Home | Editorials | The Robert Trevino Case Part 5

The Robert Trevino Case Part 5

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

Note: Editorials about the Robert Trevino case written by Fred Shannon, published by The Ellis County Press in Dec. 2003, are transcribed in their entirety for readers in and around Ellis County to see for themselves the blatant and deliberate attempts by the prosecutor's office and district judgeship, as well as Waxahachie city officials - including a police officer - to railroad a man accused of hideous charges.

There you have it folks. Wiggins or Stacy Harris, one or the other did not tell the truth about charges.

In this part of the series, I'll include Ms. Harris' testimony which also stipulates Patrick Lankford had STATUTORY RAPE charges filed on him.

Finally, let's take a look at the testimony with respect to the statement of Stacy Harris, and how it was made. Looking at Aug. 22, 1995 tran scri pt Page 98, Lines 11 through 25 it states:

Q: (Dixon) Did you write the statement out?
A: (Stacy) No.
Q: Was this statement dictated to you and you signed your name to it?
A: What do you mean?
Q: Did someone else make the statement out and you signed your name to it?
A: No.
Q: Is this your handwriting?
Q: You didn't write it?
A: No.
Q: Could you tell me how the statement was taken.

You have to rememberthat "HER" was Officer Wiggins the Prime Investigator. And to pour salt in the wounds of the prosecution the following exchange takes place on Page 104, lines 8 through 13 of the Aug. 22, 1995 tran scri pt:

Q: (Dixon) And you testified Ms. Harris, that you'd do anything for Patrick Lankford?
A: (Stacy) Yes.
Q: Have you dropped the charges of statutory rape claim against Patrick Lankford?
A: No.

Now you have to ask yourselves why Patrick Lankford has not been tried on the Statutory Rape charges. It's simple, the DA and others have swapped the charge for Patrick's testimony and influence on those individuals who were witnesses against Robert Trevino. Of course the foregoing is speculation on my part, but I know Patrick Lankford's, Shawn Lankford's, Shannon Russell's, Chris Williams' criminal records, and they all have one. They are posted with the editor of this publication, and are available for viewing by anyone.

Here's a Vietnam hero put in prison by a bunch of little snots who conspired to get Patrick Lankford off the terrible charge of Statutory Rape and others not yet brought to the fore, in exchange for Robert Trevino's freedom.

They were aided by public officials who had an axe to grind with Robert because he cared for the system he fought and bled for.

Perhaps the words, "maybe someone will get rid of you," uttered by a city official (Bob Sokoll) will come back to haunt a bunch of folks. We'll see.

The story continues

"Leave the woman alone, she's an officer of the law!" "You should be ashamed of yourself, don't you believe a policeman?" "Why are you hounding Ms. Wiggins, she didn't do anything wrong." "How would you like it if your wife were being crucified in the news media like you're doing Billie Wiggins."

All of the above, probable results of e-mails and telephone calls received by this writer, if I weren't quoting directly from the tran scri pts of the trial of Robert Trevino in August 1995.

Truth of the matter is I've not received one single e-mail, phone call, or threat about the previous four parts of this series. Does that mean I've struck a cord of truth, or people just don't care.

In either case we're continuing to bring to the readership's attention the fallacies and ambiguities of Ms. Wiggins' testimony in that trial. Is all this important? It certainly is when one considers a Vietnam War Hero is languishing in prison doing three life sentences because of the Wiggins' "investigation," which could more accurately be labeled "railroad job" in the opinion of many.

Did Wiggins lie on the stand before Judge Knize?

In the opinion of this writer and according to the official tran scri pt, not once, but many times.

Why hasn't she called on those untruths and why weren't perjury charges filed against her? Was it her word against more than one witness, or did she knowingly fabcricate testimony? Continuing with the revelation, here goes from the official tran scri pt. You make up your own mind.

In the Aug. 24 1995, page 110, lines 17 through 25 of the official tran scri pt, the following discourse occurred:

Q: Did you offer any assistance to Stacy Harris in the interview?
A: Her mother was there sitting right beside her during the entire time of the written statement given by her.
Q: Did you offer any assistance to Stacy Harris in conducting the interview?
A: Her mother was sitting right beside her. As far as --.

Well that's pretty plain to me. Stacy Harris' mother was sitting there in the room with Stacy and Wiggins during the entire interview....but here's Ms. Harris' statement from the official tran scri pt from the same exact day Wiggins spoke the foregoing words: Page 183 lines 8 through 19 of that same tran scri pt:

Q: When you met Ms. Wiggins the next day, did you - were you interviewed by her at that time?
A: No I was not. My daughter was.
Q: Were you present with her at that interview?
A: Kind of, sort of.
Q: Could you be a little more specific?
A: Well I didn't stay in the room the whole time they talked.
Q: So most of the time Ms. Wiggins was there, she was along with Stacy Harris?
A: You could say, yes.

I don't know how you read these statements, but someone isn't being truthful. I choose to believe Ms. Harris, it was her daughter, and she had no reason to not be truthful. If one were conducting an investigation for prosecution, with a biased outlook on the outcome, Ms. Wiggins once more is indicating her ability to look good on the stand. Too bad, but the tran scri pts have borne out the many times Ms. Wiggins hasn't been able to get to the facts as they really are.

Recalling testimony from Wiggins in the previous part of the series, she elaborates on the charges filed against Patrick Lankford and Robert Trevino as being those of "indecency with a child."

Not one time did the prosecution ever bring up the fact Statutory Rape charges were filed on Patrick Lankford by Ms. Harris for Lankford's rape of her 12-year-old daughter. Wiggins ducked the question four times in her testimony on Aug. 23, 1995.

The following is the first time she admits Ms. Harris' complaint was Statutory Rape.

From the Aug. 24, 1995 tran scri pt, page 82, lines 6 through 22:
Q: Is it not true that the real reason in this particular case that Robert Trevino is on trial is because Patrick Lankford provided you with information about Robert Trevino with the anticipation that you would not file charges against him for statutory rape on Stacy Harris?
A: No, sir.
Q: Then why is not Patrick Lankford in jail for statutory rape?
Marshal of the DA's office objects and Judge Knize overrules him.
A: I don't make that Grand Jury referral. I sent that to the District Attorney's office, and where it goes from there I have no idea.

Well I guess that puts the ball in Joe Grubbs' court so to speak. Where did it go Joe? You still got it or did you use the thing in some manner?

We now know, from Ms. Harris' and Ms. Wiggins' testimony, there was a statutory charge and complaint supposedly filed against Patrick Lankford. What happened to it is anybody's guess. I further confirmed the complaint by researching further into the tran scri pt.

Here is Ms. Patricia Lankford's, Patrick's mother's, testimony relative to the statutory rape charges:

From the official tran scri pt of Aug. 24, 1995, page 136, lines 12 through 25:
Q: Were you ever visited by Officer Wiggins regarding a complaint of statutory rape made by Stacy Harris?

Marshal objects and Knize overrules.

A: Okay. Could you say that again.
Q: Were you ever visited by Officer Wiggins regarding a statutory rape complaint made by Stacy Harris against Patrick Lankford?
A: Yes sir.

Well I guess that puts that to rest. Did Patrick Lankford rape Stacy Harris and were complaints issued by Stacy Harris' mother? You bet they were.

What happened to them is the mystery of the decade. No one knows what happened to them. Or no one knows enough to talk about them.

One has to ask why the ambiguities in the Wiggins' testimony. Are we covering up something, or is her testimony designed to keep from telling what really happened?

It is my personal opinion both facts bearing looking into and we are.

Don't give up, we may get another trial for Robert and move the venue. At least Mike Boyd won't be called to verify that a fair one could be held in Ellis County.

Maybe the Texas Rangers are better informed with respect to this one than some folks realize.

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (0 posted)

total: | displaying:

Post your comment

  • Bold
  • Italic
  • Underline
  • Quote

Please enter the code you see in the image:


Log in

  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Tagged as:

No tags for this article

Rate this article

Powered by Vivvo CMS v4.5.2