IL IL - Maria Ridulph, 7, Sycamore, 3 Dec 1957

[DragonAsh]

As for the sweater, one half-sister testified that he owned a multicolored sweater similar to the one described by the eyewitness, Kathy Sigman. She said his mother made it for him, and that she never saw it again after the murder.

(Tessier's half-sister)

Katheran Tessier Caulfield, a retired secretary for architectural firm in Virginia, Minn., included half-brother John in her long list of siblings and identified him in the courtroom. She described him in the late 1950s as “tall and gangly, six feet tall, with a wavy-hair doo-wop hairdo on the top.” She said he frequently wore a multicolor sweater knitted by their mother.

She also said she never saw the multicolored sweater after that day.

Well ok - but um, remind me again, when would they have seen *John* again at all, sweater or not? He had signed up for the military, remember? That's why he was at the recruiter's office Dec 2 and 3rd. He left a few days later and joined the Army and Air Force. Served in Vietnam. He would have rapidly outgrown any sweater he wore as an 18yrold wo.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Second: Clearly this was an impulse crime – the criminal surely wasn't planning on two kids being outside, alone, after dark. So the prosecution’s case is that this 18yr old kid – later in life described as ‘consistent in screwing up’ – on impulse, kidnaps Maria, then stabs her – nobody heard a scream, so why did he have to kill her? Where was the knife? Seems unlikely he’d be walking around with a knife while giving the girls piggyback rides. So, impulse – grabs Maria, maybe wants to have sexy time with her – then suddenly decides to kill her? Not just hit her to shut her up, no – he stabs her in the chest and throat – that would have been a pretty bloody kill. He then morphs into a criminal mastermind. He hides the body, the knife, and his clothes – they almost certainly would have had blood on them, including from when he was picking up the body to hide it – and hides everything where nobody finds a damn thing, despite an intense search that started as early as shortly after 8pm. Oh, but he randomly forgets about the doll, which is found outside the garage near the corner where they were playing.

It's great that you have an interest in this case.

Imo though, you're making too many assumptions about the killer, his motives and his expertise. Serial killings and stranger abductions/murders are the hardest to solve because of the 'unknown' factor.

AFAIK, we don't know this was an impulse crime. Tessier had quite a fascination with Maria for quite awhile, and he remembers and describes her vividly as if it were yesterday.
I ask the same question you've asked of Kathy in your post but of Tessier, why does a 18 yr old boy, who's lived a 'big life', remember a 7 yr old girl from his neighbourhood more than 50 yrs later?
It is not unheard for a young guy back then or even now, carrying a pocket knife. He was going into the armed forces after all, so it's pretty feasible that he owned one. Was it verified that he did own a pocket knife? If it was, was it still on him? Idk.

Leaving the doll behind doesn't mean a thing, Maria was snatched from the street by a stranger/acquaintance, it's happened before that time and since, there is no point hiding the fact where Maria was snatched from so imo, the doll is irrelevant. The killer had the girl and the doll remaining behind didn't matter.

Anyway - just when is this 18yr old kid supposed to have found a way – and found the time – to go retrieve the body, then drive 240-odd miles round trip to hide the body in Galena? That’s what, a 5 hour trip at least if you know exactly where you’re going and know exactly how to get back – and the location of the body is a very rural area; it’s not like they had GPS back then. Cars entering and leaving Sycamore were searched. Pretty tough to get out of town with a body in the trunk when they’re searching cars.
We know that he was in the military recruiting station in Rockford at 7:15pm on the night of the kidnapping. Actually, someone giving the name ‘John Tessier’ placed a collect call…from Rockford – to the Tessier home at 6:57pm – if this was ‘Johnny’, we have to put him Rockford 15 minutes earlier. But let’s go with the 7:15pm timeline for a minute.
Rockford was 90 minutes by train, an hour by car. If he took the train, clearly there’s no way he can commit the crime – he would have left Sycamore by 5:45pm.
If he drove? Well - it seems rather illogical to expect max driving speeds – it was dark and snowing, remember? But let’s give the prosecution every benefit of a doubt, and assume that it took only exactly 45 minutes for him to drive to Rockford, park, and get to the recruiting officeby 7:15. He has to leave Sycamore by 6:30pm.
According to the prosecution’s timeline, Tom Braddy, the oil delivery guy, sees the Maria and Kathy at 6:05pm, nobody else around. Maria’s mother says she saw Maria and Kathy at 6:05pm in front of their house when she is in the car and pulls out of the driveway. She also sees Tom Braddy’s truck. She sees the girls playing on the corner when she returns – how long was she gone? 5-10 minutes? Tom Braddy says he didn’t see the girls at ‘6:20pm’ as he left. A bus driver passing by around 6:30pm says he didn’t see anybody.
This seems to suggest that the kidnapping happened between the time Maria’s mother got home, say 6:15pm, and 6:20pm, when Tom Braddy says he didn’t see the kids.
But that means that Johnny has to come up, talk to them, ('he's 24, not married'), take turns giving them piggy-back rides, Maria runs home to get her doll, run back, then Kathy runs back home, and runs back, Maria and Johnny gone – all in the span of 5 minutes, and Tom Braddy never sees any of this. No Johnny, no piggyback rides, nothing.
Incidentally, as near as I can find out, Kathy never says anything about seeing Tom Braddy’s truck. Also incidentally, Kathy told investigators that before running back to her house to get the mittens, she asked Johnny what time it was, and he said ‘7pm’. Criminal mastermind! He knows to lie about the time even before he’s committed the crime!
Anyway – it’s 6:20 and now Jack has just 10 minutes to run somewhere with Maria, kill her, hide the body, hide the bloody clothes, hide the knife (where was he keeping a knife??), all without being seen by Tom Braddy or the bus driver, remember. And after this 18yr old kid had killed someone by stabbing them in the chest and throat – this would have been a very bloody kill – and somehow manages to hide all the evidence so well that nobody finds a damn thing, no blood on him or his clothes, at 6:30pm he….jumps in the car and drives to Rockford for the meeting with the recruiter?
Not ‘jumps in the car and goes to dispose of the body in a river somewhere’. No, he leaves the body where it is – where nobody can find it, yet has to be within a few minutes’ walking distance of the corner where they were playing – or he has the bloody body, knife and clothes in his car, and speeds into the city. And then drives *back* - again, body still where it is, or in his car, and he’s at home all night of December 3rd, as attested to by his sisters.

The recruiters never say anything about ‘Johnny’ showing up in a ‘colorful sweater’. When did he change clothes? What happened to his bloody clothes? Where was the body while he was doing this?

If we assume that the 6:57pm collect call from Rockford by ‘John Tessier’ is John – and really, that’s the most logical conclusion – then the timeline moves up 15 minutes. Now he has to leave Sycamore by 6:15pm…and there’s just not enough time to do all the talking and piggyback riding and going home to get dolls and grabbing & stabbing & hiding etc, all without being seen by either Maria’s mom or Tom Braddy. I mean, we’re not just talking reasonable doubt, we’re talking ‘defies the laws of physics’.
If you want to make the case that the call was not John….then who was it? Again, we have this 18yr old kid, a ‘constant screwup’, yet someone who, at the age of 18, is sharp enough to quickly grab clean clothes from home without being seen by anyone (and those bloody clothes disappear, and nobody, not even his sisters, say that he owned such a 'colorful sweater, seems like a rather odd omission) before going to the recruiting station, and he knows enough to have someone provide him with an alibi by having someone else call collect, to his home, using his name, from Rockford at 6:57pm. Right, because at 18 he was already a mastermind criminal and knew that those 15 minutes were enough to provide an alibi.
But who did he ask to make the call? Who did he know in the area? How did he ask him? They didn't have cellphones back then.

I don't find it hard to believe that the recruiters wouldn't notice Tessier's clothing, 'the colorful sweater'. It is something a girl/woman would notice, imo. The recruiters did comment on his behaviour, overall demeanor and conversation he made. Clothing style/colour is not relevant.

The time the killer had to groom the girls and kidnap Maria wouldn't take long, 5 minutes easily, imo. It was a cold evening and well-timed, it's proven it can be achieved in every other instance where a child's gone missing, it's takes less than 5 or 6 minutes. A grown up controls the situation, the children are the pawns who do as they're told.

It's eerie that you call him a 'mastermind', because it actually fits him quite well as it does most opportunistic pedophiles/predators. Their minds are as sharp as a tack, it's very easy for them to fool a child, it's very easy to feign innocence of wrong doing. Many have perfected the grooming skills and the lies to get away with it while still in their teens.

This is an excerpt from a CNN report regarding Tessier's alibi and part of FBI investigations -

He said then, and he says now, that he was in Rockford, Illinois, some 40 miles northwest of Sycamore, when Maria was kidnapped and that he called home for a ride. His parents backed up his story, and it was supported by a single, indisputable fact: Somebody placed a collect call from Rockford to the Tessier home at 6:57 p.m. on December 3, 1957. The caller gave his name as "John Tassier," the operator noted.
But almost from the beginning, the timing of Maria's disappearance was in dispute.
If she was taken around 7, then Tessier seemed to have an ironclad alibi. But if she was grabbed closer to 6:15, then his alibi didn't cover him. He could have driven from Sycamore to Rockford by 7 p.m. before dumping her body.
Nobody disputes that John traveled December 2 to Chicago to take a physical examination at the military recruiting station on Van Buren Street.
A chest X-ray found a spot, and he failed. He spent the night at a YMCA and returned the next morning for another physical, which he again failed because of the spot, a scar from a childhood bout of tuberculosis.
Tessier said he walked around Chicago the afternoon of December 3, stopping in at a couple of burlesque shows, and then took the 5:15 p.m. train to Rockford, about a 90-minute trip, to drop off paperwork at the recruiting station there.
Recruiters verify that he showed up at their office between 7:15 and 7:30 that evening, after they had closed. He talked with at least two recruiters about getting a note from his doctor to address the spot on his lung. One recruiter told the FBI he thought the nervous young man was a "narcotic," a drug addict. The other remembered him as "a lost sheep."
A third recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jon Oswald, met with Tessier the morning of December 4 at the Rockford office. The recruit had a fresh cut on his lip and made small talk, saying it was a good thing that he was not in Sycamore the previous night because of "the disappearance of the girl," Oswald recalled for the FBI.
Tessier also told the recruiter he'd never be considered a suspect because his girlfriend's father was a deputy sheriff. And then he showed Oswald his "little black book." It contained the names and addresses of girls in Sycamore, as well as their bust and hip measurements.
The FBI questioned Tessier on December 8, and two days later gave him a lie-detector test. Asked whether he ever had sex with children, Tessier admitted being "involved in some sex play" with a younger girl but said it happened years earlier. He said he'd outgrown it and had no relationship with Maria, although he acknowledged he knew her from the neighborhood.
Those details and his peculiar behavior with the recruiters didn't seem to raise suspicions at the time. Nor did his mother's contradictory stories: She'd told local police her son John was home all night December 3, and FBI agents that he was in Rockford that evening.

The more precise question was: Where was John Tessier between noon and 7 p.m. on December 3? Records placed him at the Chicago recruiting station that morning, but his whereabouts remained unaccounted for until he turned up at the Rockford recruiting station at about 7:15.
The FBI had only his uncorroborated version of what he did that afternoon.
Did he pass the time in Chicago and take a 5:15 train to Rockford, as he said? Or did he somehow make his way back to Sycamore?
An acquaintance recalled decades later that he spotted Tessier's car in Sycamore that afternoon, before Maria vanished. The Pontiac was hard to miss — it had flames painted on the sides — but the man didn't see who was behind the wheel.



This is the alibi timeline and how the investigators challenged it.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/us/oldest-cold-case/timeline.html

 

[bessie]

Well ok - but um, remind me again, when would they have seen *John* again at all, sweater or not? He had signed up for the military, remember? That's why he was at the recruiter's office Dec 2 and 3rd. He left a few days later and joined the Army and Air Force. Served in Vietnam. He would have rapidly outgrown any sweater he wore as an 18yrold wo.

Who knows. What's significant is that the half-sister and a friend testified that he owned multicolored sweaters.

But back to the timeline, it's tight, but not impossible. If he snatched Maria and took off as late as 6:20-6:25, he could have made it to a payphone on the edge of Rockford by 6:57-59. It's not necessary to factor in time for the attack and clean up, because the murder very well could have taken place after he left Rockford. And yes, I do believe he was clever enough to make that phone call, and the visit to the recruiter's office, to establish an alibi.

On pp. 28-29 of this pdf, there is a report dated July 27, 1958, by state police investigators in which they state:

"...it was known a man was with Maria at a much earlier time than was indicated in earlier reports."

Their opinion was based on an interview with the oil truck driver. Because of the footsteps leading to the garage, and through back lots, the investigators also were of the opinion that the man was a local.

 

[bessie]

A third recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jon Oswald, met with Tessier the morning of December 4 at the Rockford office. The recruit had a fresh cut on his lip and made small talk, saying it was a good thing that he was not in Sycamore the previous night because of "the disappearance of the girl," Oswald recalled for the FBI.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/us/oldest-cold-case/timeline.html

<rsbm>

The first recruiters might not have noticed what he was wearing, but one would think they'd have noticed a fresh cut on his lip (assuming it resulted from the attack). More reason to believe the murder occurred after he left Rockford the evening of December 3.

From Rockford, Woodbine, where Maria's body is found, is almost a straight shot west on Hwy 20. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Syc...7f745500c1!2m2!1d-90.1454047!2d42.3422349!3e0

The murder could have occurred where her body was found, or at any location along the way.

JMO

 

[PrimeSuspect]

a) That is not 'long blonde hair'.

b) Yes we absolutely can assume to know *exactly* what photos Kathy was shown, if the cops followed protocol: there are specific guidelines that have to be followed in having witnesses pick people out of a lineup or out of a lineup of photographs. The guidelines are in place to minimize the risk of people a) giving the answer they think the detectives want to hear, and b) unconsciously injecting a bias into the selection.
The police can't show Kathy a bunch of pictures of Johnny, then say, 'here's a lineup of 6 guys, who looks familiar'?
For example - one of the guidelines is that the pictures should be identical in terms of cropping, color, background, etc. The pictures she saw? Only one picture had a dark background. Only one picture had the subject looking directly at the camera. Only one person is not in a suit jacket. Only one photo screams out, 'I'm different from the others!'.
c) She picked someone out of a lineup not long after the actual case - presumably when johnny's face was even more fresh in her memory. She was completely wrong, the guy had an airtight alibi.
So she was wrong then, but we should believe - beyond a reasonable doubt - that 55 years later, she got it right this time?

And that is even before we get into how the timeline simply does not work.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...anks-deathbed-confession-murder-s-mother.html

John Tessier's hair is a sandy blond and that's a generous opinion considering the bad quality of the photographs, his hair sandy blond as a teen darkening to brown as he aged, imo.

We have to remember it was 1957, hair dangling onto a forehead would be considered long hair at the time. It was before the daily selfies, where people had a photograph taken once or twice a year, we can't go by one or two pics.

Also, depends on how much brylcreem he had in his hair to keep it in place and it darkens the appearance.

Tessier's pic was not shown to Kathy when she was a child because his alibi eliminated him. I don't know why Kathy picked out Rivard, I don't know what similarities he had to Tessier.

The bolded part I've read somewhere before, about the unfairness of the line up pics. It's a tough call to not show the pictures, the police had no choice, it was a piece of the puzzle where the other evidence helped prove their case.



More excerpts from part 3 CNN article


Because Tessier was expelled from school, there was no 1957 yearbook photo of him that accurately showed what he looked like then.

Kot concluded that Maria was taken no later than 6:20 p.m. If Tessier parked his car in the back alley where Maria's doll was found, he could have headed straight to Rockford with Maria in his car. It was a 40-mile trip, give or take a few miles, but there would have been little traffic on the back roads in 1957, and he easily could have made it to Rockford in less than an hour.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/us/oldest-cold-case/ch3.html

 

[DragonAsh]

Thanks for the reply. I find so much wrong with it I don't know quite where to start

AFAIK, we don't know this was an impulse crime. Tessier had quite a fascination with Maria for quite awhile, and he remembers and describes her vividly as if it were yesterday.

Cite for his 'fascination' with Maria? Who testified to this? Surely you're not basing this on comments he made 55 years later, right? I mean, you have testimony from people saying he talked about her at the time, stalked her, was seen following her or playing with her etc?

I ask the same question you've asked of Kathy in your post but of Tessier, why does a 18 yr old boy, who's lived a 'big life', remember a 7 yr old girl from his neighbourhood more than 50 yrs later?

Seriously? You wonder why a guy would forget the case of a little girl being murdered two blocks from his house? He was questioned by police about it - twice, at least - back then as well. It was a rather big deal. Her picture was in the paper for days afterwards, and he was in town for a week or so - in other words, he got a better look at pictures of Maria than Kathy ever got of Johnny's face.

It is not unheard for a young guy back then or even now, carrying a pocket knife. He was going into the armed forces after all, so it's pretty feasible that he owned one. Was it verified that he did own a pocket knife? If it was, was it still on him? Idk.

If you don't know, and nobody else knows, it's irrelevant. And if he did have a pocket knife, it's also irrelevant, because as you just noted, lots of guys then and now carry pocket knives.

I don't find it hard to believe that the recruiters wouldn't notice Tessier's clothing, 'the colorful sweater'. It is something a girl/woman would notice, imo. The recruiters did comment on his behaviour, overall demeanor and conversation he made. Clothing style/colour is not relevant.

Clothing style/color not relevant? Really? Do you think noticing clothing style and color is relevant to Kathy's eyewitness testimony?

The adult recruiters - military men, no less - that sat face-to-face with John, for at least 15 minutes, in an indoor, controlled, well-lit office environment.

Kathy had just turned 8yrs old, she was near Johnny for just a few minutes, not sitting down face to face, but running around and getting piggyback rides and running back and forth from her house, and this was outside, on a dark, snowy night.

You're saying Kathy would see, notice, and remember more than the adult recruiters?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Thanks for the reply. I find so much wrong with it I don't know quite where to start

Cite for his 'fascination' with Maria? Who testified to this? Surely you're not basing this on comments he made 55 years later, right? I mean, you have testimony from people saying he talked about her at the time, stalked her, was seen following her or playing with her etc?
Seriously? You wonder why a guy would forget the case of a little girl being murdered two blocks from his house? He was questioned by police about it - twice, at least - back then as well. It was a rather big deal. Her picture was in the paper for days afterwards, and he was in town for a week or so - in other words, he got a better look at pictures of Maria than Kathy ever got of Johnny's face.

I watched McCullough's (Tessier) interview with police (Footsteps in the Snow), he talked about Maria in real affectionate terms. Maria held a special place in his heart, he might have deep regret for killing her and keeps the memory of Maria as if she were still alive and 7 yrs old. It is surprising because he's not a family member or close friend. I don't believe that would be typical of someone who was a POI at the time. He had a connection with her which was more than just a neighbour from down the street.

I don't understand why you discount what McCullough says about Maria? Does it hold less value 55 yrs later? He described her as gorgeous with lovely, big brown eyes, a real Barbie Doll. In his cell interview, he was much more guarded with his description.


When Det. Mike Ciesynski showed McCullough the same photographs shown to Kathy Sigman Chapman, he didn't identify the one of himself. When he's told that particular picture is of him, he says "it does look like me but he's too feminine looking". I have to say that response was pretty bizarre. :facepalm:

If you don't know, and nobody else knows, it's irrelevant. And if he did have a pocket knife, it's also irrelevant, because as you just noted, lots of guys then and now carry pocket knives.

I mentioned the pocket knife because in your post you wrote (where was he keeping a knife??). If you ask the question, it's reasonable to provide an answer. The weapon wasn't found, it's pure speculation it was a pocket knife, it could have been a hunting knife in his vehicle.

Clothing style/color not relevant? Really? Do you think noticing clothing style and color is relevant to Kathy's eyewitness testimony?
The adult recruiters - military men, no less - that sat face-to-face with John, for at least 15 minutes, in an indoor, controlled, well-lit office environment.
Kathy had just turned 8yrs old, she was near Johnny for just a few minutes, not sitting down face to face, but running around and getting piggyback rides and running back and forth from her house, and this was outside, on a dark, snowy night.
You're saying Kathy would see, notice, and remember more than the adult recruiters?

Johnny was standing under the street light, a colorful sweater isn't that hard to identify especially for a child. I can't speak for the recruiters, they'd only be concerned if he appeared disheveled and unclean, imo. His clothing isn't of interest, they wouldn't jot it down in their notebooks, it isn't relevant to joining the AirForce.

JMO

 

[bessie]

I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread, but Tessier's daughter Christine was reported missing in 2005 in San Antonio, and her body was later found in a ditch along a golf course. Tessier lived in Washington at the time.

---

Question 8: I'm curious about a part of this story that wasn't elaborated on, the disappearance of his daughter. Is he a suspect in that as well?

Christine Tessier vanished in 2005 at age 34; her body was identified in June 2013. She was found in the drainage ditch of a golf course in San Antonio, Texas, shortly after she disappeared. But the body was so badly decomposed it went unidentified for years. Police are investigating the case as a homicide but are saying little else. Jack McCullough and his wife, Sue, say he was in Seattle at the time Christine vanished. He says he could not afford to go to Texas to search for her.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/us/oldest-cold-case-comments/

---

Here's the thread in the Identified forum.

[h=1]TX - San Antonio, WhtFem UP10149, 20-50, in Golf Course Jul'05 *Christine Tessier*[/h]

 

[youngsters]

I read Footsteps in the Snow by Charles Lachman, and what caught my eye is 'Ralph Tessier' Jack's step father. Ralph was a pedophile it seems, he molested one of his daughter's at the age of 6, she said that when she was 6 years old she was wearing nothing on her bare bottom and liked the cold breeze on her bare bottom, Ralph then called his daughter inside the shed and said to her "i know what you want" as he noticed she wasn't wearing any undies and then raped her. Then again at age 9. The daughter commented that her father Ralph had a hunger for really young flesh (little girls).

Ralph his wife and daughter was invited to a dinner with a couple, the couple had a babby and Ralph was getting annoyed with the crying from the baby so he told the couple that "if that was my child they would NEVER cry because i would get a string and tie is around the neck so it can't breath that would teach the child not to cry"

From the information above we know Ralph was a child molester he really likes young children, and hates children crying or screaming. This fits in perfectly with Maria's murder. Maria was 7, and she was a screamer if she gets scared her mother Frances said.

Could it be that Jack (aka Johnny) was the kidnapper of the little girl and Ralph his step father killed Maria, Jack maybe took Maria to his house. Maria was scared and was screaming or crying then Ralph took control of the situation as he couldn't stand children crying he killed her, maybe by accident as it doesn't take much strength to kill a small child of 7 years old. Could it be possible that there was two involved. That is why Jack says he didn't kill the little girl because maybe he didn't but someone else did.

Jack drove to Rockford dump the child's body while his father stayed behide took her doll and threw it in a neghbour's front yard when everyone including himself was looking for the child. Made a scheme with the phone call with Jack ect...

Feel free to reply of your responses.

 

[bessie]

According to Katheran Tessier, Ralph was in another town with her at a 4-H social.

---

Ralph and Eileen Tessier told the FBI that Ralph drove to Rockford to fetch John at about 8. Years later, John's half sister, Katheran, would come forward to dispute the timeline her parents gave, saying her father was in DeKalb, the town next to Sycamore, taking her to a 4-H social that lasted from 5 to 8 p.m. She recalled coming home to find the street lined with police cars, and soon after that, her father was opening up the hardware store to supply flashlights for the search.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/us/oldest-cold-case/ch2.html

---

 

[DragonAsh]

I watched McCullough's (Tessier) interview with police (Footsteps in the Snow), he talked about Maria in real affectionate terms. Maria held a special place in his heart, he might have deep regret for killing her and keeps the memory of Maria as if she were still alive and 7 yrs old. It is surprising because he's not a family member or close friend. I don't believe that would be typical of someone who was a POI at the time. He had a connection with her which was more than just a neighbour from down the street.

Firstly: A &#8216;person of interest&#8217; at the time isn't allowed to feel that the murder of a little 7yr old girl is tragic? He&#8217;s not allowed to feel sad about the loss of a life far too soon? Really? He&#8217;s what, 70 now? You don&#8217;t think older people get emotional when talking about young kids that could be their grandkid&#8217;s age? My mom is that age now, and she tears up at any random news story about a tragedy involving kids, and these are complete strangers.

I would bet a fair amount of money that none of the people posting in this thread are family members or close friends of Maria or anyone else connected to the case, yet you've read the comments they make about Maria, and about the person they believe responsible for her death. Everyone takes it personally! And yet they can&#8217;t possibly have the emotional investment and involvement that Jack has - I find it odd that you somehow think that Jack, as a POI at the time, should have a different reaction, response, or memory of the girl and of the incident&#8230;or should have no response at all.

Quite frankly, I can readily believe that if he said, &#8216;I don&#8217;t remember her at all&#8217;, your response would be &#8216;how callous and uncaring he is to not remember the case of a little girl murdered two blocks from where he lived, clearly he&#8217;s a sociopath and a killer&#8217;.

I don't understand why you discount what McCullough says about Maria? Does it hold less value 55 yrs later?

I do not understand your attempt to divine a &#8216;connection&#8217; to Maria that is &#8216;more than just a neighbor down the street&#8217; based on an edited TV spot, from someone discussing an event 55 years ago. <modsnip>

Who has said he was stalking her? Who has said they saw him with her or following her? And of course the million dollar question, if he was involved with Maria more than &#8216;just a neighbor down the street&#8217;, how come neither Maria nor her best friend Kathy recognize him?

Johnny was standing under the street light, a colorful sweater isn't that hard to identify especially for a child. I can't speak for the recruiters, they'd only be concerned if he appeared disheveled and unclean, imo. His clothing isn't of interest, they wouldn't jot it down in their notebooks, it isn't relevant to joining the AirForce.

<modsnip> The recruiters were with Jack, face-to-face, for far, far longer, and in far, far better viewing conditions, than Kathy was. That&#8217;s a fact. And they were asked by police about him, confirming he was there, confirming what he looked like, confirming it was him. That&#8217;s a fact.

You can&#8217;t just hand-wave away lack of evidence from one witness as &#8216;they wouldn't remember, it wasn't relevant&#8217;, then point to the same evidence from another witness as &#8216;relevant&#8217;. Until Maria went missing, by which time Johnny was long gone, Kathy had absolutely no reason to remember Johnny&#8217;s face or clothing either &#8211; it was even less of interest to her as an 8yr old kid playing outside in the snow than it was to the recruiters, who surely would be looking at his appearance and such, one would guess.

Jack &#8216;might&#8217; have had a knife. He &#8216;might&#8217; have had a sweater. Guess what &#8211; lots of people have knives! Lots of people have sweaters &#8211; hell, I have a multi-colored sweater that my wife made for me a few years ago.

You can&#8217;t start out with the assumption that Johnny is guilty &#8211; i.e., you have a sample size of n=1 &#8211; then attribute all the things in common with the evidence as evidence he is guilty. &#8216;The guy was wearing a sweater. Jack has a sweater! He&#8217;s guilty&#8217;. &#8216;The guy had a pocket knife. Jack had a pocket knife! He must be guilty&#8217;.

No, you must work the other way around. If the killer was wearing a sweater, but practically every male in Sycamore owned a sweater, than you have not narrowed down the suspect list. If Johnny had a sweater, it&#8217;s not evidence he committed the crime.

And of course, the picture that Kathy saw had Jack wearing something completely different from what he was supposedly wearing 55 years ago.

The first recruiters might not have noticed what he was wearing, but one would think they'd have noticed a fresh cut on his lip (assuming it resulted from the attack). More reason to believe the murder occurred after he left Rockford the evening of December 3.From Rockford, Woodbine, where Maria's body is found, is almost a straight shot west on Hwy 20. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Syca...42.3422349!3e0

The murder could have occurred where her body was found, or at any location along the way.

Oh, please. Firstly, the first recruiters didn't say anything about a cut on his lip. The recruiters he saw the next morning said they noticed it. Secondly - 'from the attack'? It as a small 7yr old kid. You think she 'fought' and cut his lip? Thirdly- when is he supposed to have had time to drive 250 miles round-trip? Of course, the question is also, 'why drive 120 miles to hide the body'? The body was found in a very rural location, well off the path. They didn't have GPS back then, and there's no evidence this 18yr old kid had ever driven to anywhere near the location of the body before. If he drove straight there, and straight back, didn't make any wrong turns, etc, it's five hours at least.

So if the murder occurred where the body was found or along the way - where the hell is Maria while he's at the recruiters, both on the evening of 3 Dec and the morning of 4 Dec?

Tessier's pic was not shown to Kathy when she was a child because his alibi eliminated him. I don't know why Kathy picked out Rivard, I don't know what similarities he had to Tessier.

The bolded part I've read somewhere before, about the unfairness of the line up pics. It's a tough call to not show the pictures, the police had no choice, it was a piece of the puzzle where the other evidence helped prove their case.

But she did pick out Rivard. And was wrong. Unless you believe that her memory somehow improved 55 years later, her eyewitness testimony is pretty much meaningless.

And 'the police had no choice?' No. Wrong, wrong wrong. If the choice is, 'we don't have any other evidence' and 'we can use this evidence but it's highly likely to result in a biased, inaccurate identification', than I guess you could say you are correct - they have no choice, they can not use the 'evidence'. Period. There's a reason the protocols are in place - because using evidence incorrectly is highly likely to result in inaccurate identifications. Study after study after study has shown this. It's fact. Dozens and dozens of people have been incorrectly convicted - based on faulty eyewitness testimony - only to be found completely innocent of the crime.

Finally - I&#8217;ll repeat again: even if we ignore the evidence from the cops at the time that Johnny told Kathy that it was &#8216;7pm&#8217;, and instead use the revised timeframe from the prosecution, which (despite all the evidence collected at the time) decides that Maria was kidnapped before 6:30pm, the time left does not leave enough time for Johnny to kill Maria, hide the knife, hide the body, change clothes, then drive to the recruiters&#8217; office by 7:15pm, all without being seen Maria&#8217;s mom, the bus driver, or the oil delivery guy.

And if you have to invent a bunch of theoreticals for which you have zero evidence - 'he could have done this, he could have done that' - sorry, you don't even have the makings of a semblance of a case. No way should the case go to trial, let alone result in a conviction.

 

[Gunther Toody]

Firstly: A ‘person of interest’ at the time isn't allowed to feel that the murder of a little 7yr old girl is tragic? He’s not allowed to feel sad about the loss of a life far too soon? Really? He’s what, 70 now? You don’t think older people get emotional when talking about young kids that could be their grandkid’s age? My mom is that age now, and she tears up at any random news story about a tragedy involving kids, and these are complete strangers.

I would bet a fair amount of money that none of the people posting in this thread are family members or close friends of Maria or anyone else connected to the case, yet you've read the comments they make about Maria, and about the person they believe responsible for her death. Everyone takes it personally! And yet they can’t possibly have the emotional investment and involvement that Jack has - I find it odd that you somehow think that Jack, as a POI at the time, should have a different reaction, response, or memory of the girl and of the incident…or should have no response at all.

Quite frankly, I can readily believe that if he said, ‘I don’t remember her at all’, your response would be ‘how callous and uncaring he is to not remember the case of a little girl murdered two blocks from where he lived, clearly he’s a sociopath and a killer’.


I do not understand your attempt to divine a ‘connection’ to Maria that is ‘more than just a neighbor down the street’ based on an edited TV spot, from someone discussing an event 55 years ago. <modsnip>

Who has said he was stalking her? Who has said they saw him with her or following her? And of course the million dollar question, if he was involved with Maria more than ‘just a neighbor down the street’, how come neither Maria nor her best friend Kathy recognize him?


<modsnip> The recruiters were with Jack, face-to-face, for far, far longer, and in far, far better viewing conditions, than Kathy was. That’s a fact. And they were asked by police about him, confirming he was there, confirming what he looked like, confirming it was him. That’s a fact.

You can’t just hand-wave away lack of evidence from one witness as ‘they wouldn't remember, it wasn't relevant’, then point to the same evidence from another witness as ‘relevant’. Until Maria went missing, by which time Johnny was long gone, Kathy had absolutely no reason to remember Johnny’s face or clothing either – it was even less of interest to her as an 8yr old kid playing outside in the snow than it was to the recruiters, who surely would be looking at his appearance and such, one would guess.

Jack ‘might’ have had a knife. He ‘might’ have had a sweater. Guess what – lots of people have knives! Lots of people have sweaters – hell, I have a multi-colored sweater that my wife made for me a few years ago.

You can’t start out with the assumption that Johnny is guilty – i.e., you have a sample size of n=1 – then attribute all the things in common with the evidence as evidence he is guilty. ‘The guy was wearing a sweater. Jack has a sweater! He’s guilty’. ‘The guy had a pocket knife. Jack had a pocket knife! He must be guilty’.

No, you must work the other way around. If the killer was wearing a sweater, but practically every male in Sycamore owned a sweater, than you have not narrowed down the suspect list. If Johnny had a sweater, it’s not evidence he committed the crime.

And of course, the picture that Kathy saw had Jack wearing something completely different from what he was supposedly wearing 55 years ago.


Oh, please. Firstly, the first recruiters didn't say anything about a cut on his lip. The recruiters he saw the next morning said they noticed it. Secondly - 'from the attack'? It as a small 7yr old kid. You think she 'fought' and cut his lip? Thirdly- when is he supposed to have had time to drive 250 miles round-trip? Of course, the question is also, 'why drive 120 miles to hide the body'? The body was found in a very rural location, well off the path. They didn't have GPS back then, and there's no evidence this 18yr old kid had ever driven to anywhere near the location of the body before. If he drove straight there, and straight back, didn't make any wrong turns, etc, it's five hours at least.

So if the murder occurred where the body was found or along the way - where the hell is Maria while he's at the recruiters, both on the evening of 3 Dec and the morning of 4 Dec?


But she did pick out Rivard. And was wrong. Unless you believe that her memory somehow improved 55 years later, her eyewitness testimony is pretty much meaningless.

And 'the police had no choice?' No. Wrong, wrong wrong. If the choice is, 'we don't have any other evidence' and 'we can use this evidence but it's highly likely to result in a biased, inaccurate identification', than I guess you could say you are correct - they have no choice, they can not use the 'evidence'. Period. There's a reason the protocols are in place - because using evidence incorrectly is highly likely to result in inaccurate identifications. Study after study after study has shown this. It's fact. Dozens and dozens of people have been incorrectly convicted - based on faulty eyewitness testimony - only to be found completely innocent of the crime.

Finally - I’ll repeat again: even if we ignore the evidence from the cops at the time that Johnny told Kathy that it was ‘7pm’, and instead use the revised timeframe from the prosecution, which (despite all the evidence collected at the time) decides that Maria was kidnapped before 6:30pm, the time left does not leave enough time for Johnny to kill Maria, hide the knife, hide the body, change clothes, then drive to the recruiters’ office by 7:15pm, all without being seen Maria’s mom, the bus driver, or the oil delivery guy.

And if you have to invent a bunch of theoreticals for which you have zero evidence - 'he could have done this, he could have done that' - sorry, you don't even have the makings of a semblance of a case. No way should the case go to trial, let alone result in a conviction.

Excellent case summary DragonAsh, I too question many aspects of the case against McCollough. Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time to look deeper into it. We did contact Jack in prison because he was questioned in the Grimes Sisters murder case, which we are working on and he came across as intelligent and sincere. There is an excellent website dedicated to Jack and the Ridulph case with a lot of the evidence shown.
https://jackdmccullough.wordpress.com

Here is the lineup card that was mentioned in a previous post.
https://i1.wp.com/i.cdn.turner.com/...t-cold-case/media/ch4/6pack.court.exhibit.jpg

Jack, of course is third from the right, the only image with a black background and what appears to be overexposure, which would give the appearance of lighter hair.

 

[DragonAsh]

I think my last post may have been a bit too harsh - my writing style tends towards the sarcastic as it is, but it was probably uncalled for. I apologize.

I stand by my basic point, however - and I think it was echoed by someone else up-thread: The vast majority of posts, going back to when news of Jack's arrest was first made public, have been almost unanimous in expressing how this was such great news. Go back and read the comments. Justice for Maria. He's a lowlife, better investigate other crimes near him. I'm sure he's killed others. I hope there aren't other victims. Thank god they caught him. How great that a cold case was solved.

Look - I understand - many of us are here precisely because we've been through cases like this, cases that strike us personally. And we hope we can help someone else - we want to help. And when one of these cases are solved, well - that's all we can ask for, that justice be done.

But I see only -one- post in the first few pages questioning this case. Are we all so eager to see someone put behind bars for this that we simply don't care who it is?

Is that 'justice'?

There's a reason why 55-year old cold cases aren't solved very often. The only evidence in the case - almost literally - is the eyewitness testimony of someone that a) is testifying about a case that was 55 years ago, when b) she was 8yrs old at the time, based on c) a few minutes of seeing someone while running around outside on a dark, cloudy night, after d) after she had previously (mis)identified someone else for the crime.

That's it - that, in a nutshell, is the -only- evidence you have tying him to the case. The police have -no- other evidence that puts him in Sycamore at the time of the abduction, and in fact to try and put him in Sycamore at the time of the abduction they have to ignore first-hand evidence collected at the time. No evidence that ties him to the murder. None. Zero. Zilch.

I get there are allegations of sex molestation. His sisters don't have much good to say about him. Some of you think he comes across as creepy on the TV interview.


On the other hand, his wife and daughter clearly love him and believe in him. That has to count for something. And last time I checked, 'he seems skeevy to me' isn't evidence.

If we really want justice done for Maria, we need to take an objective look at the case the State is presenting and ask ourselves if this is the justice system we want.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Firstly: A ‘person of interest’ at the time isn't allowed to feel that the murder of a little 7yr old girl is tragic? He’s not allowed to feel sad about the loss of a life far too soon? Really? He’s what, 70 now? You don’t think older people get emotional when talking about young kids that could be their grandkid’s age? My mom is that age now, and she tears up at any random news story about a tragedy involving kids, and these are complete strangers.
I would bet a fair amount of money that none of the people posting in this thread are family members or close friends of Maria or anyone else connected to the case, yet you've read the comments they make about Maria, and about the person they believe responsible for her death. Everyone takes it personally! And yet they can’t possibly have the emotional investment and involvement that Jack has - I find it odd that you somehow think that Jack, as a POI at the time, should have a different reaction, response, or memory of the girl and of the incident…or should have no response at all.
Quite frankly, I can readily believe that if he said, ‘I don’t remember her at all’, your response would be ‘how callous and uncaring he is to not remember the case of a little girl murdered two blocks from where he lived, clearly he’s a sociopath and a killer’.

I made an observation of Jack McCullough's responses to the detective's questions in that interview. You're making the same assumptions of what an old man would say and feel based on YOUR own experiences.

I wonder if Jack McCullough displays the same emotion when he speaks of his own dead daughter? IDK.

BIB -Your words, not mine.

I do not understand your attempt to divine a ‘connection’ to Maria that is ‘more than just a neighbor down the street’ based on an edited TV spot, from someone discussing an event 55 years ago. <modsnip>

Who has said he was stalking her? Who has said they saw him with her or following her? And of course the million dollar question, if he was involved with Maria more than ‘just a neighbor down the street’, how come neither Maria nor her best friend Kathy recognize him?

<modsnip> The recruiters were with Jack, face-to-face, for far, far longer, and in far, far better viewing conditions, than Kathy was. That’s a fact. And they were asked by police about him, confirming he was there, confirming what he looked like, confirming it was him. That’s a fact.

You can’t just hand-wave away lack of evidence from one witness as ‘they wouldn't remember, it wasn't relevant’, then point to the same evidence from another witness as ‘relevant’. Until Maria went missing, by which time Johnny was long gone, Kathy had absolutely no reason to remember Johnny’s face or clothing either – it was even less of interest to her as an 8yr old kid playing outside in the snow than it was to the recruiters, who surely would be looking at his appearance and such, one would guess.

Jack ‘might’ have had a knife. He ‘might’ have had a sweater. Guess what – lots of people have knives! Lots of people have sweaters – hell, I have a multi-colored sweater that my wife made for me a few years ago.

You can’t start out with the assumption that Johnny is guilty – i.e., you have a sample size of n=1 – then attribute all the things in common with the evidence as evidence he is guilty. ‘The guy was wearing a sweater. Jack has a sweater! He’s guilty’. ‘The guy had a pocket knife. Jack had a pocket knife! He must be guilty’.

No, you must work the other way around. If the killer was wearing a sweater, but practically every male in Sycamore owned a sweater, than you have not narrowed down the suspect list. If Johnny had a sweater, it’s not evidence he committed the crime.

And of course, the picture that Kathy saw had Jack wearing something completely different from what he was supposedly wearing 55 years ago.

Oh, please. Firstly, the first recruiters didn't say anything about a cut on his lip. The recruiters he saw the next morning said they noticed it. Secondly - 'from the attack'? It as a small 7yr old kid. You think she 'fought' and cut his lip? Thirdly- when is he supposed to have had time to drive 250 miles round-trip? Of course, the question is also, 'why drive 120 miles to hide the body'? The body was found in a very rural location, well off the path. They didn't have GPS back then, and there's no evidence this 18yr old kid had ever driven to anywhere near the location of the body before. If he drove straight there, and straight back, didn't make any wrong turns, etc, it's five hours at least.

So if the murder occurred where the body was found or along the way - where the hell is Maria while he's at the recruiters, both on the evening of 3 Dec and the morning of 4 Dec?

But she did pick out Rivard. And was wrong. Unless you believe that her memory somehow improved 55 years later, her eyewitness testimony is pretty much meaningless.

And 'the police had no choice?' No. Wrong, wrong wrong. If the choice is, 'we don't have any other evidence' and 'we can use this evidence but it's highly likely to result in a biased, inaccurate identification', than I guess you could say you are correct - they have no choice, they can not use the 'evidence'. Period. There's a reason the protocols are in place - because using evidence incorrectly is highly likely to result in inaccurate identifications. Study after study after study has shown this. It's fact. Dozens and dozens of people have been incorrectly convicted - based on faulty eyewitness testimony - only to be found completely innocent of the crime.

Finally - I’ll repeat again: even if we ignore the evidence from the cops at the time that Johnny told Kathy that it was ‘7pm’, and instead use the revised timeframe from the prosecution, which (despite all the evidence collected at the time) decides that Maria was kidnapped before 6:30pm, the time left does not leave enough time for Johnny to kill Maria, hide the knife, hide the body, change clothes, then drive to the recruiters’ office by 7:15pm, all without being seen Maria’s mom, the bus driver, or the oil delivery guy.

And if you have to invent a bunch of theoreticals for which you have zero evidence - 'he could have done this, he could have done that' - sorry, you don't even have the makings of a semblance of a case. No way should the case go to trial, let alone result in a conviction.

No use arguing, I can't change the outcome.

I'm reading the court transcripts at the moment. Feel free to read it yourself.

https://jackdmccullough.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/mccullough_trial_full-1.pdf

 

[Gunther Toody]

Press Photos of the Maria Ridulph case...

I brought these press photos from a company.



Photo 1: "Mayor Harold Johnson (right) and assistant Police Chief Richard Mattis of Sycamore search a trunk of one of the hundreds of cars stopped in police road block at Sycamore during search for missing Maria Ridulph, 7. Police have learned that Maria at times hid in the trunk of her father's car. Dec 11 1957."


Photo 2: . Iowa where little Maria's body was found in April 26th 1958.


Photo 3: "Police Magistrate Arthur Ayars holds doll Maria was playing with just before she disappeared Tuesday evening. Doll was found abandoned near garage." Dec 5 - 1957


Photo 4: "Mrs. Frances Ridolph, is comforted by her other children as the family keeps a vigil in their Sycamore home for missing Maria, 7, who disappeared Tuesday. The other children are Pat, 16; Kay 15, and Charles, 11. A house-to house search for the missing girl was taking place in Sycamore today." Dec 6 - 1957


Photo 5: Press Photo, Jacket found. 1957.


Photo 6: "Michael Ridulph, Maria's father, stands anxiously on shore of lake, next to pump, with prayer in his heart that nothing will be found.

April 23 -1958"


Photo 7: "The Scene in Sycamore, ILL, 65 miles west of Chicago, where Maria Ridolph (inset), 7, disappeared about 7 p.m. Tuesday. No. 1 indicates spot where Maria and a playmate, Kathie Sigman, were playing when a young man, known only as "Johnny", offered Maria a piggyback ride. Kathie, who was cold, went home to get her mittens so she could go piggyback riding, too-but when she got back "Johnny" and Maria were gone. No. 2 indicates Maria's home." Dec 4 - 1957

Okay...now I am reading a little more about this case.
It didn't take long to see that Jack was railroaded.
FBI timeline would have exonerated him
Admission of Telephone exchange file of call placed by Jack to his home from Rockford would have exonerated him.
Train ticket was one way to Chicago and went unused..even though it was proven he was in Chicago.

The picture of the corner clearly shows that there is no streetlight illuminating the tree and play area.
Maria's friend Kathie Sigman testified at Jack's trial that she could see his face under the streetlight

 

[Cubby]

The photo doesn't show both sides of the street, clearly there could be a streetlight on the side not shown in the picture.

The guy was oohing and awing over his memories of Maria in his interview. Clearly he is a sick and guilty man. I am without any doubt justice was served in this case.

 

[bessie]

Okay...now I am reading a little more about this case.
It didn't take long to see that Jack was railroaded.
FBI timeline would have exonerated him
Admission of Telephone exchange file of call placed by Jack to his home from Rockford would have exonerated him.
Train ticket was one way to Chicago and went unused..even though it was proven he was in Chicago.

The picture of the corner clearly shows that there is no streetlight illuminating the tree and play area.
Maria's friend Kathie Sigman testified at Jack's trial that she could see his face under the streetlight

Q. At night-time at that location there at the corner by the big tree what was -- at night what was the lighting like at that location?

A. Well, the corner was lit up. However, as I said, we would play Hide From the Headlights and so forth when cars were coming, and so you didn't have to go far to get out of the light.

Q. Okay.

A. Just into the backyards and you were out of the light.

Testimony of Charles Ridulph
pdf p. 42
https://jackdmccullough.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/mccullough_trial_full-1.pdf

 

[DragonAsh]

Q. At night-time at that location there at the corner by the big tree what was -- at night what was the lighting like at that location?

A. Well, the corner was lit up. However, as I said, we would play Hide From the Headlights and so forth when cars were coming, and so you didn't have to go far to get out of the light.

Q. Okay.

A. Just into the backyards and you were out of the light.

Testimony of Charles Ridulph
pdf p. 42
https://jackdmccullough.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/mccullough_trial_full-1.pdf

So there's a lamp post or something, but you don't have to go far to be out of the light. It's an hour after sunset, it's cloudy, and snowing.

These are the conditions that Kathy says she saw Johnny's face for a few minutes while they were running around, he's giving piggyback rides, she's running back to her house, etc.

No wonder she was completely, horribly wrong the first time she identified someone from a lineup. That time, the guy was able to prove his alibi - he was lucky; what if he had merely been home all night alone, with nobody able to verify where he was?


There is more evidence suggesting the oil delivery guy killed Maria than there is for Jack. At least we have evidence the oil delivery guy was at the scene at the time.

The guy was oohing and awing over his memories of Maria in his interview. Clearly he is a sick and guilty man. I am without any doubt justice was served in this case.

You are 'without doubt' that justice was served....because you don't like how he came across in a TV interview 50 years later?

That terrifies me. I sincerely hope you are never ever allowed anywhere near a jury box.

 

[Gunther Toody]

Q. At night-time at that location there at the corner by the big tree what was -- at night what was the lighting like at that location?

A. Well, the corner was lit up. However, as I said, we would play Hide From the Headlights and so forth when cars were coming, and so you didn't have to go far to get out of the light.

Q. Okay.

A. Just into the backyards and you were out of the light.

Testimony of Charles Ridulph
pdf p. 42
https://jackdmccullough.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/mccullough_trial_full-1.pdf

Even if there were a street light across the street...the FBI report puts him in Chicago as well as the telephone exchange records puts McCollough in Rockford.
The train ticket was a one way to Chicago issued 11/28, which went unused.
Light or no light, McCollough was not there.

 

[Cubby]

So there's a lamp post or something, but you don't have to go far to be out of the light. It's an hour after sunset, it's cloudy, and snowing.

These are the conditions that Kathy says she saw Johnny's face for a few minutes while they were running around, he's giving piggyback rides, she's running back to her house, etc.

No wonder she was completely, horribly wrong the first time she identified someone from a lineup. That time, the guy was able to prove his alibi - he was lucky; what if he had merely been home all night alone, with nobody able to verify where he was?


There is more evidence suggesting the oil delivery guy killed Maria than there is for Jack. At least we have evidence the oil delivery guy was at the scene at the time.




You are 'without doubt' that justice was served....because you don't like how he came across in a TV interview 50 years later?

That terrifies me. I sincerely hope you are never ever allowed anywhere near a jury box.

I watched that episode with my step father who retired as chief of police in an area not too far from Sycamore. I asked his professional opinion based on his 2 plus decades of experience (all in Illinois) and agreed with his assesment.