Abel Reyna / Tommy Witherspoon / Toxic Men / Truman Simons / Uncategorized / unwanted sex / Vic Feazell / Waco / Waco Injustice / Waco News / wacopedia







What is “Simonized?”

“Simonized” is when you believe Truman Simons over your own brain and common sense.  It takes a while,  it’s like “grooming”,  one becomes “Simonized” trusting the “strong, silent, cop” type thing.  Hero worship.  Thinking, mistakenly that someone is truthful and follow The Path and The Lord like he says he does.  Loyal.  Well, until.

Being “Simonized” means “trust me”, it means that if you ask Truman Simons a question directly, like,  “Why on earth did you shred the truck”?,   Simons will not answer you and try to make you believe he has some Secret Sam reason that he can’t share with you.  Because it’s for your own good.

Asking Truman about shredding the truck cured me of being Simonized very quickly.  Within an hour I had been threatened by three people made a choice and have been taking the “crazy” medicine Simons promised me I would be swallowing the rest of my life.

I wonder how on earth a Private Detective makes a living and is actually on the stand or deposition after publicly lying in a deposition that is online?  How many lies do you get to tell as an “expert” before it becomes a problem in a Court of Law?


Wanna have a good time?  Ask Truman Simons about the truck.  He’ll turn eggplant.  Don’t worry, he wears DPS glasses all the time so he won’t look you in the eye to scare you.

“Hey, Truman, why’d you shred the truck, why no luminol?”

Remember they, Truman and Vic, got the FBI to luminol the other vehicles.

So, does being the big hero dismiss a big lie in a sworn statement around here just because you made it to a book and a LIFETIME movie with Robert Conrad?

Image result for truman simonsImage result for truman simons



Master peace officer certification.35 years law enforcement experience. Retired Captain McLennan CountySheriff’s department. 12 years experience with personal injury and criminal defense Law Firms. featured in best selling true crime novel, Careless whispers. TV movie, Sworn to Vengeance.


Truman Simons in a deposition in 2003 against Brian Pardo and John McLemore over an article in a “trade magazine” where they question the guilt of David Spence and the others in the famous Lake Waco Triple Murder, blames the break up of his marriage on the article.

He  forgets about his affair with the wife of Waco Fire Chief, John Johnston,  “Sherre”  in his first deposition.  This is the second.

“Sherre”,   then becomes a secretary for Vic Feazell for the next 10 years or so,      AND  is listed on Simons’ Private Detective license.

Simons is represented by Dave Deaconson of Waco,  read how lawyer Deaconson tries to “clean up”   Simons’    ideas of WHEN an affair begins.



VIC FEAZELL,  TRUMAN SIMONS,  NED BUTLER,  and HOMER CAMPBELL (Forensics Dentist)  VS      BRIAN PARDO   and                                  JOHN   MCLEMORE

— Fredric Dannen <fdannen@csi.com>  is the sender of this email—-

> >  8      Q.  Do you recall having any conversations
> with
>  9  Nicoletti about his investigation into Tab
> Harper as a
> 10  potential suspect before the arrest of Muneer
> Deeb?
> 11      A.  I spoke with him, but I don’t remember
> exactly
> 12  what our conversation was other than he had
> checked out
> 13  Tab Harper and didn’t feel like he was a
> suspect.
> 14      Q.  Did you consider Nicoletti to be an
> extremely
> 15  effective investigator?
> 16      A.  Yes, sir, I did.
> 17      Q.  And if he had advised you that he had
> 18  eliminated him as a suspect, you wouldn’t have
> required
> 19  him to explain how he went about doing that?
> 20      A.  I wasn’t in a position to require him
> to do
> 21  anything; I was an investigator on the case.
> 22      Q.  Would he have cooperated with you in
> helping
> 23  you solve the Lake Waco murders if you had
> asked him
> 24  to?
> 25      A.  Yes, sir.
> 0286
>  1      Q.  But you didn’t get into the details as
> to how
>  2  he had eliminated Tab Harper as a suspect,
> correct?
>  3      A.  No, sir.
>  4      Q.  Is that correct?
>  5      A.  Yes, sir, that’s correct.
>  6      Q.  When did the relationship with Sherry
> start?
>  7      A.  Do what? 
>  8      Q.  The relationship, the extramarital 
>  9  relationship that you’re having?  Isn’t her
> name 
> 10  Sherry?
> 11      A.  Okay.  Probably in November.
> 12      Q.  November of 2000?
> 13      A.  Yes, sir. 
> 14      Q.  And is that when the actual affair
> started or 
> 15  is that when you all first met or what
> significant date 
> 16  is that?
> 17      A.  I met her about a year before that. 
> 18      Q.  Okay.  And kind of generally take me
> as to 
> 19  what happened between the two of you in the
> year period 
> 20  of time from when you met until the
> relationship became 
> 21  an affair?
> 22                MR. DEACONSON:  I’m going to
> object.  You 
> 23  don’t have to answer that.  That’s wholly
> irrelevant.
> 24      Q.  (BY MR. DE DIEGO) Well, the reason I’m
> asking 
> 25  is because you have claimed to have been
> mentally 
> 0287
>  1  anguished as a result of the statements made by
> my 
>  2  clients, and I think I’m entitled — and you’ve
> also 
>  3  said that you were affected by the breakup or
> the 
>  4  potential breakup with your wife, and I want to
> know 
>  5  what involvement that has to do with the
> breakup with 
>  6  your wife in relation to anything else that may
> have 
>  7  happened as a result of my — my clients’
> allegedly 
>  8  defamatory statements.
>  9                MR. DEACONSON:  Well, you asked
> him 
> 10  what — when the alleged affair started.  He
> told you 
> 11  that date.  Anything else before that has
> nothing to do 
> 12  with anything and I think —
> 13                MR. DE DIEGO:  Well, the reason I
> ask —
> 14                MR. DEACONSON:  — I think that’s
> just 
> 15  harassment —
> 16                MR. DE DIEGO:  No, it really
> isn’t —
> 17                MR. DEACONSON:  — and I’m going
> to tell 
> 18  him he doesn’t have to answer.
> 19                MR. DE DIEGO:  — Mr. Deaconson,
> and let 
> 20  me explain why.  The reason I wanted to know
> what was 
> 21  the course of the affair is because it may have
> taken a 
> 22  long time for it to become an affair, but
> during that 
> 23  period of time it may have had an effect on Mr.
> Simons’
> 24  marriage before it actually became an affair
> that I 
> 25  think I’m entitled to get into to see if that’s
> a 
> 0288
>  1  potential cause of the stress or mental anguish
> that 
>  2  Mr. Simons is claiming in this case.
>  3                MR. DEACONSON:  Well, you know —
>  4                THE WITNESS:  Can we talk a
> minute?
>  5                MR. DEACONSON:  Yeah.
>  6                THE WITNESS:  Can we go off the
> record a 
>  7  second?
>  8                MR. DE DIEGO:  Yes, sir.
>  9                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We’re going
> off the 
> 10  record at 1:27.
> 11                (Recess 1:27 to 1:32.)
> 12                THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We’re on the
> record at 
> 13  1:32.
> 14      Q.  (BY MR. DE DIEGO) My previous
> question, Mr.
> 15  Simons, was you mentioned you had started
> having your
> 16  dealings with Sherry — by the way, what’s her
> last
> 17  name?
> 18      A.  I’d just as soon not give her last
> name.
> 19      Q.  Okay.  You started having your
> dealings with
> 20  Sherry approximately a year before November of
> 2001
> 21  when you started having the affair with her?
> 22      A.  That’s correct.
> 23      Q.  And my question was:  Generally what 
> 24  transpired between the two of you during that
> period of 
> 25  time from about a year before sometime in
> November of 
> 0289
>  1  1999 through November of 2000?
>  2      A.  Do you want me to start with how I
> first met 
>  3  her?
>  4      Q.  Yeah, how you met her and what
> happened and 
>  5  how the relationship became an affair.
>  6      A.  Okay.  I was investigating a murder
> case that 
>  7  she had an interest in, and she came to my
> office and 
>  8  asked me to not get involved in the
> investigation of 
>  9  the case because she had read all the stuff
> about me in 
> 10  the papers and on the Internet.  And I told her
> that I 
> 11  was a captain at the Sheriff’s Office and that
> I was in 
> 12  charge of all the criminal investigations and I
> was 
> 13  already involved in the investigation of that
> murder 
> 14  case and that I didn’t think that anything that
> had 
> 15  been said in the paper would jeopardize the
> potential 
> 16  prosecution of that case.  She also went to the

> 17  District Attorney’s Office and talked with them
> to try 
> 18  to get them to keep me from being involved in
> the 
> 19  investigation, and they told them that they
> didn’t have 
> 20  any authority to do that. 
> 21                And then we successfully resolved
> that 
> 22  murder case as far as from the investigation 
> 23  standpoint.  We arrested two people; we got a 
> 24  confession from one.  And then her and her
> mother would 
> 25  infrequently come in the office over the course
> of that 
> 0290
>  1  next year inquiring about the case.  And I
> talked 
=== message truncated ===


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.