Friday, August 3, 2012

Willie Tompkins disagrees with McNamara campaign


Sheriff hopeful eschews drug, cold case squads

Waco – In a return to the former campus of his alma mater, Democratic Sheriff candidate Willie Tompkins pointed out stark differences with his opponent's campaign for McLennan County Sheriff.

In a campaign stump speech at the Doris Miller YMCA at Paul Quinn College, Mr. Tompkins said he sees no need for a revived drug task force, a key element of the campaign of GOP candidate Parnell McNamara, a retired Deputy U.S. Marshal.

He also said he would rather spend the money it would cost to staff and operate a cold case squad on training of investigators, patrolmen and corrections staff.

“I don't know of any unsolved murders in McLennan County,” he said. Marshal McNamara has often mentioned a number of such cases in excess of 50 in his campaign appearances.

Mr. Tompkins wishes to see to it that there are no more mistaken releases of prisoners wanted on other charges; he wants to see the jail pass all inspections; all cases should have sufficient evidence to hold a prisoner in an effort to hold down corrections budget costs.

Budget overruns in the corrections department and courthouse security over the past year disturb Mr. Tompkins. “You don't go a million dollars over budget and not know it...You've got to be asleep – or something...”

Police work was his first full time job, following his graduation from Paul Quinn and the Waco Police Academy. During a 17-year career, he has served as the chief investigator for the McLennan County District Attorney's Office, Chief of Police of the McLennan County Community College police force, and worked in undercover narcotics, vice and patrol duties at the Waco Police Department, as well as working as a patrolman at Riesel.

He has pastored two churches. Currently, his campaign committee meets every Tuesday night at 6 p.m. at 1601 Air Base Road to plot election strategy, organize phone banks and block walks, and put out signs.

In a wide-ranging stump speech, he pointed out the nature of his program, highlights of which are presented in audio form here:



29 comments:

  1. I wouldn't vote for Parnell for dog catcher...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Luckily Ms Schroeder you are not a voter in McLennan County and your credibility is no much better then my dog's. Actually he has more, he's a resident.

      Delete
    2. I believe that Mr. Parks does not live in the county. We all have concerns. Mr. Parks wrote a very good article on Mr. Tompkins. Do you feel the same about his credibility.

      Delete
    3. Ms Schroeder lacks credibility because her statements are based on false facts, heresay, outright lies that she edits later and then denies. Her not being a resident just opens more questions on why a woman who claims to be a true yellowdog democrat so forcefully supported a republican candidate, she now chides on his lack of administrative skills that have caused the Sheriff's Office to be over budget by more then most departments' budgets. She claims to be a spokesperson and loyal democrat, yet she denies the support that real longtime democrats like Chet Edwards and Governor Ann Richards gave to Parnell McNamara.

      She comes across like a woman with a personal vendetta then the well informed political activist she pretends to be. She claims to be a longtime friend of Parnell McNamara, but what kind of person would smear their friend as much as Ms. Schroeder has done, then pretend to love and respect him. She sounds more like an overly obsessed school girl who had a huge crush on Mr. McNamara who's feelings weren't returned. So in an abnormal psychological behavior, she is going to destroy his image and reputation for not returning her love.

      Delete
  2. stump speech:

    pot, kettle.... At least he has the cajones to say it himself vs. parnell who hides behind you people

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Parnell spoke on at least a dozen occasions throughout the Primary election season. This is the first we are hearing from Tompkins. He didn't even turn in his finance reports on time.

      Delete
    2. During the primary Mr. McNamara had an opponent. In an election when unopposed it is quite normal for a candidate not to go on a speaking tour. Now is the time for Mr. Tompkins and Mr. McNamara to hold forums and speak about the issues.

      Delete
    3. So far, Mr. Tompkins has had a speaking engagement with the Sheriff's Association. They were floored by Mr. Tompkins' disconnect with the reality of law enforcement in McLennan County. He had been invited because the Sheriff's Association had planned to endorse him. They instead reversed course and heavily endorsed Parnell McNamara, despite the threats of the current Sheriff.

      These are the people who deal with the drug dealers and the cold cases now. With Mr. Tompkins denying these things, he basically invalidated what every law enforcement officer in McLennan County does for a living every day. It's no wonder that none of the law enforcement agencies endorse him. These agencies have worked with both of these men, and it's plan who they trust.

      Delete
    4. If I am correct these same organizations endorsed many candidates including Randy Plemons and they all lost. I wouldn't put too much merit into not receiving an endorsement. Personally I am glad they chose not to. Also how can a "lame duck" sheriff threaten this group about anything at all. He is out. The mentality of some of these posts are actually quite comical.

      Delete
    5. Once again Ms. Schroeder proves she has no idea what she's talking about.

      The Sheriff's Association is endorsing McNamara along with every other law enforcement group in the county. Sheriff Lynch has well known history for "reassigning" deputies that disagreed with his opinions. That's why some many of the deputies can not do their jobs now, because the slightest mistake get that deputy demoted by Lynch, sorry I meant reassigned. So a "lame duck" Sheriff still controls the jobs of the deputies until the new Sheriff takes office. A lame duck official can do alot of things before their term is up, that's why Commissioners have invoked state measures on Lame Duck Lynch's Sheriff budget.

      And yes, all their candidates lost, kind of like all of yours did. The difference, is they are now getting behind a winner, while you continue to choose poorly because you can't get past your own personal vendetta against a man you would have us all believe is a treasured friend. Glad I'm not your friend, so I don't have to watch my back 24/7.

      Delete
  3. "You people," he says, then signs his comment as "Anonymous." - The Legendary

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Tompkins might want to do some better research before speaking. The unsolved cases he doesn't think exist are documented and verified. Maybe Mr. Tompkins is saying that to keep more of his recruited voters from going back to jail before the election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't know much about this subject but wouldn't some of these cases be under the jurisdiction of the police departments in the county. Do the police want to share with the Sheriff's office their unsolved cases. It would be great if they would work together.

      Delete
    2. County Sheriff has jurisdiction over the whole county as spelled out be Texas Government Code. Besides, many of the departments want to join his effort and work with him. The local departments are lining up to work with Parnell McNamara when he becomes Sheriff. It's something the current Sheriff does not readily promote. As a Deputy US Marshal, they have an outstanding reputation for working and coordinating with local agencies. Marshal have long adopted a policy of "force multiplers".

      Delete
    3. If there are so many cold cases why aren't these cases being investigated now. If this is such a critical issue why isn't there a cold case unit working now. Why did it just come up now? Tompkins worked across law enforcement lines throughout his career. In my opinion this is a joke.

      Delete
    4. There are more then 53 document murder cold cases. Sheriff Lynch doesn't put a priority on these case. He doesn't put much priority on current cases, but that's what you get from an administrator.

      This isn't something new that's come up, it just that this is the first time in 12 years that there is a Sheriff candidate who is will to listen to the lose suffered by the victims. I guess Mr. Tompkins will continue Lynch's practice of ignoring victims. Those policies served Randy Plemons well in his campaign, oh wait he lost.

      Delete
  5. I thought Thompkins was smarter then that in what he said,just like sending a 20 year veteran to drug school and other schools that PLEMONS go to,they could not find drugs if it was in there pocket and PLEMONS spend money on going to the sheriffs association,taxpayers payed the bill for a non-member.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't understand the post above. What do you mean?

      Delete
    2. Mr. Parks, I thought your interview was very well written. You did a great job! I am so glad you attended.

      Delete
  6. Thank you. The Legendary Jim Parks

    ReplyDelete
  7. All the supporters of Thompkins,show up to court tuesday and let the commissioners know what you said about going over budget .where was everybody when the only true reporter in Mclennan county ,the one and only legendary was reporting it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Show up to the commissioners court on tuesday and express your opinion about the tax increase.I bet no tea party person will speak up ,just set there and say nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Parks, You have a good point. I heard that Lowell Brown from the Waco Trib was there but wasn't going to be able to report on the event until later. You did a good job. You got the scoop.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Too Many Prisoners http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/too-many-prisoners.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120805

    The Justice Department in its recent annual report on federal sentencing issues wisely acknowledged that public safety can be maximized without maximizing prison spending. As it noted, the growing federal prison population, now more than 218,000 inmates, and a prison budget of almost $6.2 billion are “incompatible with a balanced crime policy and are unsustainable.”

    The department calls for reforms “to make our public safety expenditures smarter and more productive.” Yet it fails to address sentencing changes that should be made, which would significantly reduce the problem of overincarceration in federal prisons.

    Last fall, the United States Sentencing Commission issued a comprehensive report that said mandatory minimum sentences are often “excessively severe,” especially for people convicted of drug-trafficking offenses, who make up more than 75 percent of those given such sentences. Mandatory minimums have contributed in the last 20 years to the near tripling of federal prisoners, with more than half the prisoners now in for drug crimes.

    There is no good evidence that long mandatory sentences deter crime. There is very good evidence that older prisoners (45 and up) are the least dangerous and that many should be released.

    The Justice Department report does not mention mandatory minimum sentences or their major contribution to overincarceration in federal prisons. And it fails to urge Congress to make repealing mandatory minimums a high priority, as it should. It does not mention releasing older prisoners, which the Federal Bureau of Prisons has the power to do.

    Nor does it mention adjusting its own policies on drug cases so it would put away fewer offenders not considered dangerous. About 25,000 people were convicted of federal drug offenses last year, almost the same number as during the Bush administration in 2008 — a substantial proportion in low-level roles of drug trafficking, according to the Sentencing Commission.

    The department sensibly calls for more cost-effective prison policies, but that would require reconsideration of the basic purpose of punishment. The unsustainable federal prison budget and the rising inmate population reflect the country’s long, wasteful embrace of retribution. Both numbers are higher than they need to be for public safety.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In other words, let more criminals go so Mr. Tompkins can have more voters.

      I have a question for Ms. Schroeder. What is your position on the Mr. Tompkins' hallmark case of the Lake Waco Triple Murder? In Sunday's Waco Trib, it showed that the crime lab used has a history of unethical practices and would not disclose the methods used to convict Melendez from the Triple Murders. So how do you feel about Mr. Tompkins been a party of convicting what looks to be an innocent man of murder?

      But yes, releasing inmates because of overcrowding and budget concerns worked so well the first time. Luckily we have men like Parnell McNamara running for positions like Sheriff who have the experience of putting these heinous criminals back in prison to see there sentences carried out.

      Delete
  11. Dear Anonymous, I merely posted an article about federal spending and different opinions on how to cut costs. I thought it was an intelligent article. Are you not aware of the public debate on spending in this country today?

    As far as the Lake Waco issue I am just glad that these criminals are off the street. I know nothing about the case except that Bishop Tompkins played a very important role in solving a crime. I believe Truman Simons who supports Mr. McNamara was the lead detective. Why don't you ask him what he did that was unethical. He was the one directing the investigation from start to finish. Your candidate must understand budgets and shortfalls. In no way was I indicating that violent criminals should be released. Have some common sense for goodness sake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tompkins is a Bishop now? He'll be Pope by November, why even run for Sheriff?

      You've been the one heralding Mr. Tompkins's role in putting away people for the Lake Waco Murders, yet now you want to shift the blame to Truman Simon's. Sounds a lot like Obama wanting to blame Bush for his failed administration. If you don't know anything about the case, then you should keep your mouth shut about it. Better to be thought a fool, then open your mouth and remove all doubt, but it's too late now.

      Delete
  12. I very much agree that Mr. Tompkins played a pivotal role in the Lake Waco investigation. He said he found Mohammed Muneer Deeb's attitude about the violence used against the three young people shocking, an outrage to his sense of propriety. I can only agree with him.

    My impression of Mr. Tompkins is one of a man who is gifted in listening carefully to people and asking very intelligent questions that will elicit their truthful answer. He is very likely a wizard in that department. Most gifted. I consider myself lucky to be acquainted with The Reverend Willie Tompkins. - The Legendary

    ReplyDelete
  13. In response to Anonymous dated August 7.
    Do you seriously believe everything you read in the Waco Tribune Herald? They are just looking for a way to make a name for themselves. I know for a fact that the Trib. gets things wrong on a daily basis. It wasn't that long ago that they were obviously supporting Plemons over McNamara. Continuing to report on the Lake Waco Murders is just beating a dead horse. No intelligient person could ever truly believe that Spence and the rest of them were innocent.
    With all do respect, Mr. Anonymous, you need to do your homework before you start running your head based on something Cindy Culp wrote!
    Cindy also seems to have a vendetta, against Truman Simons. It looks like she must of had a huge crush on him.
    No, they didn't have DNA back then. However, DNA is not fool-proof. Besides, even if a court in this country actually took this crap seriously and had the DNA tested AGAIN, It's contaminated after all of these years. That evidence was kept in a shed out in someones back yard and has been passed around hundreds of times.
    Melendez took them to the exact place where the kids were killed, and knew facts that only the killers could know. Besides, he confessed, for Gods sake! Now, he's changing his story because the innocence project has assured him that he'll be given a lot of money when he's released.
    Why does this have anything to do with the Sheriff's race anyway? I supported McNamara. But seriously, his supporters need to stop all of the negative trash talk. It's over. Be happy!

    ReplyDelete