPD Exhibit 18, Affidavit of Leslie Cotten, CPD and NCSO Exhibit 19, Letter from Webb to Jackson seeking help in present offense, conspiracies Exhibit 20, Letter from Webb to Jackson, seeking assistance, etc. Exhibit 21, Affidavit of Janet Jacobs re: newspaper involvement Exhibit 22, Af?davit of Joe Graves, former NCSO, Commissioner, etc. re: Pearce Exhibit 23, Affidavit of Kerri Andersen Donica, re: allegations of Webb, credibility, ete. Exhibit 24, Af?davit of Marilyn Greer, former District Clerk Exhibit 25, Af?davit bf Jill Greends, Deputy Clerk List of Exhibits, Coatinued Exhibit 26, Cindy Gamer, Heusten Caunty District Attemey Exhibit 27 Shirley McAdams Af?davit re: Webb time cut Exhibit 28, Tony Ayala Statement vii RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Just before Christmas of 1991, Cameron Todd Willingharn was at home at his rented house in Corsicana, Texas. He was alone with his three baby daughters, Amber, Karmon, and Kameron. Just before the fire broke out which incinerated the twin infants, Karmon and Kameron, and killed Amber by smoke inhalation, Willingharn was observed by Tony Ayala, a passerby, loading property from his home into his vehicle parked just outside. His next door neighbors, the Barbees observed Willingham standing outside his residence at a time when only srnoke was issuing from the structure. The Trial Record re?ects that one of the Barbees screamed at Willingharn that his house was on fire and that he should go back in and get his babies. Willinghain refused to do this and attempted to push his property?laden vehicle which was parked near the burning residence to a safer distance. Though apparently calm at ?rst, according to the Barbee testimony, when Willingham became aware that he was observed, he launched into histrionic behavior more consistent with that of a parent whose children were trapped in a burning house. Although professing that he tried to rescue his children, further investigation proved such statements false, and con?icted with witness testimony and a common-sense reconstruction of the ?re scene. Corsicana Fire Department officials, after examining the fire scene suspected arson and asked the State Fire Marshall for assistance. Deputy State Fire Marshal, Manuel Vasquez investigated the ?re scene and found clear evidence of arson. Willingharn?s conduct, in the hours and days after the tire, was also inconsistent with the emotional state of a parent whose children had been killed by fire. He continued to drink at a local bar and bragged that ?the money would soon be ?owing in? from people who had begun to take up a collection for him. His behavior prior to the funeral was equally bizarre and reflected that he whispered to the daughter killed by smoke inhalation, ?You were not the one who was supposed to die.? In January, 1992, Willingharn was arrested for the capital murder of his three daughters by starting the fire which caused their deaths. At a later time, Johnny Webb, a jail inmate incarcerated at the same time as Willingharn, made it known to jail employees that he Wished to speak to someone about a statement that Willingharn had made to hirn. Respondent met with Webb after conferring with the elected District Attorney, Patrick C. Batchelor. Batehelor advised Respondent that Webb could not be offered any incentive to testify, and upon Respondentis meeting with Webb, Respondent Clearly and concisely informed Webb that he could make no promises of leniency whatever. Respondent further advised Webb that if he persisted in offering his testimony at Willingham?s trial, he would be targeted as a ?snitch? in the course of his commitment to prison and would be subject to retaliation. Webb acknowledged to Respondent that he fully understood, but believed that testifying was ?the right thing to do? and he would do so regardless of the risk. See Af?davits of Respondent and Alan Bristol, Exhibits 1 and 2. See also Trial testimony of Webb, included in the Petition as Appendix 1. Willingharn?s trial proceeded in August, 1992 after several pivotal events. Respondent, believing that the death penalty was, and is, a largely ineffective punishment- to be sought only in the clearest of circumstances, offered Willingharn the opportunity to take a polygraph test administered by a polygraphist with no connection to the investigation. Such test was initially refused, Williugharn?s counsel communicating to Respondent that the Defendant had advised Jackson ?to take the polygraph and shove it up his ass.? Thereafter (knowing that polygraph results could not be used in a trial) Willingharn elected to submit to a polygraph examination which revealed that he was deceptive in his denial of knowledge of the circumstances of, his daughters? deaths. A report of this examination is discussed at a later point in this Response. See Exhibit 3. On the eve of trial, and upon the recommendation of the victims? family members, Respondent offered Willingham an opportunity to enter a negotiated plea to two murder charges with a punishment of life in prison. Against the advice of counsel, Williugharn refused such offer and the case proceeded to trial. See Jackson, Bristol af?davits Willingharn was convicted by the jury and sentenced to death, after trial testimony established that he had viciously beat and kicked his Wife during her pregnancies in an attempt to cause a miscarriage and the in were deaths of his daughters. Testimony also revealed that Willingham had, Without provocation, beat a dog to death with an iron bar, consistent with typical behavior patterns of killers. The trial evidence also con?rmed that Willingharu was serially abusive to his wife, neighbor Witnesses testifying that they sometimes heard the impact of blows and the admonition of Willinghani to his wife Get up bitch and I?ll hit you again.? The jury returned a death verdict which was automatically appealed, af?rmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and denied certiorari by the US. Supreme Court. State and Federal Habeas Corpus Applications for post-conviction relief were denied. In 2010, at the urging of Petitioners herein, District Judge Charlie Baird, who had joined the af?rmance of the Willinghani case while on the Court of Criminal Appeals bench, attempted to convene an improper Court of Inquiry without notice to anyone other than those seeking Willingham?s exoneration. Baird?s conduct was found improper and was enjoined by the Austin Court of Appeals. Judge Baird retired immediately and no such similar attempt to convene a Court of Inquiry has been made since, to the knowledge of Respondent. See Af?davit of Lowell Thompson, Exhibit 4. Willingharn supporters sought a grant of Executive Clemency, which was denied; and Posthumous Exoneration by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, which was unanimously denied earlier this year. All. denials were the ect of vitriolic public comment by Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project, along with others aligned with. this organization. This grievance is yet another attempt to advance the cause of abolition of the death penalty, by demonstrating that an ?innocent man was executed,? and while the same may be an admirable goal, the attorneys and Petitioners who have assisted in the ?ling this grievance have resorted to the lowest level of supposition, innuendo, guesswork, misstatement of facts, naked falsehood, and assertion of obligations on the part of Respondent which do not exist. The proponents of this grievance have done serious disservice to their political cause by engaging in a form of character assassination so lately characterized by release of their grievance allegations to the public media before the same were served on the Respondent? with a View toward prejudicing public opinion against Respondent and others. See reproduced Dallas Morning News editorial, Exhibit 5. The Respondent will not address the irrelevant arguments regarding fire science contained on pages 2-7 of the grievance, the Petition clearly stating, ?But it must be emphasized at the outset, while the demon-? strated unreliability of the ?re marshal testimony offered against Willingharn is relevant evidence, Petitinners? alle- gationa do not turn on it . . . and Willingham need not be of?eially exonerated before John Jackson is held accountable for his actions. Page Petition Dealing ?rst with procedural issues which preclude any ?nding of ust cause, Respondent will later address the allegations which are repeated ad museum by Petitioners in their grievance. PROCEDURAL OBJECTION ONE THE GRIEVAN CE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION Grievances are governed by a four?year statute of limitation. The Petitioners assert that the alleged misconduct of Respondent is a continuing course of events which tolls the limitation period and is, in fact, still occurring. Rule Violations alleged are as follow: Petitioners allege that Respondent violated Rules 3.03, Candor Towards Tribunal; Rule 3.04, Fairness in Adjudicatory Proceeding; Rule 3.09, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor; Rule 3.10, Advocate in Nonadjudicative Proceedings; Rule 4.01, Truthfulness in Statements to Others; and Rule 8.04, Misconduct Petitioners assert that Respondent violated various rules, because his conduct ?constitutes an ?ongoing scheme? to first present Webb ?3 false testimony at Willingbam?s trial, deliver on the undisclosed promises made to Webb by makingfalse statements to courts and executive o??eials, and to coverwnp the misconduct relating to Webb. Unfortunately, the conduct relied upon by Petitioners as ?an ongoing scheme? falls far short of illustrating any improper conduct. Indeed} most of the events described by Petitioners as an ?ongoing scheme? are predicated upon the testimony of Johnny Webb, Whose statements even the Petitioners know, or should know, are false. Petitioners? additional difficulty is that all of the ?evidence? upon which, they rely has been available for many years. Such documents were available from the files of the District Clerk: of Navarre County, Texas; the ?les of the Office of the Criminal District Attorney nf Navarre County, the ?les of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; the ?les of the Of?ce of the Governor of the State of Texas, and Johnny Webb himself, who could always be found in prison or Corsicana. All have been made available to Petitioners through routine requests. Johnny Webb?s ?reearrte recantatien,? aiways available in the files ef the District Attemey was the subject of a New Yorker article in September of 2009 and made headlines across the United States. No documents were hidden. No documents were concealed. Petitioners? argument that an agreement was concealed is simply compounded upon Petitioners? assumption that there was an agreement, which this Response will clearly refute. Protecting a witness from. death at the hands of the Aryan Brotherhood and the press is not misconduct. Respondent?s credibility and Petitioners? non~credibility are corroborated by the polygraph examination administered to Respondent on August 29, 2014, by Bobby Rachel, whose curriculum Vitae, attached to his Report of such examination speaks for itself See Exhibit 7. PROCEDURAL OBJECTION TWO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES BARS THIS PROCEEDIN Respondent asserts the defense of Laches in this proceeding. Laches is a defense related to estoppel. It is an equitable remedy which requires a showing that the party asserting the claim has unreasonably delayed the assertion of such claim, and due to that delay, the responding party will be placed in a detrimental position. In this case, all of the information asserted as ?evidence? of wrongdoing by the Respondent has been available to any reasonable inquiry. Johnny Webb has been available, mostly in prison, for the past 20+ years; all records of the Criminal District Attorney of Navarro County have been available and accessible; the records of the District Clerk of Navarro County, the Governor?s Of?ce, the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice have been open for inspection upon proper request. The so~called ?recanted recantation? was the subject of a national magazine article in September of 2009. The same documents were mentioned in materials submitted to the BPP and Governor?s of?ce prior to Willingharn?s execution in 2005, Despite their allegations, Petitioners have produced no evidence whatever that Respondent has attempted. to eonceal any A ?y evidence upon which they now rely. Unfortunately, ReSpondent?s position has been prejudiced based on several factors which illustrate the purpose of the doctrine: a. Petitioners claim that Charies Pearce, Leslie Cotten, and Respondent acted in concert to bribe and otherwise induce Johnny Webb to give false testimony in the Willingham Capital Murder Trial. Charles Pearce is now deceased and is unable to either defend himself against such absurd accusations, or to support Respondent?s defense. b. Petitioners claim that ReSpondent falsi?ed Court records and induced Clerks of the Court to mislead others with regard to documents and circumstances relevant to Webb?s robbery case. These allegations include an assertion that Respondent tampered with the judgment in Webb?s case, resulting in ambivalence as to the offense- parts of the document re?ecting that Webb was convicted of robbery, other parts indicating that the offense was aggravated robbery. Further, Petitioners assert that Respondent unlawfully caused a nuns pro tune judgment to be issued in Webb?s case years after his conviction. Respondent had no input regarding drafting of the judgment. Such judgment was reviewed, signed, and approved by Judge Kenneth Douglas, the presiding District Judge. Only Judge Douglas had control over the contents, drafting, and correction of the judgment. Judge Douglas apparently believed that the original judgment should be corrected and he proceeded to correct the same as re?ected by the case record. Unfortunately, Judge Douglas has been deceased for some time and cannot give testimony or provide information to the State Bar relative to his decisions concerning the questioned judgment. Thus, the delay in requesting sanctions against Respondent by Petitioners is barred by the doctrine of laches based upon the long passage of time which has resulted in the unavailability of these and perhaps other witnesses. The bad faith of the Petitioners is demonstrated by their submission of the obviously fabricated testimony of Johnny Webb and by their pursuance of an improper Court of inquiry proceeding. Please refer to Exhibit 7, confirming the credibility and good faith of Respondent. PROCEDURAL OBJECTION THREE DISCIPLINARY RULE 3.09 IS INAPPLICABLE TO THIS PROCEEDING Petitioners allege that Jackson violated Rule 3:09 by non-disclosure of an alleged deal with Webb for leniency or by failing to disclose the ?recanted recantation.? Because there was no deal, there can be no sanctien for non?disclosure prior to trial. This is addressed from an evidentiary standpoint later in the Response. The other alleged non-disclosure, the ?recanted recantation? occurred in 2000, at a time when Respondent was not a prosecutor and had no duty under this Rule. Receipt by a judge of a courtesy copy of a Motion received by the District Attorney cannot be the basis of a violation of Rule 3.09 which applies to prosecutors only. See Affidavit of John H. Jackson, Exhibit 1, and polygraph examination con?rming credibility of Respondent, Exhibit 7. RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS 1. Was There a Pre?Trial Deal With Webb? Respondent made no prentrial agreement with the Witness Johnny Webb. See Af?davits of Jackson and Bristol, Exhibits 1 and 2. Also, Report of John Jackson Polygraph Exam, 7. The only evidence that Petitioners can muster in their grievance, other than ?documentary evidence? which they believe implies a pre- trial deal, is the statement of Johnny Webb himself Webb testi?ed at trial that there was no agreement of any kind, and, in fact, all of the so-called documentary evidence asserted by Petitioners originates from dates alter the Willingham trial. Webb hirnself, in the past and on multiple occasions has acknowledged that his trial testimony was true. See Webb correspondence, Exhibits 8, 9, 1.0, 12, 13, and 14. Further, Webb has on multiple occasions, acknowledged that his ?recantation? was coerced by threats of death by the Aryan Brotherhood, a whitesuprernacist, multi?state prisen gang, See Exhibits 12,13, and 14, In the absence cf credible testimony ef Webb, there is no basis for the belief that a pretrial agreement existed. See Jackson and Bristol Af?davits and Jackson Polygraph Report. The real issue for determination in this case is Whether Webb, at this point, is a credible Witness. Webb was a serial felon at the time of the Willingham trial in 1992. Since that time, Webb has been convicted of multiple feionies and is now charged with a violent feiony offense. See Thompson Af?davit, Exhibit 4. Webb, by his own admission suffers from serious mental disorders diagnosed since the Willingham trial and has been victimized by the Aryan Brotherhood and allegedly by correctional officers cooperating with the AB, which threatened Webb with death if he did not recant his trial testimony. See Webb correspondence attached as Exhibits. At this time, Webb has been indicted for the offense of Aggravated Assault and such case is presently pending in Navarro County. Petitioners allege that Webb?s testimony is ?corroborated? by documentary evidence however, careful consideration of such documents discloses that the same are just as consistent with appropriate post-Willingharmtrial efforts by the Respondent to protect Webb from threats, violence, and death at the hands of the Aryan Brotherhood, working on behalf of Cameron Todd Willingham, his family, and confederates. Please review Webb correspondence attached as Exhibits. Without the conclusive evidence of a pre?trial deal to elicit false information from Webb, the Petitioners? allegations become merely a house of cards. Completely apart from Webb?s criminal history, drug addiction, mental disorders, coercion by violent offenders, and promises of leniency by Robert Hinton and Daniel Biltz, let us look at the allegations made in Webb?s strategically unsworn statement or ?interview? of March 13, 2014. a. Leslie Cotten, Sheriff of Navarre County, Texas, groomed Webb as an. informant and promised him the ?nancial support of Charles Pearce, a Corsicana philanthropist. This allegation is entirely refuted by the af?davits of Jackson, Hensley, Bristol, Cox and Cotton, Exhibits 1,12,16,17, and 18; also Jackson Polygraph Report, Exhibit 7. b. Leslie Cotton and John Jackson offered Webb a pretrial deal to testify falsely in return for promises of leniency and ?nancial aid from Pearce. This allegation is conclusively refuted by the af?davits of Jackson, Cotteri, Cox, Hensley, and Bristol, set out above, and by the Jackson Polygraph Report. c. Charles Pearce was furnishing money and gifts in return for false confidential informant testimnny to police agencies, This allegation is conclusively refuted by the 3,3 Whig was fiet affidath cl'Jackson, Cohen, Cox' Hensley, and Bristol, and the Jackson Polygraph Report . John Jackson was part ofa conspiracy with Webb and the Barnett Brothers to inform falsely in connection viith narcotics cases, This allegation is conclusiver refuted by the affidavits mentioned above and the Jackson Polygraph Report, Pre-Willingliam, John Jackson attended meetings at Pearcc's home with narcotics agean at which meetings, strategy for Search warrants was planned This allegation is conclusively refuted by the affidavits mentioned above Webb expects to be killed because of his testimony. Apparently, Mr, Webb expects to be killed by Aryan Brotherhood: which seeks the same relief as that desired by Petitioners exoneratinn of Cameron Todd Willingham. Webb, apparently; does not expect to be killed by the Respondent Sec Exhibits lg and 20 Webb's Wife is presently or has been in the Navarro County Jail Thankfully, Webb does not allege that Respondent is part ofa conspiracy to Victiniize his wife. Borh Webb and his Wife have requested that Respondent intervene on their behalf in the current proceedings See Letters of Johnny Webb and Webb, attached hereto as Exhibits 19 and 20. Respondent has elected not to respond to such requests Webb's interview reflects that he ms mistaken about John Jackson's presence at the meetings which he attended at Pearce's house. This contradicts earlier statements in the same document that Respondent was there That _told Webb that he had to do what she told him to do or the District Attorney's Office would "jack it up to 99 years." This implies that-- --W35 van 0 the conspiracy a aged by Webb There is no evidence to support this allegation See also Jackson Altman and Polygraph Report hat Sheriff Cotton met With Webb three or four times at connection with finding out inibrmaiion about Willinghanh and told Webb that it would be benefiual if he could to mm>> do "us allegauon is refuted concluslvely by the affidavit which that he did not panicipam the mvesngation, and am he nol Sheriff at jhe tune he consumed to extract false testimony from Webb, Robert Hnnon IS able to clearly slum Webb's false statement (his respecl in his "nnervmw' of Webb See Affidavit and Hinton>>Webb exchange 501 out In Appendix 4. pages 23 and 24 mm gneVancs pelilion Pearce Iold Webb that Jackson wanted Pearce to give him money and'or a vehicle This :tatemcnl wholly uncorxoborated and 15 contradncled by Respondent's Affidavit and unsupponed by evidenct mher than W'ebb's statement See 3150 Jackson Affidnvm 1 and Repon, Exlubn 7, Webb 101d than he was bemg {owed to (emfy This Is merely another false stalemem, mCapablC of conoborauon. Webb refused in spue m' Webb'w assemon (hm a pnson guard Webb to gel straight bv communicating with See Webb 1i and olher Webb correspondence 1nd1calmg that "1 told the truth about What told me. Sec also Exhlbis 10 and 14 The Governor Wouldn't help \V'chb because "he helped a black guy and it ended up fucklug him the ass See Webb szawxnenl) Rwandan: admus that he scught \he assh has exposure to death In senom at the hands ofthe AB 11 u. Webb UTCS {erbidg a? any in?armatim? cuntained in thig Paportg except a3 prawided by ?awi This Peggy: and {ila are gubject t3 F?ui?m av ?nxv:su EXHIBIT 4 A A 0 AFFIDAVIT OF R. LOWELL BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this date personally appeared R. LOWELL THOMPSON who, after being by me duly sworn did upon oath make the following affidavit: 1. My name is R. Lowell Thompson. 1 am a resident of Navarro County: Texas, and am currently the elected Criminal District Attorney of Navarro County, Texas. The matters set out below are within my personal knowledge unless otherwise stated. I am under no disability which would prevent me from making this af?davit. 2. have been made aware that a Grievance has been ?led against John H. Jackson, former prosecutor and former Judge of the l3?? District Court by Willingham family members, Barry Scheck, the Innocence Project? Gerald Goldstein, and others. I am also aware that such Grievance alleges that John H. Jackson furnished an affidavit to me in the course of a Court of Inquiry Proceeding in which af?davit is either false or misleading or both. I have had an opportunity to review this af?davit and it is my opinion, based on my knowledge of the case, that have no reason to believe that the same is either false or misleading. A copy of that affidavit is attached hereto as an Exhibit. 3. In the course of the Court of inquiry Proceeding, I ?led a Motion to Reeuse Charlie Baird, the District Court Judge who was holding such proceedings because he had joined in the af?rmance of the Willingharn Capital Murder case While he was a Justice on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and for other reasons stated therein. Judge Baird refused to delay proceedings in the Court of Inquiry until a hearing could be held on the Motion to Recuse and I applied to the Austin Court of Appeals to stay such proceedings until a hearing on the Motion to Recuse could be conducted. The Court of Appeals issued an order staying such proceedings and this effectively ended the Court of Inquiry to the best of my knowledge and belief. 4. The Court of Inquiry was requested by members of the Willingham famiiy, Geraid Goldstein, and perhaps others, although I do not remember at this time the other persons requesting same. 5. I am aware that an unsworn ?interview? of Johnny Webb is included as support for the Grievance ?ied against Jackson. I have been acquainted with Johnny Webb for a number of years, and at this time my of?ce is prosecuting a feiony case against Mr. Webb for aggravated assault. In my opinion, Webb?s reputation for truth and veracity, at this time, is bad. SIGNED and TO on this 4?h of epternber, {5 5 a: F151 A If, A. museum i5NOTARY PUBLIC Egg i STATE OF TEXAS Notary Public, State of Texas My Commission Expires (3147-2818 {14? mm MG mm 0 Mm Editorial: Allegations against prosecmor in arson case must be i40804~e Kama/7?7 ?zz/(5 I WM ?s?Fy MA @y 777% 5 mm? af?misC?Wezzg?, Sag/V1577 77221.9 To, 7'0 777% (ya/27? 69147 Sam/55f? .me??i?mmiv, ?z?f?r?z/Km 77745 30 271? O?y 67F Ma?a? my M9 .45 2am. MM 4 F. @m?zm, @319 #546,! EXHIBIT 7 Confidentis! Polygraph Services Box 191 Streetman, TX 15859 Personal Information Name Jackson, John Howard Date 01 Elrlh' 10/27/1950 Age 53 Dnvers License' Address - Exam Inlormatlon: Specific En Exam Locancm. Corswcana. TX Customs! John Jackson 5% Superwsing Omcer Vii Therapisucumuan :7 Exam D312 5/29/2014 sun Time 55 PM Case mm Exammer Bobby Rachel Fina' Call Nu Decepuon Indicated Section 1: Purpose 0! Examinatian The mam issue under consideration fur the polygraph exammahon was whether or nm the examlnee was telling me mm to me pamnsm quesmns hsted under sacnon 3 ct ihls reporl 9% Section 2: Interview {:asefi 14614 "age 1 0'3 Contideetiai Polygraph Services RC). Box 191 Streetmansesame Jackson, John Howard arrived and voluntariiy submitted to a polygraph examination. The following forms were read, completed, and voluntarily signed by the examinee: - Polygraph Consent Form - Polygraph Waiver Form During the pre-test interview, Jackson, John Howard read the forms and said he understood the forms and signed them agreeing to the test and waiving the rights set forth in the documents. the examinee was fuliy advised that the entire examination would he recorded using both audio and video. In the opinion of the examiner, Jackson, John Howard was suitable for polygraph testing. The examines requested a poiygraph to address allegations-made a previous case he prosecuted. The examines denied brokering a doe! with a witness (Webb) in the Capitai Murder case to receive his testimony. The examines denied falsifying or concealing any documents concerning Webb or Willingham. He further denied having anything concealed or falsified in concert with any others during either case. Lastiy, the examinee adamantiy denies conceaiing any evidence in either case. He reassured the examiner that nothing was done to circumvent the criminal justice system his direction or instruction At the conclusion of the pre-test phase of the polygraph examination, the examiner discussed and thoroughly reviewed sit the test questions with the examiriee. The purpose of this detailed review is to provide the examinee an opportunity to ensure he or she compietely understands the questions before the onset of the testing phase of the examination. Section 3: n~Test Phase A Lafayette computerized polygraph system, model LX4000 was used for the coiiection of poiygraph tests (test data). This instrument makes a continuous recording of autonomic responses associated with respiration, electrc~dermal activity, and cardiovascular functioning. The instrument also inciudes sensors designed to record peripheral behavior activity and cooperation during the examination. A functionaiity check prior to the examination confirmed the instrument was in proper working order. The foiiowing pertinent questions were asked during the polygraph examination - R4: Did you falsify or conceal any evidence in the Wiliingham case? No . R6: Did you enter into any promo! agreement or arrangement for testimony in the Wilfingham case? No - R8: Did you intentionally cause any documents to be falsi?ed or concealed? No Section 4: Result It is the opinion of this examiner Jackson, John Howard was being truthful during testing. Global anaiysis of the physioiogical data revealed that it was of sufficient interpretahie quaiity to complete a standardized numericai anatysis of the test results. Anaiysis was performed using the following techniques: Technigue Result Empiricai Scoring System No Deception indicated 0883 No Deception indicated Section 5: 9ost-Test interview Case a: tat?est Page 2 of Polygraph Services P.O. Box 191 Street Wk During the post-test phase of the exam, Jackson, John Howard was informed of the test resuits. Bobby Rachel Polygraph Examiner, TX LIC #110? Case it: 34?514 Page 3 of 3 Polygraph Resume Bobby Rachel Polygraph Services PO Box 191 Streetman, Texas 75859 Email: polygraphsewices@gmailman: Phone 972?965-4942 Polygraph ExaminerAug 9, 2002- current I have administered over 3000 polygraph examinations to Clients such as: Defense Attorneys, Governmental Agencies and Entities, Business and private citizens. Licensed or certified to perform examination in Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Kansas and California. The majority of most examinations are of a sexual content. I have specialized training and experience in sexual offenses/allegations and crimes against persons cases. I have assisted in clearing a cold case murder and several other murder and sexual investigations where pivotal information was derived from the polygraph examination and interview. I have assisted several defense attorneys in clearing their client of an alleged criminal violations prior to court and/or Grand Jury proceedings. have worked with several therapists and case workers and their clients. am a PCSOT certified examiner by American Polygraph Association. am one of less than 30 examiners with PCSOT training in California. I am listed on State of Texas JPCOT polygraph provider list. Also listed on the California Association of Polygraph Examiners website as full member and authorized to perform examinations. have testified in court and legal proceedings as polygraph examiner. I am a noted Expert in Federal Court for interview and interrogation skills. During Law Enforcement career (1986?2013), i received several commendations and recognition for polygraph work. (snapshot) Texas Department of Public Safety Polygraph School, Austin Certi?cate, Polygraph License 2002 Graduated from a Department of Defense approved Polygraph School. Graduated in top ten in class. Attended Senior Examiner Course in 2006. 2010 American Polygraph Association Certified Post Conviction Sex Offender Treatment Program Attended several CAPE, APA and AAPP conferences as well as others and receive up to date training in the administration of polygraph. Member of the California Association of Polygraph Examiners and CCOSO, Member of American Polygraph Association. EXHIBIT 8 December 11, 1995 Letter From Webb to Pearce This letter details haw Webb has been the target of AB and Correctional Of?cer harassment, and how Webb believes that he has dene the right thing by not giving in to the threats which seek a recantation 0f his trial testimony. f. . .45Wii? flaw 1:150 'w Mo Aimfle[914544 [dongAWiq fl Wm 1 I 6444 56111 fl . gig; W7 4 oi VM //wv 17 a (C. A 41/14/ 1/6 1774nz'ufl 53m!>> lama Mq fmgg'n, uh I ERR ewe 25$ fw f] 4oz>>, jam 5 30?. 12' 7 12% #4 %fl daZj 7 :12 gig>>; may/9M? 225; MW ($444? A mmer (W am a @1103"? 4192275? g4; 044 11:02. 4442:2417}: '6Mf deCQ 1w a Viietf'lvf" 7 52/6 A'Zg/fiu/flf N, ,'flfl'f 4'61 . 1494 fi- zzy?! 4m" {Kai {fin/v k2? Aweej 1w?" La Mg - 7 5.6% 3? I j: AW, 5% {my WW1 Lpi?/ 5?0 ?zgjwais? 3W9 my ?zw {:wa Wm .(z?rw 14,0136 7 $0 ,fiiy (V112 #471; 15213 (Sam/7f. "(Wml f/ "/3427" "Cad lama/Zn 9/ gyflefiw'}? (p [654/42 4 Wf 2247 my! 1 M: 7 j'mx 41% gm}? M1 123/ gr ad do. "w fl/Z'W 67/454 4% AM 7/244 . gab/[w .'xfl/wwzimw affix/L74 :71 3:2 Maw CWT 4771157 a/Wr i WM final/4! m1 246 '5 mg; 15% fifiw$flwwa My? [1ng mu zem'f, 151:1, 7/12/4524 jf in? HZ W's" if . foyer i? Age-W, .. W. ,xw ma: 44 {glad/3'2. ?ff a" HZ j: Ma?a?) .45 5 7 mum 5%2/4 ?it? v. li?f?jfw?f ., 5% r, . A, wfa?f i i .1939 w. (.. ?ax 3 yin/wagaim/?1 lmfw; . 67690 :2 a 4 a i- .w @424.) r, gag/J f?gz?g? [j i ?iaw, A 4.9? . ?gyg?z a" 53mg; /27 a; 953:? 69/ 6:5 xw?? 2% diam; 5 Ma?? ?w/Z?rmx? I allg??czf i . 5 a cam/Li. ma 4. 4 .. Wm gm?gw?. 7 7 EXHIBIT 9 November 26, 1995 Letter From Webb to Pearce This letter explains that Willingham?s brother is an Aryan Brotherhood member; that there has been pressure brought to bear by the AB and also by correctional of?cers to recent; also threats against Webb?s parentsj Le. possible sexual as? Saults against parents. 6?77 7 f/ 1 a I mi] 2? A 57 fl; . ., c7 4? j. "?251 v) W/?j WW EXHIBIT [0 October ii [996 Letter From Webb to Jackson This letter 6 lains how attempted opu pressure on ange story." Webb indicales that he told-that Ins trial [asumony was truthful, :fiFK' "765?; flaw s: was; Age," M'sz $2747 22 I 'Ldfl' (a Ma) flaw/yeawim Mm. Malaw- Maw . me . AA ?u Maw, 2; .. j?W?w/Mm?w?x i ?in: Jib 1. mm my 7 .1 ?Fm-EXHIBIT 11 February 16, 2000 Letter From Webb to Pearce This correspondence relates that Webb has been Pressured to recent his testimony by the Aryan Brotherhood; that he will not do this even though He may be ?stabbed up?? He relates that his hand Has been broken twice and that one tactic of the AB is to stick a welding rod in their Victim?s spine. Webb also speaks of press interference which places him at risk. EXHIBIT 12 March 30, 2000 Letter From Webb to Pearce In this correspondence, Webb discloses how prison per- sonnel partner with Aryan Brotherhood gang members. Webb discloses that AB members came to him and forced him to write the recantation. ?They told me What to write word for word.? had no choice.? 3/ 1/ A719 6% Miuwm g: *Mw?hm?wm, r/ WW I . 9?4/ 4x412.? ?w H- gw. QM ?z?emdL?iaw?gwa??wgu mm I (. WW ?l?f Mia? A 24 All #5 15:7 ?xlj?? 14.9 f? I .M Mm. A _~4mmw_~_kww . -?1474 f. -?wg?ijw w- gig}? 0?34170 .. :1 M, a A EXHIBIT 13 April 4, 2000 Letter from Webb to Pearce In this correspendence, Webb discloses that his recantatien was forced and that he did not he in his trial testimony? he ?did the right thing.? i; . in: :i i. . "wag, 7741;; 47.442!) r, WMHV 23mm mm . I 5554. .2>>st Texas Department of Criminal Justice INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION Inter-Qf?ce Communications Webb, Johnny E. #626256 DATE: March 28, 2000 Allred Unit IA 069 Irma Fernandez A Correspondence Admin. Tech. IV, Si?Gh/?io gmrecent correspondence has been received and reviewed by the Bureau of Classi?cation and are experiencing problems at the Allied Unit, you should contact the Warden for assistance. If blems merit a transfer, he will contact the Bureau of Classi?cation himself. EXHIBIT 14 November 30, 2004 Letter From Webb to Jackson In this correspondence, Webb discloses that Maurice Possley of the Chicago Tribune (and later The Wash? ington Post) attempts to intimidate him by telling Webb that ?he murdered Willingham.? Webb also relates a bribe attempt by Maurice Possley. Webb relates that his trial testimony is truthful: never lied.? Webb also speaks of suicide in this correspondence and, speaking of his 1992 case, couldn?t even do the robbery right.? 035$ ?~in ., ??wa ?zw yam WE ?557 56; #512? Vega/?g; 77% Mm My ?x?y Md, 4527 w?mw 5w W71 x? M77 lad/war f7 50%? 7/715 [Egg/f?m ?35. ?gm?/m?g?w m. 4_ A, Mzg?za?g wMz/Z/g; wg?fz? gag? 137,51 1. may 6,42)? 12% 777397? Wig?y?. 2215565 ?gyma?iara? 29 '7wxjs7? f7?? Marma may wag?) 2% W610 ?cug?f?/gm?yu Iigar?i ?af Am: Miami/kg, $312319?. ?1'22. 719257," my? 795? mm 2 545,4; 3:323}? ME ?zzy .2921: Mg Mia-7' fir wary/A9 War/6L5 M5 @jl?m??MMi?j/Vji?. if 5&5. Maw Mae/3%? My fizz/s}; Km?? plan w/?mg: ME: 23 @035 643:? Fi?/cg; #7 ?ak/f 3 5552/ng @231 ?m?jgg my M7 (??ak/g5 My @652 ?11 ?734 ME:ng?yygm?g?mi, ?ya? mm ?zm W57 ?gs/mg, Fr .. .A 25?, 7% A. ??55 ,sz??ng 51:; ?swzv 125453;! 2? 65,? "721/3 17%? MM z?W 1326c: ?aw 3M . 01 (1/752? Lax/:72} ?93 WWE agwg?f tom/5mm? 29? ?gme? Al ?ay; 7: $5557 WV ?xzcw @225} 55% fifEJ/L at"; 53m? age/3 772%? kW? @451 gym/7* Eva] ?kw?g ?g ?30 lg; ?y 6252:: M5) 675/5? ?ags: 1 km may; W?w 7m,? 70 fa? HE meg Av #136ch it: z?z?g gm; 2k; 72m" M29 75/6955 Va; ME f:ij a; 55W #751 fag/iv m9 gm? My 54:2; a f2; 5225/? faa?? fir/mg 2: 1 /mg m7 ?vggm) ngi?gg 5%56 . M135 ma? ?fe/r7 MW Va: M9ng 37?? 22?: 5722! A50 Ate Micki 14:0 pigmgt??g??x atom;ng 2925@?7?522? WW 5? gm M557 WM WW f/J?m 55 WM Am 417 ?1267 ?557 Wig/f 5:57 My 573975;?5 252362 i Zz? 529% M/?wf 7 55%? Ma ?xak?, yam? gig? 4w 3% {:Mmg My 5mg #54; 5mg; WM {Mfr Air/{? gm 77% mm way gm? 2% 523m}: ?m Mg; may 5mm] 1w 6% 59522;; a; $2?an 512%? @942. Zezi?? mfg/2%. Mm Wm? [475/5 Aw 22me m. .. ?4254! ., jazz? 1mm WSW 22; 129%}? Lagging, :i/Mmj?g J: Wm g?mzz?zz gm? m5? 75;} Maw lbw/?29?? Wax; Z75 cm 779g 5m?? gm 6 fig #519,556 ?avmf/ 5mg? mm?? .. . .. ., yagmww. my im?a? 5524.4? @3212? Amy-Ema; Lugim?? i? . -- ME 726$ 532$ f/(Azm yaw 1 - ?2 9207' cw mi, Em?? Ef?e/z ,Z?jww ?2,395. yaw: km? .41 mwgza? wig/? z/a'fzg/ 7% Maw ?42521 2% 77% A?iz ?hm NW (i EifjfigyQa?? m?f 7M?f?f. ?ixay @152 mg?? gm My yew 35729;: gr: . Maw Mg; 5/935? A bag/3,5 @aaz .. I I ??gr (29% 22. my 2/522? 9% Egg?? Ali a v; gamg?w ?y ifg?m .. a; EXHIBIT 15 November 18, [995 Letter from Webb to Jackson In this relatively early correspondence fi'em Webb to ackson, Webb confirms threats made by Prison Guard on behalf of the Aryan Broth- therhoo an as am unit Webb relates that Willingham's brother is a member of the AB. Webb further relates that is carrying mes- sages from the AB that they WI retaliate against Webb if he does not reeant his trial testimony. Webb discloses that threatens to get him transferred to Ramr ere "they'll come and talk to you." (- makes good on this threat) Also see attached Inmate Requests to Official . 7. ~Ingl .1777 Zfbj??/gm ff?/Z? ., w. .. .a . Maw? .2 ?kvc?QOLy azmi?" vpe it fifrfz gig 604/ 7/ imam x4457?) 145 7% 'Efie/gd f2 up dd: flaw flo' ee" Jr. 11974 a 2:753 M173, V7 M1 2212' mm, JO figmf/I" ~<>ywqm, 7 M7 I 7 My fi??mwgm 75'" 75.30am .4447 51;}sz flnj' lufiwvrg/Zlvm . )vl 1/354 mflg/ I I ,th My fig] A: 4 I mm mm? 027 ,fimflmi'flw . Via/f WM Q'fifi y" 4' 2W7 MW: flffil [Mg/o2; Aer/W fl'e' K. 1% Mi 7,99%] wLW'i. gw'fi) gm wifflegom/ fiytewzy' 71:41; a armZZI; 4" film}. "fiey cm>> Ale a; 241% gig at .Mfi'h'f 1% Km 15:3 M, xwffi 94' 3,96; fl? fwd/7' gaw/ fifi/flwr m7: 5% w; jig/M? 4am L927 7W4 gamma} 1' ma Ema/Li grimy 644ml: 2/144 6mm. 1% J'ihw 7 72/4? 4km Jflm/Ce ?73; . .V?Mi! 7: MM M7: z; - Fifi? r, J4 aim/?4451 5/ flaw, flo i 7' Afei/Dh I ,1 0w . yfif/v'fwj' Mg?ng 44/2 f/f 'ocZ ,9 flaw .- :a/mf [nag/1371M 14 1 flow 1 x" 422; Mg; fig 21? a 1" Jamar/7", 1/4? Wfif . (tilm-C [Lg/f/nffler; War? 2. Ma 4 cd/ (2 [Zia (Jag); 1' M6 '5 Maggy . . 2/3 ,f?gxf my? ?'57 5?7? -13 REASON FOR REQUEST: (Please check one) 1. unit Assignment, Transfer (Chaigman of Classification, AdministratiOn Buiicigvg) raved, it t0 the a? 2. Restoration of L0 overti 9 (Unit Wam' I LJhli?rtackiorwarde i Clemen?y~Pard9? parole, early out-mandatory supervision (Board of Pardons and Paroles, S?ib Shoal Creek Blvd. Austin, Texas 78711) TO: (Name and title of official) ADDRESS: A a a PLEASE ASIDE BY THE FOLLOWING CHANNELS OF COMM TO THE PROPER PERSON, AND GET AN ANSWER TO TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION INMATE REQUEST TO OFFICIAL UNICATION. THIS WILL SAVE TIME, GET YOUR REQUEST 0U MORE QUICKLY. 5. CI Visiting List (Asst. Director of Classification, Administra~ tion Building) 6. L.) Pardie?equirement? and thon . Couns or) I . 1* f, 3. mersonal [riterview with a representative of an outside agen~ cy (Treatment DiviSion, Administration Building) ii- 15? - is? REASON FOR REQUEST: (Please check one) 1. Unit Assignment, Transfer (Chairman of Classification, Administration fluildin ?x 2. [j Resio ation of? est 0 ertim it fate Disciplinary Co mittee) ewzfrusty Class Unit 3. Request for Clemency EPardo parole, early out-mandatory supervision (Board of Pard ns and Paroles, 8610;:Shoal' Creek Blvd. Austin, Texas 78711) Mir (Name and title of official) ADDRESS: I, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION INMATE REQUEST TO OFFICIAL PLEASE ASIDE BY THE CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION. THIS WILL SAVE GET YOUR REQUEST TO THE PROPER PERSON, AND GET AN ANSWER TO YOU MORE QUICKLY. 5. Visiting List (Asst. Director of Ctassification, Administra? tion Building) 2? I 6. If} aroie require {entsa related information (Uri't Parole unselor) ,5 ec rd (Request for copy Cord, infer. date, detainers?Unit 7 Personal niervi "1 cy (Treatment i with a representatiife of an outside agen- ivision, Administratifin Building) ?i re" DATE: SUBJECT: Stare briefly the problem on which you desire assistance. 14myam ?433 a??a?eij yaw/$52927? if}!!?is? . I I, ?x g??pfaugJ?AQ?g?@5437 4? f?q' Sr? ?7 . I Mmm, 5 41de Living Quarters: ?g Work DSSPOSITION: (Inmate will not write in this space) l-6O (Rev. 11-90) m. j/iw gm . I _r a f?mx?il?ggfziigg ?22" fgf?kb?? _fgf fwf?li??zwM?J?i??w ., if Name: ng 1? NO: A unit: 'a - fi??s Work Assignment: 1 Ww?w? ?c?mf' a? Living Quarizers: (Inmate wiH not write in this space) LED (REV. 3x3 023.32% Em?om 3. ?345.02? Esmaz _z?>4m 40 Om?oir $502 new mmOcmm? $5me 2me 9.5V . urm>mm 5.9m Em marro?ie 1% 2E. m>93. a8: 2 maze 80me 83.83.0338 33 ?momwa?wm Ea 23.523 cw Ea magma om mam ?oz m3 nx?anazo?m EoEmEm a? :5 3:69 Cm? wow ?655 conga? Ea 33mg m9. conaEm 803 ?gmwob 3w 3: nos,an 90 $595 ow Eamo? V1 trmE aw BJ mF E0 A A AFFIDAVIT OF JINIMIE HENSLEY BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared JIMMIE HEN SLEY, who, after being duly sworn did upon oath depose and state as follows: I. My name is Jimmie Hensley. I am ?bears of age and reside in CorsiCana, Texas. The matters recited herein are within my personal knowledge unless otherwise stated. I am fully competent to make this af?davit and am under no disability which would be an impediment to my making the following statements. 2. I am currently a police of?cer employed by the Corsicana, Texas, Police Department. I have been employed in this capacity for Liyears and have served in a number of divisions, including patrol, CID, and narcotics. I was assigned as chief investigator in the Willingham Capital Murder case in 1991 and 1992 and worked almost exclusively on such case until the case was tried in the summer of 1992. 3. I am aware that Johnny Webb, a witness in the Willingham case has made allegations that Leslie Cotton, John Jackson, and Charles Pearce conspired to induce him to make false statements in the case to the effect that Cameron Todd Willingham confessed to him that he killed his children. I believe Webb?s allegations against Cotton and Jackson are completely false. I worked with Jackson and Alan Bristol, the prosecutors in the case, on a daily basis and it came as a complete surprise to us when Webb volunteered information that Willingham had admitted to him that he killed his children. Leslie Cotton, a detective with the Navarro County Sheriffs Department at the time, and former Corsicana Police Of?cer did not participate in the investigation of the Willingharn case. 4. I am also aware that Webb has alleged that Charles Pearce of Corsicana was used by the police as a source of funds to pay for false information in narcotics and other cases; and that Pearce?s home was used as a meeting place to organize drug enforcement activities. I have worked in multiple capacities for the Corsicana Police Department for more than 25 years and I have never heard of any such practice, nor do I have any reason to believe any such activity ever occurred. 5. I have worked with John Jackson and Leslie Cotton on a regular basis for many years, and it is inconceivable to me that either would engage in conduct such as that alleged by Webb. Webb?s credibility was a serious issue to all of us engaged in the Willingharn case because of his criminal history. At the same time, we felt we were not in a position to ignore his testimony and elected to place the same before the Willingham jury so that they could assess his credibility in the context of other evidenCe which was offered in the case. Webb, particularly at this point, is a completely untrustworthy individual whose credibility is much more compromised than it was in 1992 based on his continuing criminal history, his inconsistent statements relative to the so?called recantation (which he claimed was coerced) and his present legal dif?culties which include a recently indicted aggravated assault. I have been acquainted with Johnny Webb for many years, and his personality is such that he believes, or at least claims, that he is always the Victim of a conspiracy, when in my opinion, he refuses to take responsibility for his own conduct which includes substance abuse, drug addiction, and a tendency to manipulate others. Signed and sworn to on this z: day of August, 2014. Wk. i - .?ni?mie Hensley, Af?ant 5 .4 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T0 on the date written above by Jimmie Hensley. KAREN RAGSDALE My Commission Expires Apoi25,2835 0 mm 3% A A AFFIDAVIT OF JACK MICHAEL COX BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this date personally appeared JACK MICHAEL COX, who, after being by me duly sworn did apon oath depose and state as follows: 1. My name is Jack Michael Cox. I am 63 years of age and reside in Corsicana, Navarro County, Texas. I am under no disability which would prevent the making of this af?davit and the matters recited herein are within my personal knowledge unless otherwise stated. I am a Texas Peace Of?cer of Navarro County, Texas, having retired from the Navarro County Sheriff?s Of?ce in 2012. I ?rst served as a tirne peace of?cer beginning in 1974 when I joined the Corsicana Police Department. I served in various capacities with the CPD until 1980, including patrol, civil service investigations, IAD, narcotics, and vice. In 1980, I was employed as manager by Huffman Communications of Corsicana, Texas, a ?rm which specializes in highmtech electronic devices, including twouway radio and communication towers and installations. was employed in this capacity until 1988 when I joined the Navarro County Sheriffs Of?ce, serving in multiple capacities with that of?ce until the end of December 2012. My ?rst duty with the Navarro County Sheriff?s Of?ce was assignment to the Roadrunner (narcotics enforcement) Task Force, a rnulti~connty and multi-agency investigative unit. I served with the Task Force for several years. Thereafter I was a member of the NCSO CID unit, being promoted to Lieutenant of that division. That position included drug enforcement duties with the which included coordinating activities with other drug enforcement units, including Corsicana Police Department, Texas Department of Public Safety Narcotics Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. Also, during my employment with NCSO, I served as the liaison of?cer of the sheriff?s of?ce with public of?cials, including the Navarro County Commissioners Court, the Criminal District Attorney?s Of?ce, Navarro County CSCD, the City of Corsicana, and other agencies. In 2005, I was appointed as the Chief Deputy of the NCSO and served in that capacity until my retirement in 2012. In 2013, I served as President of the Texas Chief Deputies Association, and I remain active as a Past President in that statewide organization. I have been advised that in connection with a grievance filed with the State Bar of Texas, an individual by the name of Johnny Webb has made allegations against John H. Jackson, former First Assistant District Attorney and Judge of the 138? District Court in connection with the Cameron Todd Willingharn Capital. Murder case. I am also aware that Webbis allegations include a number of other accusations, including: 3323 5&5 'fii 2% him 4. a, That Leslie Cotter). as Sheriff of Navarro County, Texas. Charles (Chuck Pealce) of Lorsicana. Texas. and perhaps others conspired to induce Webb to gite false testimony in the Willingham murder case; b. That Charles Pearce was a wealthy individual whose home was used for meetings which included local rind other narcotics officers and/or units: c. That Navarro County law enforcement agencies John Jackson. and the Disnict Attorney's Office used Charles Pearce as a source of funds to bribe or otherwise prompt witnesses to give false testimony relative to investigations search warrants, and other matters at interest to law enforcement; Having worked in capacities of crinfidei 'ty with Leslie Cotten, Patrick Batehelor, John H. Jackson. and Kenneth Douglas, in connection with all manner of criminal investigations in Navaim County. Texas for the past 35+ years. I have never received one shred of information that any of the beforeemeniiolled persons have engaged in any criminal activity. including those alleged by Webb. Such individuals enjoy or enjoyed (Kenneth Douglas is deceased) the highest reputation for public service. integrity. and ethical conduct in our community I was vonlewliat acquainted with Charles Pearce of C(irsieana, Texas, and observed him around the Courthouse on several occasions. I am also aware that he seemed to take an interest in younger. male prisoners, although i have no conclusive reason to believe that this interest "as improper i am aware based upon my long service with Leslie Cotton. as a Corsicann Police Oliicer. Deputy Sheriff. and later, Sheriff Cotten regaided Pearce more as a nuisance than anyfliing else. and sought to avoid him Whenever possible As a narcotics enforcement ofiicer {or many years, I have no reason whatsoever to believe Pearce acted in concert With any law enforcement officer in any improper manner. I hat never heard and have no reason to believe that narcotics officers used Chuck Pearce's home for it meeting place to organize police activities 01 any kind. have never heard and have no reason to helime that Chuck Pearce was a Source of funds for law enforcement agencies to informants. or nthervwse induce an}. person/s) to gi'i'fi' {also testimuny (or any testimony) i.u with any investigation, arrest, or prosecution. Further, I have no reason lo believe the District Attorney's Office used Charles Pearce as a resource ta pay or confer benefits on any person of interest to that office whether he was a defendant. witness, or of some other interest, Li; 6. Webb. in his unsworn statement, alleges that "Sheriff Cotren" induced him to give false testimony in early 1992. Leslie Cutten was not Sherill of Navarro County at this time' being elected Sheriff in November of 1992 and assuming ofliee January 1., 1993, Further, Leslie Gotten was not involved in the Willingham investigation 9 As a law enforcement officer I have also been acquainted with Johnny WEbb and his reputation in this community for many years. Accordingly, I firmly Webb is a habitual felon. a self-proclaimed drug addict and is cunently under indictmem in Navarro County fur aggravated assault. If asked to testify relative to his repumtkm as a teller of the truth. I would testify that such reputation is very bad My testimony would be the same relative to Character and reputation as a peaceful and Imabidmg citizen. My opinions are canainly bolstered based on his recent allegations, 10. It would be offensive to me if any reviewing agency elects to rely upon the statements of Johnny Webb for any purpose. SIGNED and SWORN T0 on this :75 5 of 2014 JacWichael Cox SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO by Jack Michael Cox on this day of August, 2014. :53 i Ls?b?i?if?? Notary Public, State of Texas DONNA MY EXPIRES September 1, 2013 mm mm mm En A AFFIDAVIT 0F LESLIE COTTEN BEFORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY personally appeared LESLIE COTTON, who upon being duly sworn by me did depose and state as follows: 1. My name is Leslie Cotton. lam 472- years of age and reside in Navarro County, Texas. I am fully competent to make this af?davit and have personal knowledge of the matters recited herein unless otherwise stated. 2. After leaving the US. Army and serving in Vietnam, I became a peace of?cer in Navarro County, Texas in 1967 as a member of the Corsicana Police Department. I served in several capacities, including patrol and detective divisions, including narcotics, until 1981, when I left the department, In 1982 I went to work as a Navarro County Deputy Sheriff and served in multiple capacities with the Sheriff? Of?ce until 1992, when I was elected Sheriff of Navarro County. I took of?ce and was sworn as Navarro County Sheriff in 1993 and served in that capacity until 2012, when I retired. 3. I have become aware that a person by the name of Johnny Webb has made a number of allegations concerning my connection with his criminal cases in the early 1990?s and the Cameron Todd Willingham case, which was investigated and tried in late 1991 and 1992. Mr. Webb?s allegations include: a, That I met with him on several occasions in an attempt to induce him to gain information from Cameron Todd Willingharn, with whom he was incarcerated in 1992, while Webb was charged with a Robbery offense; b. That I conspired with John H. Jackson, Assistant District Attorney, Charles Pearce, and others to obtain false testimony from Webb related to the Willingharn murder case; c. That I told or suggested to Webb that I could arrange for favorable treatment, leniency, and/or other rewards in return for his testimony and/or perjured testimony against Willingharn; d. That I, or other Navarro County law enforcement of?cials often met at the home of Charles Pearce in Corsicana, Texas, to discuss plans for Narcotics raids, investigations, or search warrants; e. That he identi?ed me as Sheriff of Navarro County during the year 1992, when I allegedly encouraged him to gain evidence from Willingham and/or encouraged hint to give false testimony in the Willingham case. f. That Navarro County police agencies used Charles Pearce as a resource to pay informants and sometimes encourage false testimony or information. I hereby af?rm, under oath, that none of the allegations of Johnny Webb relative to the alleged events set out above are true. I never met with Webb in connection with the Willingham case; I did not participate in the Willingharn case; I did not conspire with JohnI-I. Jackson, Charles Pearce, or any other individual relative to obtain the testimony of Webb at any time; and I have no knowledge of any police agency meetings at the home of Charles Pearce relative to the investigation of any case. Further, I was not Sheriff of Navarro County, Texas in 1992 when Webb alleges that I conspired with others to, obtain his testimony. I never advised Webb that I could assist him in gaining any favors, leniency, or other reward from John H. Jackson, Charles Pearce, or any other person. I did consent to the incarceration of Webb in the Navarro County Jail some years later when I was advised that Webb had been targeted by the Aryan Brotherhood in prison and his life was in danger. This was at a time when I had ample space to keep Webb isolatedyotherwise he would have been returned to TDCJ. I am aware from my law enforcement career that Johnny Webb is a habitual felon and has little credibility, especially at this time. Webb?s recent statements relative to my alleged intervention in the Willingham case are completely false and if called to testify, I would state under oath that Webb has no credibility. Further, as Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff, and Corsicana Police officer and detective, I had signi?cant knowledge of the operating procedures of both departments, and to my knowledge, neither department ever sought the help of Chuck Pearce in offering incentives to informants or persons charged with criminal conduct. I would have been aware of any such circumstance, having been employed by both agencies and interacting with both agencies on a daily basis. Chuck Pearce was known to me as a wealthy, but eccentric, philanthropist who seemed to be interested in criminal processes, and sometimes individual criminals. From my perspective, he was more of a nuisance than anything else in connection with the Navarro County Criminal Justice System, and it is my opinion that he was manipulated by certain criminals in order to gain money and other advantages such as legal assistance. During my 40 plus years of law enforcement experience in Navarro County, Texas, I have never heard of any occasion in which John H. Jackson or any other member of the Criminal District Attorney?s Of?ce attempted to gain false testimony from any witness. It is inconceivable to me that John H. Jackson or any other Navarro County prosecutor would encourage any witness to testify falsely. The reputation of John H. Jackson for honesty is beyond reproach, both as a judge and a prosecutor and I would so testify if called as a witness. 9. It is my opinion that to accord any credence to the testimony of Johnny Webb at this time would be a serious error. SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me on this a?ay of August, 2014. Leslie Cotten, Af?ant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on the date written above by Leslie Cotton. Notary Public, Navarro County, Texas EXHIBYT 19 December 235 2013 Letter from Webb to Jackson This correspondence was mailed by Webb to Jackson at The end of 2013 relative to his currently pending felony. In this correspondence, Wehb advises that he and his wife are being threatened and harassed "for my testimony in the Willingham ease Webb advises that he is being harassed by his attorney, against whom he has filed a gnevance Webb so a Vises that he has filed a complaint against District Judge" Webb that the District Attomey, Lowe] ompson is wrong-- fully prosecuting him, along with others. Webb advises that he wants me to help him speak to with the Texas Rangers, U.S. Marshals, FBI, and DPS. He goes on to say that the District Attorney is retaliating against him for cements to Dateline and NBC Nightline. He wants to file charges against a lot of people . ,Mme,,m 14421 gamma 4 '32 #45%; A, 1 is My" 7 fi/ if rug/AZ? 7 fl' 51" :4 n. *1 "Ce: EXHIBIT 20 December 19, 2013 Letter from Webb 10 Jackson This correspondence was mailed the Navarro County Jail to Respondent at a time when both Mr. and Mrs. Webh were locked up in late 2013. Webb alleges a conspiracy on the part of the Corsicana Police Department specifically Detective . She relates that she has contacted the She further eges that the CPD and CPS have conspired to force her to "give up her child." Webb alleges retaliation by the police against herself and Johnny Webb and that they have been "very judg- mental while dealing with this case." She has filed numerous com-- plamts. Webb repeats her husband's allegations that there is a con-- spiracy in Corsicana "due to the Todd Willingham case." She also mentions that Johnny Webb has been given a 'trarl (sic) date and that this is unethical and uncxceptable (sue) [39110 My MOMQ 15 Qmsfial WW. I am Cammfimi Ma m: Camd' Jail Corsicworpw, wammL fohnw 103945 hm a mg .Hfl'x Pohoz Daparfng' on on (1 areVawL'reat ASSUHL In'erh a 101900. 1 MW. om [3612' 4 Mama": LorE. Sha has 1'va Wtdwecfi'anj Chaim ofl command, 1 mug an abbubfiie um a vam' bono--PesSl'waK 03d flamma-- 'hL Carsicama hag bm 1 nonfl ma all 041mg on Ms Upro?035{ aflzam, My, {9 porpoSQlj 8003 LP Cageofl WM mimfii TonnLI mama. {he am also [Wolmi 0&4 Wald/m} CPS. (Doom neorwi M1 40 Na Lp m1 GUM. Tm brSimM poMce 02 OerfH' {C(7ny M9. I haw 43:12 a compiqimke'm n+9 AJch News 1: Hm Corsicom ML NM M33ng 0039 H9. hm baen ficcogad a balm): Charga, mu was in mg +1 "3*?ka hi: whoa GLNK Uflbom Child, F5113 on me when arressrta cm, shew,>> cum va Wm bgim (grim (Jim W1 maxim imam. 61, L) Wv Ha M36 dud-W18 10mm? 0% H12 COVSECCLM POUQZ .Hbfiwdw modem. HL has aka 3mmand 3mm gong com; and has 'udc mm (Wm WM Hus age0+hflf% (mm @940 SCUCL +0 WM ,fl'fifl} "f/bdv CflHOd 3:?qu 9qu Mr. Ms {5 a (meme Md my {sham-x: Number aha begomim 420+ mam Mommas. 61'! "$th W'emm mm Mo @115 033} mg howdfolmnq 106133: SQ dim "iv I Yume mums his MW yak Bd'm gime i3 Wig g/wum a Mgbafldc 30w 5 00% $56033 042 (fl (ll/Q way 0 [5:in WM. pim mqpohmbafid amid? am asking Par 9 4v v2 Jn'u'g Gage ram/vesirafiw .nakmgi UM mm {5 My mm) Thanh/0U so much Per 'Hmz g};ch promPki macaw; Irv Hm Gaga ofi CL {/qu Well QtiucaifiJLd, cmeL inncoaarut john/w e, (1)883. cuso been speabn 10mde 09 name who 91) {m 01x31 Pom; bapcmmam a was alsa Tohnm/ ?0665: Case Ema rewaseagm. How My -zg . Ha' gems +5 be WW Food 093 mm a3 4W3 Cage. COOK You >90ng Ml m2 how: 91% Hug Cagg E32972 Corsirma @noz (13?me a m7 Raw om sfimqgem man, gm?wm MW :Lhmham OVQ AFFIDAVIT 0F JANET JACOBS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this date personally appeared Janet Jacobs, who, after being by me duly sworn did upon oath depose and state as follow: 1. My name is Janet Jacobs. I am 50 years of age and reside in Navarro County,Texas. The matters recited herein are within my personal knowledge or based on information and belief from credible sources. I am under no disability which would prevent rue from making the following statements. 2. I am a former employee and columnist of the Corsicana Daily Sun newspaper, the only daily newspaper in Navarro County, Texas. I served in this capacity for more than 8 years, having left the Daily Sun for other employment in the past month. I am also an Adjunct Professor at Navarro College in Corsicana, Texas. 3. I have read an excerpt from a statement or deposition of a person by the name of Johnny Webb dated March 27, 2014. Such deposition states in relevant part: Mr. Biltz: ?What happens around here, nobody thinks that a prosecutor would put a juror or anybody in a position to convict an innocent person (inaudible) clueless.? Mr. Webb: Janet Jacobs at the Corsicana Daily Sun, when 1 first got in jail, I said, ?Look, I?m an innocent man. I?m being tried because of the Willingharn case and nothing else. And you know what they told mew? they told my wife? They told they said, ?We?re not going to investigate this because you got too many allegations against the Corsicana Police Department.? Well, guess who funds the Corsicana County Daily Sun? The Corsicana Police Department.? Mr. Biltz: ?So when you first got picked up on this case is when it happened?? Mr. Webb: ?Yeah.? Mr. Biltz: ?On this one?? MLWebb: ?And she said she would not report my case because I had too many allegations against the Corsicana Police Department, and they?re the ones who fund that paper, man. It?s all inner-bred (sic) here, rnan. Everybody knows everybody. Janet Jacobs is kin to (inaudible) Jacobs, who is a probation officer at the courthouse. Everybody is in cahoots with everybody. You can?t get a fair trial here, man. If you?re guilty in their eyes, you're guilty That's the way it is Mr Biltz: "Yeahy Imgree Around here, if you come 7 A if you're the i-ight'come in come from the right faintlyi>> Mi: Webb "Yeah." Mr Biltz (inaudible). lfyou fall on the wrong side ut'thnt, it doesn't matter if you're guilty or not, they're going to they're gomg to fuck you it"? Mr Webb "That's right Mr Blitz "You know. like (inaudible) these people 7* A 4, I am very much acquainted with the Ownership and income structure of the Corsicana Daily Sun newspaper and have been for a number of years The Police Department does not fund the Commna Daily Sun, nar do they have any ownership interest in the Daily Sun to the best of my knowledge, which is fairly complete. nor does 1% the Police Department have any improper influence upon the newspaper. I further state that neither the Daily Sim nor am in "cahoots" with the Police Department, the Sherist Depanment, or Ihe Probation Department, 6 declined to expend any time on an investigation of the Circumstances of Mr Webbe current case, it is because he is a habitual criminal, dnig addict: and has no credibility, m, 8, I also disagree with Webb's and Biltz's assessment that Navarro County depends on seeial status rather than evidence 9 i cannot imagine that any rational person would believe the allegations ofJohnny Webb the conduct of any person SIGNED AND 10 on this 2"d day of September 2t) [4 Janat?yjaoobsv 7 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T0 before me Janet Jacobs on the dais: wriyen above. WM H, Mm l' KARENRAGSDALE Notary Public,Sta% of exas My Commission Exp?res April 25. 2015 my?. QG mm mm ?0 EH A AFFIDAVIT OF JOE GRAVES BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this date personality appeared JOE GRAVES, who, after being by me duly sworn did upon oath depose and state as follows: 1. My name is Joe Graves. I am g? years of age and reside in Kerens, Navarro County, Texas. The matters Within this af?davit are within my personal knowledge unless otherwise stated. I am under no disability which would prevent me from making this affidavit. 2. During my life, I have been rancher in Navarro County, Texas; a County Commissioner of Navarro County, a Deputy Sheriff of Navarro County, and the Treasurer of Navarro County. During my tenure in these capacities, I have been well acquainted with John H. Jackson, Leslie Cotten, Kenneth Douglas, and other persons who have held positions of trust in Navarro County. For many years, I was the manager of Charles Pearce?s ranch in Eastern Navarro County. 3. I have been made aware that the Innocence Project, Barry Scheck, and others have ?led a grievance with the State Bar of Texas, alleging that John Jackson conspired with Charles Pearce, Leslie Cotten, and others to obtain false testimony from Johnny Webb in connection with the Willingharn Capital Murder case in 1992. 4. I have also been made aware that Johnny Webb has made allegations that Charles Pearce and Jackson often censpired to obtain false testimony from persons in connection with drug and other criminal cases, and that Jackson, Pearce, and Webb met at Pearce?s ranch for conferences in connection with their activities, and ?to shoot guns,?. 5. I can state with complete assurance that Johnny Webb, Chuck Pearce, and I never met at the ranch; and can further state that i never met at the ranch with Webb and Pearce. 6. In addition, I denit remember any occasion when Jehn Jackson was at the ranch, either by himself or in the company of Mr. Pearce. John Jackson did net associate with Pearce on any regular basis, and I know that John Jackson may have found him a nuisance relative to the criminals that Pearce befriended and supported. I know for a fact, based upon my conversations with Jackson from years ago, that Jackson believed Pearce was wasting his money and was being taken advantage of in connection with persons such. as Webb, Gary 'Motter, and others. The idea that either Charles Pearce or John Jackson would bribe or otherwise induce Webb to give false testimony on any case is simply beyond belief. I have been acquainted with both for many years in differing capacities and neither, by his conduct or reputation, would give any person reason to question his integrity. The idea that any of the persons named in paragraph 2 above would engage in any criminal activity, as alleged by Webb is beyond belief. I have been acquainted with Johnny Webb for many years in connection with my duties as Deputy Sheriff. I often supervised jail inmates in connection with community service, transportation, and other duties which put me in close touch with such individuals. .I know Webb to be a drug addict and habitual criminal with no credibility Whatever. The proposition that Webb could corroborate any accusation against John Jackson, or any other citizen is beyond belief to any person acquainted with Johnny Webb, Webb has been a source of continuing problems at all times he was con?ned in the Navarro County Jail, has ?led false complaints and made false allegations against the Jail staff and other inmates. SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me on this day of August, 2014. Joe Graves, Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND TO before me on this day of August, 2014, by Joe Graves, Notary Public, State of leaas ii A 0 MA mm Em A AFFIDAVIT OF KERRI ANDERSON DONICA BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this date personally appeared KERRI ANDERSON DONICA, who, after being by me duly sworn, did upon oath depose and state as follows: 1. My name is Kerri Anderson Donica. I am 57 years of age and fully competent to make this affidavit. I reside in Navarro County, Texas and have been licensed to practice law by the Supreme Court of Texas for 31 years. The matters recited herein are within my personal knowledge or based upon credible information and belief; or the same are my professional opinions, based upon my experience and reasonable perceptions. 2. My law practice consists chie?y of Criminal and Family Law cases. In addition to criminal defense work, I also serve as prosecutor for the City of Corsicana as well as prosecutor for the City of Kerens. 3. I am currently an officer of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and assist that organization with continuing legal education, as well as administrative matters. I have also served multiple terms on board. 4. I have reviewed a Grievance Petition filed by members of the Willingham family and others against John H. Jackson, former First Assistant District Attorney and former Judge and Sr. Judge of the 13th District Court of the State of Texas. Such grievance was made available by some organization online so it could be viewed by anyone with access to the internet. The grievance was actually brought to my attention by another local (Corsicana) attorney. 5. I was an Assistant Criminal District Attorney in Navarro County, Texas for several years, though not during the period when the Willingham Capital Murder case was investigated and tried in late 1991 and 1992. 6. I have been well-acquainted with John H. Jackson for many years, have visited in his home, and tried cases with him and against him for more than 30 years. Never have I seen him engage in unethical conduct in connection with his duties as a State?s Attorney, a trial judge, or an attorney in civil or criminal defense practice. He is board certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. In 1986, not too long after OFFICE OF KADXWiiIrngham Af?davitdocx Rage 1 leaving the District Attorney?s office, I opposed him as defense counsel (second chair) in a Capital Murder case styled State vs. Ernest Orville Baldree. That case resulted in a conviction and imposition of the death penalty. Mr. ackson?s conduct and handling of that case unquestionably was prOper and ethical. He has been involved in other capital cases as a prosecutor or trial judge. I have not heard any attorney in this area question his integrity as a prosecutor, judge, or trial attorney. 7. Earlier this year, Mr. Jackson was appointed Master in an adjoining county to preside over a habeas corpus/actual innocence claim advanced by a TDCJ inmate convicted of a sex crime and incarcerated for more than 10 years. This appointment was based upon Mr. Jackson?s reputation for fairness, honesty, and integrity, even in very difficult situations. Mr. Jackson conducted a full evidentiary hearing of such case and recommended that the Applicant?s request for relief be granted, notwithstanding his history as a committed and effective prosecutor. 8. During Mr. Jackson?s time as the judge of the 13th Judicial District Court, I had multiple suppression motions and several ?oench trials, as did other criminal defense attorneys who are active in the defense bar throughout the State of Texas. On multiple occasions, Judge Jackson granted the suppression motions or found the citizen accused ?not guilty?, when the law and the facts so warranted. 9. I am well-acquainted with Mr. Jackson?s philosophy regarding the death penalty and have participated with him on at least one public panel to discuss the death penalty. Both he and Patrick Batchelor, for whom Jackson and I worked as prosecutors, believed the death penalty was not appropriate in most cases, was ineffective as a deterrent to crime, and that society generally would be better served with Life Without Parole sentencing in almost all capital murder cases. 10. Mr. Jackson is an effective a criminal defense attorney as he was a prosecutor, and has done significant pro bono work; with young defense attorneys? some of which has resulted in trial acquittals. At this time, he is assisting me as pro bono counsel in two felony cases after my appointment to the cases of an indigent defendant. Only last week, his advocacy won the release on hail of that defendant whose bond was set at $100,000 and was reduced, after an evidentiary hearing, to $20,000. Mr. Jackson is also committed to assist in the trial of that case, which I believe will result in a good and fair verdict for our client. OFFICE OF KAD\Wi?ingham Affidavitdocx Page 2 ll Mr Jackson has recently begun a pumice lnvolving the elleclne pmsemallon uf "gland ]llry packery ln here :11 Navarro County. wluch has l'eaultcd in multiple "nu l; The Illed John Jackson seelm to he based upon Ihmc main grounds, that Jackson, Lexlle (Navaxm County shenm, and ('hnr-lcs Pearce rmlmed 2| wlmehs by [he name of Johnny Webb to give 5e Illc lrlal and {allcd Io disclose rhe same Defense 'ounsel Roherl Dunn and David Mamn. Nellher Dunn nor Marnn would eve: make such an accusauon agajlm John Jackson, The alleges [hm Jackson changed record: of Wehhg and (3) [allcd l0 dnclose a soAcalleAi appullalc counsel he lecelved copy of the mug from the [mum 2000 These be addrean order bolow. lr should be nbvlous from reading Webb's lncohclem and prepmm'ous \(utcmenls lhut no loglcul person would hi5 cull'cm leslimony Dumcl and Robert Hnunn (attorneys who lmemcwerl JOhnny Wehb jun a calm but m'lham of an oath). obviomly made a declSlon lha'. Sud] testimony would not be sworn in order avnld pequr) charge>> Webb alleges Cflecl. that the world is engaged a 16' J7. 1 have inr many yeais been quuamled John H, JucksonK circle nffl'lend Could CSUlhiKh niiyihing wuli nny degiee of certainly oi ieveal any Peg: 18. The Petitioners further reference a litany of documents which they argue as support for their allegations. One of these is the judgment entered by Kenneth Douglas in the Webb robbery case. This judgment re?ects thatE the Court, not Jackson, found Webb guilty of robbery, an included offense of aggravated robbery. The judgment further re?ects that the Court, not Jackson, made a finding of no aggravating circumstances The judgment is certainly more consistent with a robbery judgment than an aggravated robbery judgment, the only factor supporting aggravated robbery being the Penal Code Section and penalty recited. Further, it appears that there is a clerk?s note that the Penal Code section recited is incorrect. It is certainly plausible that Jackson, based upon the stipulation and the plea believed that Webb had been convicted of Aggravated Robbery, and that the Court found Webb guilty of the lesser included offense which was certainly within its power. 19. The Petitioners reference an entry in the District Attorney?s file which contains the hand- written note: April says this was to be incl. o?ense of Robbery, 2??i deg??based 0n Coop in Willingham. Jackson?s letter to prison authorities re?ects that he has contacted April Sikes, Webb?s plea attorney and her records indicate that she believed that the offense should be classified as a second degree felony based upon her client?s c00peration in Willingham. There is no date on this notation and in my opinion it is more likely to be a memorandum that Webb?s trial attorney was consulted at a time after the Willingham trial when steps were taken to protect Webb from retaliation. Jackson?s letter explaining that he has contacted Sikes (in 1996) is reproduced in the body of the Grievance Petition at page 21. 20. Petitioners allege that a note contained in the Clerk?s record of the Webb case corroborates that Jackson tampered with a government record by advising someone in the Clerk?s office that the judgment re?ects robbery instead of aggravated robbery. Unfortunately for the Petitioners, the judgment DOES re?ect robbery, not aggravated robbery, which judgment was prepared by the Clerk, reviewed by the District Judge, signed and entered. The later entry of a judgment nunc pro tune by the Court, not by John Jackson, simply confirms that the Court believed this to be a proper correction of the judgment. In point of fact, in circumstances where the life of a State?s witness was at stake, I find nothing whatever unethical or improper on the part of John Jackson, who apparently discovered this ambiguity and pointed the same out to the Court in order to diminish the exposure of Webb to extremely dangerous circumstances. 21. Petitioners also allege that after John Jackson, as a judge, received a courtesy copy of Webb?s false recantation given to him by the District Attorney, he should have disclosed the same to Willingham?s appellate counsel. I have no reason to believe that a trial judge OFFECE OF Affidavitdocx Page 5 has a duty to disclose such information, that burden being placed on prosecutors, not judges, by the DRPC. 22. Petitioner?s litany of complaints that Jackson repeatedly, as a prose-cuter and a judge, sought to diminish the risk to a State?s witness is among the most disingenuous of allegations. Apparently, Petitioners believe that State?s counsel or a court, upon determining that a TDCJ inmate?s life is at risk, should simply do nothing and allow him to be murdered by prison gangs. 23.1 utilize the services of a polygraph operator whose name is Bobby Rachel. At the request of John Jackson, I referred him to Mr. Jackson to utilize his services (Mr. Jackson indicated a desire to take a polygraph regarding the charges levied against him in the grievance). Mr. Rachel and John Jackson?s only other contact was when I gave John Jackson Mr. Rachel?s name to polygraph a client of Mr. ackson?s several months ago. Mr. Rachel will acknowledge he has had no other knowledge of or relationship with John Jackson. 24. I have repeatedly emphasized to those involved in the Innocence Project the value of the program, but my perceived need for us to focus on individuals we can save (who are still alive). Should we put such focus on those issues, I believe many lives could be saved from overzealous, unethical prosecutors. Such is not the case here. 25. I am available to provide additional information or answer questions should such deemed to be warranted. Affiaiit SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on the date above written by Kerri Anderson Donica. ?mz x; ., Ag April 25. 20m Notary Public, Stat;le Tex as a" Kasai saessrig GALAW OFFICE KAD\WiIlingham Af?davit?ocx Page 6 EXHIBIT 24 A AFFIDAVIT OF MARILYN GREEK BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this date personally appeared MARILYN GREER, who, after being by me duly sworn did upon oath depose and state as follows: 1. ix) My name is MARILYN GREER. I am 62 years of age and reside in Navarro County, Texas. I am fully competent to make this af?davit and the matters recited in this instrument are either Within my personal knowledge or based on credible information and belief I am under no disability which would prevent the making of this af?davit. I was a Deputy District Clerk of Navarro County, Texas from 1977 until 1989, at which time I assumed the of?ce of District Clerk after being elected in 1988. was employed in this capacity until 2010. I was responsible for all duties of that Of?ce, including the ?ling of documents and the preparation of documents for the Court. I was District Clerk in 1992, the year in which Johnny Webb gave testimony in the Cameron Todd Willingharn Capital Murder Case. Webb?s robbery case was disposed of by plea of guilty in March of 1992 and Willingharn?s case was disposed of in the course of a jury trial in August of 1992. I am aware that the innocence Project, Barry Scheck, the Willingham family, and others have alleged (in a grievance ?led against John H. Jackson) that there was a secret pre?trial deal with Johnny Webb; and that Jackson conspired with Leslie Cotten, Charles Pearce, and others to obtain perjured testimony from Webb by bribing him and promising him favors of leniency in his own case. I am also aware that the Innocence Project and others have alleged or suggested that Jackson either conspired with the Clerk or otherwise induced or instructed the Clerks to advise TDC that Webb?s offense was degree Robbery instead of Aggravated Robbery; or that Jackson conspired with or otherwise induced the Clerks to create an inconsistent judgment in the Webb case that re?ected a conviction of Robbery, with no ?nding of deadly weapon. I can categorically state that neither 1 not any deputy clerk that I am aware of has ever conspired with or been induced by John Jackson to create a false document or a misleading document. I can also state with certainty that John Jackson never induced or otherwise instructed me to give false information to TDC. I have been made aware of a typed note in Webb?s file which re?ects: ?Nate: The Judgment has Robbery of the Offense Convicted of and also n/a for the ?ndings of use of deadly weapon. That is what John Jackson wants it to be. But the penal code is 29.03 which is Aggravated Robbery. If TDC calls and wants to know which one is correct~ tell them ROBBERY with No Deadly Weapon Used. This note is per John Jackson te Marilyn Greer.? There is another hand?written note as follows: ?The correct Penal Code would be 29.02 and the correct degree is 2nd.? 5. I reviewed the Webb ?le a number of times while I was clerk, in its entirety, and never saw such a note in the ?le. This note was shown to me by an investigator who came te my house early this year, and I also informed him that I had never seen this note before. The note is not ?le-marked, and if it was placed in the ?le by a deputy clerk, the same was not authorized by me and is not consistent with any conversation that I had with John Jackson or any deputy clerk in my of?ce. 6. I do speci?cally recall that John Jackson did not participate in the drafting ef the judgment in the Webb case; and that prosecutors, at this time, did not participate in the drafting of any criminal judgments unless speci?cally requested; and that he was not so requested in the Webb case. I further wish to testify that John Jackson never instructed me or any Deputy Clerk to give false information about the Webb case to TDC. I have no knowledge of the notes set out above, except that it was not written by me and dees not accurately re?ect any conversation which I might have had with John Jackson about the documents in the Webb case. 10. At the time this judgment was prepared, the District Clerk?s Office prepared all judgments based on information in the Court?s ?le, which was returned to the Clerk?s Of?ce after disposition of the case in the District Court. There was no input from the District Attorney?s Of?ce at that time. Since I have left of?ce, it is my understanding that prosecutors do prepare the judgments in criminal cases. I have no reason whatever to believe that John H. Jackson or any other person, other than the District Judge, Kenneth Douglas, would give our of?ce any instructions relative to how a judgment was to be prepared, unless our of?ce asked for assistance in such preparation. I have no reason to believe that anyone in our of?ce conspired with John H. Jackson to prepare this or any other judgment with ambivalent terms, such as that in the Webb case. I have no reason to believe that John Jackson assisted or had any input into the drafting of the judgment. After criminal judgments were prepared, they were returned to Judge Douglas?s of?ce for review and signature. I have no reason whatever to believe that this judgment was treated any differently. It was prepared by the Clerk?s Office and transmitted to the Judge?s Of?ce for signature and returned, signed by the Judge, for entry in our records. The Webb judgment was reviewed by Judge Douglas, as indicated by his signature, and returned to our of?ce for entry in our records. The entry of ?Robbery? in the judgment may have been an error on the part of the Clerk?s Of?ce, it may have been an oversight of the Court, or it may have expressed the intent of Judge Douglas, who wished to have the record re?ect that he intended to ?nd Webb guilty of Robbery as opposed to Aggravated Robbery. The offense line on the Court?s Docket Sheet re?ects that the charge of ?Aggravated Robbery? has been modi?ed to ?Robbery? by striking a line through the word ?Aggravated.? I do not know whether this was done by Judge Douglas or some other person. I am aware that Judge Douglas corrected this judgment several years later to re?ect what seems to be his intent in the original judgment- a conviction for Robbery. 11. With reSpect to the note reproduced in paragraph 6 above, the same simply re?ects that John Jackson agreed that the judgment, as drafted and approved by the Court, disclosed a robbery conviction and pointed out that the Court had found Webb guilty of Robbery rather than Aggravated Robbery. The note?s language does not represent my understanding of the circumstances of the Webb judgment and certainly does not re?ect any conspiracy between Jackson and me or other persons in my Of?ce. Neither does it re?ect any undue in?uence brought to bear on me or my of?ce to transmit false information. 12. In my long acquaintance with John Jackson, both as a judge and a prosecutor, I have never known him to engage in improper conduct. I am aware that Johnny Webb is a habitual criminal. SIGNED AND SWORN T0 on this 2] day of August, 2014. Marilyn Greer, Af?ant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on the date recited above by Marilyn Notary Public, State Texas Greer. KAREN My Commission Engreg Apa225,2ais if? ?re; .. AFFIDAVIT OF JILL GROUNDS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this date perscnally appeared JILL GROUNDS, who, after being by me duly sworn did upon oath depose and state as follows: 1. My name is Jill Grounds. I am MSG years of age and reside in Navarro County, Texas. I am fully competent to make this af?davit and the matters recited in this instrument are either Within my personal knowledge or based on credible information and belief. I am under no disability which would prevent the making of this af?davit. 2. I am currently a Deputy District Clerk of Navarro County, Texas. I have been employed in this capacity for more than 25 years. I am currently assigned to the criminal division of the Clerk?s Of?ce, but before we divided the of?ce into separate divisions, I routinely handled both civil and criminal duties. 3. in 1992, I was a Deputy District Clerk serving under the elected District Clerk, Marilyn Greer. .1992 was the year in which Johnny Webb, accused of Aggravated Robbery, gave testimony in the Cameron Todd Willingharn Capital Murder Case. Webb?s case was disposed of by plea of guilty in March of 1992 and Willingharn?s case was disposed of in the course of a jury trial in August of 1992. 4. I am aware that the Innocence Project, Barry Scheck, the Willingham family, and others have alleged (in a grievance ?led against John H. Jackson) that there was a secret pre~ trial deal with Johnny Webb; and that Jackson conspired with Leslie Cotten, Charles Pearce, and others to obtain perjured testimony from Webb by bribing him and promising him favors of leniency in his own case. I am also aware that the Innocence Project and others have alleged or suggested that Jackson either conspired with the Clerks or instructed the Clerk?s to advise TDC that Webb?s offense was 2nd degree Robbery instead of Aggravated Robbery; or that Jackson conspired with the Clerks to create an inconsistent judgment in the Webb case that re?ected a conviction of Rebbery, with no ?nding of deadly weapon. 5. I have examined the judgment in question and such judgment appears to be a judgment convicting Webb of Robbery with no deadly weapon ?nding. The penal code section, however, re?ects the appropriate section for Aggravated Robbery. 6. I am also aware of a typed note in Webb?s ?le which re?ects: ?Note: The Judgment has Robbery of the Offense Convicted of and also n/a for the ?ndings of use of deadly weapon. That is what John Jackson wants it to be. But the penal code is 29.03 which is Aggravated Robbery. If TDC calls and wants to know which one is correct" tell them ROBBERY with No Deadly Weapon Used. This note is per John Jackson to Marilyn Greer.? There is another hand?written note as follows: ?The correct Penal Code would be 29.02 and the correct degree is 2nd.? 7. At the time this judgment was prepared, the District Clerk?s Of?ce prepared all judgments based on information in the Court?s ?le which was returned to the Clerk?s Of?ce after disposition of the case in the District Court. There was no input from the District Attorney?s Of?ce at that time. I have no reason whatever to believe that John H. Jackson or any other person, other than the District Judge, Kenneth Douglas, would give our of?ce any instructions relative to how a judgment was to be prepared, unless our of?ce asked for assistance in such preparation. I have no reason to believe that anyone in our of?ce conspired with John H. Jackson to prepare this or any other judgment with ambivalent terms, such as that in the Webb case. I have no reason to believe that John Jackson assisted or had any input into the drafting of the judgment. 8. After criminal judgments were prepared, they were returned to Judge Douglas?s of?ce for review and signature. I have no reason whatever to believe that this judgment was treated any differently. it was prepared by the Clerk?s Of?ce and transmitted to the Judge?s Of?ce for signature and returned for entry in our records. 9. 10. ll. The Webb judgment was reviewed by Judge Douglas, as indicated by his signature, and returned to our of?ce for entry in our records. The entry of ?Robbery? in the judgment may have been an error on the part of the Clerk?s Of?ce, it may have been an oversight of the Court, or it may have expressed the intent of Judge Douglas, who wished to have the record re?ect that he intended to ?nd Webb guilty of Robbery as opposed to Aggravated Robbery. It is dif?cult for me to imagine that Judge Douglas, who was certainly acquainted with Webb through prior court appearances, would have ignored the two most important entries on the original judgment Which were the name of the offense, Robbery, and the very important deadly weapon ?nding, which was shown as n/a. A mistake as to the Penal Code section would be easier to overlook, based upon the similarity of the sections describing Robbery and Aggravated Robbery. Further, our of?ce routinely corrected discrepancies in the degree of various offenses, this being at a time before computer codes were used in the input of penalty ranges. I am aware that Judge Douglas corrected this judgment several years later to re?ect what seems to be his intent in the original judgment? a conviction for Robbery. With respect to the note reproduced in paragraph 6 above, the same simply re?ects that John Jackson agreed that the judgment, as drafted and approved by the Court, re?ected a robbery conviction and pointed out that apparently the Court had found Webb guilty of Robbery rather than Aggravated Robbery. The notc?s language saying ?This is what John Jackson wants it to be? is not re?ective of any conspiracy with the Clerk?s Of?ce. Neither does it re?ect that John Jackson induced the Clerk?s of?ce to arrive at this conclusion. Additionally, it does not re?ect that John Jackson participated in the drafting of the judgment. It rnerely af?rms what the judgment states: that the Court found Webb guilty of Robbery, but that certain entries were not consistent. The note does not re?ect that John Jackson told anyone in our of?ce to give TDC (now TDCJ) any false information. 12. The note was apparently placed in the ?le two months after the Willingharn trial was concluded. I have no knowledge or recollection of who drafted this note. Neither do I recognize the handwriting of the handwritten note commenting on the proper Penal Code 860303. 13. In my long acquaintance with John Jackson, both as a judge and a presecutor, I have never known him to engage in unethical or imprOper conduct. I am aware that Johnny Webb is a habitual criminal. SIGNED AND SWORN TO on this ml day of August, 2014. rounds, Af?ant ?mqu 1 I v-EXHIBIT 26 0 mm. a ER CINDY DISTRICT ATTORNEY 349 ICIAL DISTRICT COURT HOUSTON TEXAS P. 0 BOX 1076 CROCKETT, TEXA 75835 (409) 544-325 T. 245 (409) 54 ~27 (FAX) July 30, 1996 Mr- A Merillat Spec; 1 Prosecut on Uhlt 1224 versity, Suite 100 HUntsv1lle, Texas 77340 Re- Inmat Johnny E. Webb .D.C Nb.: 626 56 Dear A closed pl fin from - Jehnny E. ebb. egard to Mr. b? pro ehalf of the St a I would ppre iat any cti future oblems. Enclosur cc Mr ohnny Webb T.D .J. Nb. 6256 Eastham Unit P. Q: Drawer 16 Lovelady; exas CINDY MARIA GARNER DISTRICT ATTORNEY 349TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS P. 0. BOX 1076 CROCKETT, TEXAS 75835 (409) 544*3255 EXT. 245 (409) 544*2790 (FAX) September 6, 1996 Mr. A. F. Merillat Special Prosecution Unit 1224 University, Suite 100 Huntsville, Texas 77340 Re: Inmate: Johnny Webb T.D.C.J. No.: 626256 Deer A. P.: Enclosed please find additional correspondence received from Mr. Johnny E. Webb on August 26, 1996. I continue to be concerned about Mr. Webb as the information provided in his correspondence seems quite believable. I am not very impressed with.Mr. McElyea?S'flippant attitude and.hope we can de some additional investigating in this case. Please?let rme know if ?Kn1 are able to tmovide additional investigation in regards to thie complaint. errely, CINDY MARQA ER, DISTRICT ETTO EY ew- ?e Encloeure to: Mr. Johnny Webb-? TDCJ No. 626256 Rt. 4 Box 1100 Roeharon, Texas 77583 31 "$2335 Eifi it '3 SPECXAL PROSECUTION UNIT 1224 Unwavswy Avenue, 5mm mo HunuMHe, Texas 77340 Fax. Aug-291mm Johnny Webb #626256 March 18, 1995 Ramsey I Dear Mr . Webb, On December 4, 1995, our office received your original complaint against of the Eastham Unit. Due to the nature of your complaint, the allegations against Cheney and your cooperation in the prosecution of a capital murder case in Navarro County which necessitated your protection while in prison, the complaint was hand-Carried by me to Joe Nesmith of Internal Affairs. Mr. Nesmith then gave the Complaint to Mr. John McAuliffe, Director of Internal Affairs. As a result, you were put in protection at the Ramsey I unit. That unit is the one most desired by inmates who have cooperated with our office in many prosecutions, including capital murder trials. Your most recent complaint, dated 3--2--96, received by us via District Attorney Garner's office is being referred to Internal Affairs for their consideration. If evidence of criminal law violations is discovered by Internal Affairs, we will proceed at the direction of Ms. Garner. sincerely, WW . Merillat S.P.U. Cc: District Attorney file SPECIAL PROSECUTIQN UNIT @224 University Avenue, Suite Huntsville, Texas 77340 409-291?2389 Fax: 4092916845 Mr. Ed McElyea August I, 1996 Internal Affairs Bear Hr? ?cElyea, Enclosed please find a letter from Cindy Garner, District Attorney of Houeton County. Also included is a letter from inmate Johnny Webb #626256 currently at the Ramsey I unit. Your office has been involved in interviewing inmate Webb previously regarding his allegations. Evidently he is continuing to experience some difficulty, and he believes this stems from his testimony on behalf of the state in a capital murder trial in Navarro County. Per Moo Garner?s request, we are forwarding this information to your office for consideration of Webb?s allegations. Please call if you need additional information or need any aseistance. Sincerely, Latham Boone Chief Prosecutor 7 13, 1996 H7-a?eciaijaz?ae?utleg.?nlt ,12??*U?iv?i?ityg saite ion H?ntSVille; Texas 77340 ?Inmate; Johnny E, Webb T.D.C.J, Moat 626256 .mear'A. I ?Enclog?d please find_? complaint I received frongahnny'E, Webb? [Please:review the Claims Set forth therein and advise_me?gf the results'ofiygur earliest convenia?ce? Thank you for your kind aSsiStance in this-matter; 'Sinderely, Enclosu?e- Johnny E. Webb - - . . 4 7 Eas?ham Unit,r r.?g 0) Drawer 16 LoVeladyf Texas SPECIAL PROSECUTION UNIT 3224 WWAVE, SUITE 100 TEXAS 7734!) 40912914369 FAX: 409m3~0345 I 96 DATE MI. Ed McElyea Case Management, Internal Affairs Huntsville," Texas 77340 Dear Mr. HCElyea: Please find enclosed, a cemplaint which this office received fremi Maggi Date of Letter 3-2-9; mums alledging violations by employees or other inmates. This letter was recieved from: The Inmate _?(6istrict Attorney _mm Judge mm County Attorney District Clerk County ?lerk other a? . in ??usruv Ceunty. After the investigation, should.your office find.that'the complaint is prosecutien worthy, please advise this office sO?apprepriete actien can be taken. . If this office can be 0f any assistance, please centact us. Sincerely, Latham Boene, Chief Prosecuter ENCLOSURE: cc: Inmate County Official file AFFIDAVIT OP SHIRLEY MCADAMS THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF NAVARRO, BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this date per? sonally appeared SHIRLEY who, after being by me duly sworn did upon oath depose and state as follows: "My name is Shirley McAdams. I am 59? years of age and reside in Corsioene, Navarro County, Texas. criminal case in which I was in early 1992 I was a witness and complainant in a Johnny E. Webb was accused of the offense of robbery. the sole complainant and victim of this offense whic? occurred at the residenoe of Juanita Isbell, a relative of Mr. Webb. I am aware that Mr. Webb was convicted of robbery in this case and sentenced to 15 years in prison. 1 am also aware that he has presentey serve& more than four years incarceration an? .L believe that service of any more time in connection with this of?enee would be clearly exoeesive. I have considereo the cir? cumstances of the offense and although i was frightened at the time the Offense occurred, it is apparent to me that Mr. Webb was under the influence of narcotics and probably would not have committed this offense otherwise. By this statement, I request that Court and prison authorities take whatever steps are necessary to cause Mr. Webb to be release& as soon as pos- sible. This affidavit was executed voluntarily eno I have no reservations about anything I have said herein.? Signed thie 4th day of November, 1996. a, 2%7 Shirleg/Mvoams, Affiant SUBSCREBED AND SWORN To BEFORE MB on the date written above by Shirley MoAdams. i -. .. venom Am emu xi?? mammogram Notary Pu see? of ?I?E?xas 3 :4ngjw err?50?TEXAs i-J-g {Terieisson horas 342??;3 3 relaxes-2w 1 A 4 Lag-15?ggz m1- ?7 a i, .. ??mtmm?m EXHIBIT 28 TONY AYALA STATEMENT In this written statement volunteered by Tony Ayala in 2000; he describes What he observed relative to the ?re by which the Willingham children were murdered. Ayala gave this statement to CPD Detective Seth Fuller and records that he observed Willingham running and out of the smoldering house, placing belongings in his automobile; never addressing the issue of his children being inside until the ambulance and Fire Department were near. VOLUNTARY STATEMENT DATE 6? 04 .nms 4?30 5M, PLACE 24969 MM #1/5 i, . . . yearsoidandl?veai 6?2- 7?4 am giving gthis statement to himseif as a I 4/14 1? 741:5 -7 is 4'41"; 515 +45w .7448: ?a?A?iang?-f? .W. . 7 534%- a/kz?aj pm. {/264 ml ?.4124 ?94 q? man" ma?a: ,??gi?wf?afmdpaga? 94.4 4g! 7/255, 45/ 7 424764251-? Mg Mm am/ [94/1141?22 1.49%; 4*meng4, ??hf ?74m 4222? a, 522% 427C .v .. He, [:94 a axgj ?fe? m:ng Sg?/Wm?? 30% a Mawu?wgqm 4am; 25:12?. ?gf?g w1:12Fave/If K. gaff/EL? aka/64544 ., t?gqu??tgwk azi?ith??; 92equ 44K: "/2134 h: rind Jar fa?wmz?gz? #ka r? 1544+ 413.5% batik-?72 4645:". (?635 :5 5? f?n E, 4f?? Signature 13f making untary Staten-rum: ?me above warnings were given by and this voiuntary taken by Witness (This must be one and the same person as named above) I I