If you read the "Case" section of this website, you know that John Maloney was convicted based upon innuendo, speculation, and titillation.  There was no confession -- there was nothing to confess to -- but jurors were swept away by the prosecutor's courtroom theatrics, sex-laced testimony and the failure of defense counsel to defend John Maloney. 

It all comes down to this:  if Sandy was murdered, the fire was deliberately set, and if the fire was deliberately set, Sandy was murdered.  You can't have one without the other.  It is equally true that if the fire was not deliberately set, then Sandy could not have been murdered, and if Sandy was not murdered, the fire could not have been deliberately set.  Handy for the state that John's trial lawyer never challenged these premises.  In fact, John's lawyer repeatedly stipulated that Sandy was murdered and the fire was intentionally set. 

The efforts of John Maloney, his family and his supporters to fully, fairly and objectively examine the fire evidence and the forensic pathology cited to support a murder allegation have been met with a circling of the wagons at all levels of Wisconsin's jurisprudence system, particularly the Attorney General's office.  Why?  Because this case was handled from the outset by special agents of the Wisconsin Department of Justice's Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI).  What began with a forensic pathologist (who was suffering the effects of AIDS, which later claimed his life) mistaking lividity for a sign of "probable manual strangulation," was ratcheted into murder by two DCI agents who lied to the local medical examiner in order to get him to call Sandy's death homicide.  The ME says that information critical to determining cause of death was withheld from him, and that he was told the fire was "unquestionably arson."  Without the arson finding, Sandy's death would have been ruled accidental.  Affidavit of Dr. Gregory Schmunk.

But there was no evidence that the fire was anything but the accidental result of Sandy passing out, drunk, with a lit cigarette.  To cure that problem, DCI agent Greg Eggum committed forensic fraud and, at trial, perjury. He claimed that a liquid accelerant (80-proof vodka, which is 60% water) was used to start the fire, and he cited "pour patterns" on the floor to support this.  These were actually run patterns from the melting sofa cushions.  Click HERE to view a short film narrated by fire expert Dr. James Munger which demonstrates this. (Click the "Back" button of your browser to return here at the end of the film.)

Agent Eggum knew better, but he was a team player.  He knew that the Department of Justice would bring all its resources to protect him, even after he retired and went to work investigating fires for insurance companies.  Attorneys General come and go, and still the crimes committed by their agents and employees go uncorrected, unacknowledged, and certainly unpunished.  Their efforts run the gamut, from former AG Peg Lautenschlager commissioning her personal lawyer to draft a cover-up that re-wrote investigators' reports to support the conviction, to ex parte contact about the case with Supreme Court Justice Butler (who wrote the opinion affirming John's conviction) by Deputy Attorney General Gregory Weber. 

Here's a quick trip through the hall of mirrors called the Wisconsin Department of Justice that illustrates what we mean:

• Listen to Wis. Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager (making a campaign appearance in her unsuccessful bid for re-election)  tell Matt Maloney to report forensic fraud and perjury by DCI arson investigator Greg Eggum to the Wisconsin Department of Justice
• Read the corruption complaint filed against DCI arson investigator Greg Eggum (links to complaint and all documentation)
• Listen to DCI arson investigator Greg Eggum's response
• Read the letter from the Wisconsin Department of Justice saying -- twice -- "I will not be pursuing your complaint."

Ask yourself:  Why is it more important for the Wisconsin Department of Justice to cover up crimes by its own agents than to admit when their agent put an innocent man in prison? 

Current Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has kept the wagons circled.  Wisconsin needs an Attorney General cut from the same cloth as Dallas DA Craig Watkins, a man who is courageous enough to admit that innocent people have been convicted and imprisoned unjustly--especially when the agents and employees of his own department of government are responsible for it.

That man -- or woman -- is not J.B. Van Hollen.  If you live in Wisconsin, J.B. will soon be looking for your vote, either for another stint as Attorney General, or for the prize he really wants, Governor.  Do not vote for this man.  Do not reward malfeasance.  If he's not part of the solution, he's part of the problem.  As long as "justice" is defined as "convictions at all costs," no one in Wisconsin will be well served -- or safe.  Remember, you get the justice system you demand, or the justice system you settle for.

We will be reviewing the candidates as they step forward, and will have more to say on this subject.