Response to Prosecutor William Vailliencourt

William Vailliencourt, head of the Prosecutor’s Office in Livingston County, MI spearheaded the prosecution of Josh Burns for child abuse. He continues pursuing a malicious and illegal intrusion into Brenda and Naomi’s lives despite Brenda being exonerated of any wrongdoing. Mr. William Vailliencourt has provided the media with a written statement (pdf) about this case in an attempt to defend the unlawful, untruthful and malicious conduct of his office. Mr. William Vailliencourt is an elected official. He is a public servant who is required to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States as well as those of the State of Michigan even if he personally disagrees with them.

Josh Burns has written the following statement in response to Mr. William Vailliencourt. The events that Josh refers to in his response are based on fact and have been witnessed by numerous people:

In an attempt to defend the actions of his office, Mr. William Vailliencourt has issued an official statement on my case as well as the website that my supporters have created. I would like to address the issues he brings up in that statement.

Mr. Vailliencourt begins by stating, “It is important to remember that the version of events presented by the defendant and his family and friends is a version of events that was rejected twice by each of two separate juries – juries made up of members of this community.” The claim that the story told by myself, my supporters and the website is a version of events rejected by two separate juries is false.

The juries in the civil and criminal trials were denied access to integral pieces of evidence that point to my innocence. One example of evidence that was suppressed from the jury is an email exchange between Dr. Bethany Mohr and Dr. Alex Levin. Dr. Mohr sought a second opinion from Dr. Levin and when that opinion called into question her diagnosis of child abuse the e-mail was concealed from Brenda and myself and later kept from the juries.

Another example of suppressed evidence is the large amount of peer-reviewed medical research that was barred from being presented to the jury. This medical research showed how Naomi’s symptoms were caused by something other than abuse. I also took two polygraph tests related to the crime I was accused of and passed both. These test results were given to the Prosecution but were not allowed to be shown to the jury due to rules of evidence. All of these items I have just listed can be verified by many witnesses to this case.

Mr. Vailliencourt continues by saying, “First, a jury of six found that allegations in the abuse and neglect case against Mr. Burns were proven. Second, another jury of twelve in the criminal case found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Burns committed child abuse against his daughter – an intentional act, not an accident. In each case, Mr. Burns testified and in each case the jury found him responsible for committing abuse. I think you can assess what the jury thought of his credibility. Simply having them restated for the press doesn’t make those statements any more worthy of belief.”

My response to these assertions is that during the civil trial the jury asked to see the exchange between Dr. Mohr and Dr. Levin. The court denied the request of the jury. The letter can be viewed in the defense section of the evidence tab on the website. After the jury rendered its’ verdict in the civil trial the jury foreman told my attorney, Mike Cronkright, that he could not get past the fact that every time Naomi was taken to the hospital she had been alone with me. The jury was led to believe this falsehood (that can be confirmed by witnesses) because assistant prosecutor Betsy Sedore deliberately lied in order to deceive the jury into believing that I was alone with Naomi every time she ended up in the ER or the ambulance. Clearly the jury was not presented with all the evidence and it was also led to believe a falsehood by the prosecution.

Mr. Vailliencourt then states, “Testifying at both trials was the head of the University of Michigan Child Protection team, who is a nationally recognized expert. This child almost died. This was not birth trauma, but child abuse. And we won’t know until she gets older what lasting effects the victim might have suffered.”

My response to the prosecutor’s assertions that Dr. Mohr is a nationally recognized expert is that Dr. Mohr has never published any peer reviewed medical journal articles. Despite never publishing peer reviewed research herself, the doctor refused to acknowledge the authority of any peer reviewed medical research presented by the defense because if she did it would hurt the prosecution’s case against us. The experts who testified for the defense were much more experienced and qualified than Dr. Mohr, including the two child abuse pediatricians who testified that there were other valid medical explanations for Naomi’s symptoms and that a diagnosis of abuse would be way down on the list of cause of injury. Their testimony (as well as Dr. Mohr’s) can be read in the evidence section of the website. Dr. Mohr also has a criminal record in the state of Florida related to a false report of an accident. This is public record. This false report is a crime of dishonesty which calls into question Dr. Mohr’s credibility. This fact was not allowed to be presented to the jury.

Mr. Vailliencourt finally ends his statement with the following, “Neither we nor the court currently know the location of the child. The court has scheduled a hearing on that matter on March 19. We have litigated our case in the courts, where it is the appropriate place to do so, and will continue to do so.”

My response to the Prosecutor’s Office is that based on the recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling in the Sanders decision they have no legal right to know Brenda and Naomi’s address. Despite this, they have been informed of Brenda and Naomi’s new address. In fact CPS and a state trooper showed up at her new residence and requested to come inside. They were denied entry by the homeowner because they did not have a warrant.

The Prosecutor’s Office and CPS/DHS are not just simply interested in Naomi’s safety as they claim. Rather they are interested in continuing to harass the Burns family and assert illegal jurisdiction over Brenda’s relationship with Naomi. After the City of Brighton Police Department entered Brenda’s previous home without a warrant, I contacted the police, prosecution and CPS/DHS and volunteered to wear an ankle tether which would allow the state to know my location 24 hours a day in order to set their minds at ease that I have no intention of breaking the No Contact Order. I received no response to my offer because law enforcement, prosecution and CPS knew such an action would prevent further illegal intrusion into Brenda and Naomi’s lives. The Livingston County Prosecutor’s Office is more interested in maintaining their power than following the law or fairly prosecuting residents.

It is also interesting to note that Mr. Vailliencourt continues to bring up that I was convicted by a jury of my peers, however, the Prosecutor’s Office fails to recognize that Brenda was exonerated by a jury of her peers and continue to treat her like an unfit parent. He hypocritically argues the public should believe I was fairly convicted by a jury while refusing to acknowledge Brenda’s innocence has been upheld by a jury and offers no reason to call her exoneration into question.



William Vailliencourt prosecuted Josh Burns without evidence, and continues a malicious intrusion into Brenda's life despite Brenda being exonerated.
Update: The Burns Family Finally Reunited, December 2015. Naomi is happy and healthy, suffering no long term effects from her illness.