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

[DragonAsh]

I dunno. You'd have to ask the state police investigators who concluded the timeline was earlier than originally reported, and that the perp was a local. Why do you ignore/disregard their statement?

Because where he was in the afternoon is irrelevant to whether or not he was in Sycamore at 6:30pm, because the footprint easily could have been Charles / Kathy / friends or one of the other adults walking in the area, because the same report says that the doll wasn't near the garage when people first walked by it, then mysteriously appears later, as if someone came back to drop the doll off, which 100% exonerates Jack (since people insist they didn't see him searching for Maria).

The significance is that his whereabouts were unknown for the entire afternoon, technically until 7:15-7:30 when he showed up at the recruiting office (as there is no proof that he placed the 6:57 phone call). Hence, he had ample time to travel back to Sycamore after the physical exam in Chicago which concluded at noon.

To which I repeat - having ample time to get to Sycamore is irrelevant if a) there is no evidence of him being in Sycamore at 6:30pm (there isn't) and b) there is evidence that actually makes it extremely unlikely (if not impossible) to have been in Sycamore at 6:30pm, specifically at the time the abduction & murder took place (which there is).

Further - and this bears repeating - allegations of sex molestation - as creepy and skeevy as people find them, myself included - are evidence of possibly being a sexual predator, but are not evidence of murder. Especially when there are -no- other cases or allegations of other acts of violence in Jack's past; randomly grabbing and stabbing a little girl literally minutes after seeing her would just be a completely different type of behaviour seen neither before nor since.

Except that Kathy immediately could have identified him as the perpetrator.

Can we assume that? Kathy said at the time she had 'never seen Johnny' before, even though he lived less than two blocks away. What makes us think she'd know who the oil truck driver was?

Neither Kathy nor Maria recognize the man that approached him. Kathy says she 'never saw him before'. According to Kathy's testimony at the time, 'Johnny' did not appear to recognize the girls - which seems odd, haven't people in this thread suggested that Jack was 'fixated' on Maria? - nor did he seem to expect that the girls would recognize him. But nope - and if it was Jack, neither girl recognized him as the guy living less than two blocks away for their entire lives.

 

[Gunther Toody]

Except that Kathy immediately could have identified him as the perpetrator.

Kathy wasn't there when Maria disappeared and it could be piggy back guy was just a harmless man who liked kids and went on his way after giving her a piggy back ride.
We don't know that he was the perpetrator.

One thing I find most disturbing about Braddy, is that when he and the others approached Johnson's garage...following the footprints, he hurriedly sent his own son and Bud off after the unknown kidnapper, who may have been armed with a knife or gun. He alone remained in front of the garage at approx. 7:40 PM, where a short time later, the doll was found by Meredith Strombom, who said she knew the doll was not there earlier. She put the time between 8-9 PM when she discovered the doll.

Another troubling thing...when he first discovered the footprints, why didn't he inform the police? The prints ended at the garage, yet he was able to search and find more prints after going through yards? How could he know where to look...got lucky?
I remember reading one account where the kidnapper was supposed to have asked the girls if they wanted a ride in a truck.
Braddy drove a pickup truck.
Braddy followed the prints to Fair Ave where tire tracks led south, which coincidentally was the same direction and path to Braddy's house.

It doesn't pass the smell test.

There are similarities of this case to the Debbie Fijan murder eight years later and only 30 miles away.

We don't really know what is meant by the claim that Kathy knew him.

Did she know him as a neighbor?
Did she just recognize the fact that he was the oil driver?
Did she know him close up in the dark in street clothes without his work coveralls?

Braddy's whereabouts can not be accounted for from 6:15 to 7:15 when he is home eating dinner.
It was during this time, Maria disappeared.
I can't find the location of where the oil company was located that he allegedly drove the oil truck back to after the delivery. If it was in Sycamore, that would certainly add a cloud of suspicion over him.
At the very least, Braddy merited a much closer look.

Edited to add: It turns out that Braddy worked for the Standard Oil Bulk delivery in Sycamore...so he did not have far to go with his oil truck.

 

[youngsters]

Kathy wasn't there when Maria disappeared and it could be piggy back guy was just a harmless man who liked kids and went on his way after giving her a piggy back ride.
We don't know that he was the perpetrator.

One thing I find most disturbing about Braddy, is that when he and the others approached Johnson's garage...following the footprints, he hurriedly sent his own son and Bud off after the unknown kidnapper, who may have been armed with a knife or gun. He alone remained in front of the garage at approx. 7:40 PM, where a short time later, the doll was found by Meredith Strombom, who said she knew the doll was not there earlier. She put the time between 8-9 PM when she discovered the doll.

Another troubling thing...when he first discovered the footprints, why didn't he inform the police? The prints ended at the garage, yet he was able to search and find more prints after going through yards? How could he know where to look...got lucky?
I remember reading one account where the kidnapper was supposed to have asked the girls if they wanted a ride in a truck.
Braddy drove a pickup truck.
Braddy followed the prints to Fair Ave where tire tracks led south, which coincidentally was the same direction and path to Braddy's house.

It doesn't pass the smell test.

There are similarities of this case to the Debbie Fijan murder eight years later and only 30 miles away.

We don't really know what is meant by the claim that Kathy knew him.

Did she know him as a neighbor?
Did she just recognize the fact that he was the oil driver?
Did she know him close up in the dark in street clothes without his work coveralls?

Braddy's whereabouts can not be accounted for from 6:15 to 7:15 when he is home eating dinner.
It was during this time, Maria disappeared.
I can't find the location of where the oil company was located that he allegedly drove the oil truck back to after the delivery. If it was in Sycamore, that would certainly add a cloud of suspicion over him.
At the very least, Braddy merited a much closer look.

Edited to add: It turns out that Braddy worked for the Standard Oil Bulk delivery in Sycamore...so he did not have far to go with his oil truck.

It is strange that a adult would go up to two little girls he didn't know and start giving them piggyback rides and asking about their dolls for them to play with. This Johnny character does sound 100% a pedophile who preys on small and young kids. He touch Kathy's thing and told her she was pretty, when he met the two little girls he introduce himself as Johhny and said he "wasn't married" isn't that just strange why tell that to 7 and 8 year old girls, why would they even care lol (what is he thinking of having a 7 or 8 year old child bride lol). I think this Johnny was more in the pedo line.

But he also could be just a lonely guy who just enjoys the innocence of children at play, and kidnapped Maria because he was lonely and wanted a child as children do cheer people up, but if that was the case she would of been taken back to her parents and never murdered as that was the case.

Another case scenario could be that after this Johnny gave piggyback rides to Maria he left and someone else went by maybe in his car or truck and ask her to hop in and took her away, i read that a man was lost and stop on a street corner which he asked two little girls for directions for the highway, i do find that hard to believe as well because why would you ask a 7 or 8 year olds for directions if you get lost but also it could be true as they were the only ones outside playing on the street but still find it hard to believe asking two young children for directions if you get lost while driving in your car. That guy was investigated by lawed up when he became a suspect so maybe he could have kidnapped Maria when he stop on the street corner saw Maria playing then asked her to come with him, maybe he offered her some candy or something then drove of with her.

Also there was a kidnapper who took a 8 year old girl and she was found sleeping in his car and they arrested the man, this happend at the same time Maria was kidnapped. Could this be the same man who kidnapped Maria? or was their a group or child molesters or child kidnappers around in Sycamore during that time and they succeeded with Maria and maybe other little girls from other towns.

There are so many suspects in this case, i read so many pedophiles in this case that became suspects in Maria's abduction, another one was a man who molested or raped his 5 year old daughter was a suspect in Maria's case.

We have all heard of child *advertiser censored* rings, where they kidnap children as young as 5 years old and sell them to pedophiles to have sex with them. There are pedo cults who have sex with children. Maria could of been murdered because she was not cooperative.

I have some very interesting points above please feel free to discuss them.

 

[DragonAsh]

All this speculation and scenarios – I dunno, I’m not interested in making WAG as to what may or may not have happened. Evidence is scarce enough as it is in this case. We have a dead little girl. We have a man in prison, likely to be there for the rest of his life, when I think there are extremely serious doubts as to whether he should be there or not.


If you’re interested in ‘justice’, then please - look at the actual points specifically relevant to the case at hand – these are actually interesting. I find it odd that nobody seems able in refuting these – in fact, nobody seems all that interested in even trying to refute these points, instead pointing to irrelevant details or police testimony about irrelevant details and irrelevant timeframes, or about how they came away with a bad impression from an interview they saw on TV.
- Jack does not have time to commit the crime at 6:30pm, perfectly hide the body, and still be in Rockford at 6:57pm, leave absolutely zero evidence behind, and never be seen by Maria’s mom, the oil truck driver, the bus driver, or anyone else driving in the area
- Nobody seems to be able to provide the window for this 17yr old kid to make what was at least a five hour drive, probably longer, to dump the body and return.
- The lone eyewitness identified a completely different person shortly after the crime, suggesting a) maybe she is prone to wanting to give the answer the detective wants, and/or b) she just has a horrible memory. And it is doubtful her memory ‘improved’ over the next half-century.
- The lone eyewitness says neither she nor Maria recognized Jack at the time, even though he was another kid living less than two blocks away.

 

[youngsters]

All this speculation and scenarios – I dunno, I’m not interested in making WAG as to what may or may not have happened. Evidence is scarce enough as it is in this case. We have a dead little girl. We have a man in prison, likely to be there for the rest of his life, when I think there are extremely serious doubts as to whether he should be there or not.


If you’re interested in ‘justice’, then please - look at the actual points specifically relevant to the case at hand – these are actually interesting. I find it odd that nobody seems able in refuting these – in fact, nobody seems all that interested in even trying to refute these points, instead pointing to irrelevant details or police testimony about irrelevant details and irrelevant timeframes, or about how they came away with a bad impression from an interview they saw on TV.
- Jack does not have time to commit the crime at 6:30pm, perfectly hide the body, and still be in Rockford at 6:57pm, leave absolutely zero evidence behind, and never be seen by Maria’s mom, the oil truck driver, the bus driver, or anyone else driving in the area
- Nobody seems to be able to provide the window for this 17yr old kid to make what was at least a five hour drive, probably longer, to dump the body and return.
- The lone eyewitness identified a completely different person shortly after the crime, suggesting a) maybe she is prone to wanting to give the answer the detective wants, and/or b) she just has a horrible memory. And it is doubtful her memory ‘improved’ over the next half-century.
- The lone eyewitness says neither she nor Maria recognized Jack at the time, even though he was another kid living less than two blocks away.

I would not be surprise if Kathy nor Maria didn't recognized Jack, remembering that Jack was 17 or 18 years old in 1957 he was a adult or grown up to Kathy and Maria (being 7 and 8 years old during the time) i don't think they took much notice of him, unless if they knew him. Young kids don't play with grown up's. Kathy did play with the tessier house with the younger siblings around her age but how we know that Jack was there, if she knew him she would have known he was the Johnny who was playing with them but Kathy said he was a stranger.

 

[STANDREID]

Some LE individuals are interested in getting a feather in their cap for "solving" a case; whether the person did it or not is secondary. Maybe this guy is responsible but I don't see that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I wonder if the same thing isn't happening in the Etan Patz Case. Even though it isn't beyond a reasonable doubt, juries may still convict because they don't want to risk setting a child killer free, additionally, they don't want the "murderer" to think he put one over on them.

 

[Gunther Toody]

The rape case against Jack McCollough should have never been allowed to go forward. For one, the statute of limitations had long expired to file charges, secondly the prosecution knew they didn't really have a case after that length of time and thirdly, it borders on malicious prosecution to file charges in cases where the outcome is pretty much assured due to the time that had elapsed since the crime, the lack of evidence and the victim not even wanting to participate.

Jeannie Tessier had published her memoirs entitled "Unspoken Truth" in 2009. In Fall of that year, ISP Investigator Brion Harmon visited Jeannie Tessier indicating to her that the State of Illinois was going to reopen the investigation into the Ridulph case. Jeannie, had implicated her half brother Jack in the memoirs stating that their mother lied about his being home that night, and she was concerned that Jack may have done it. Clearly, either Harmon or someone in the prosecutor's office read Jeannie's work and decided they had a case.

On Sept. 8, 2011, DuPage County State's Attorney Clay Campbell and Brion Harmon visited Jeannie again, wanting to go forward with the rape case. Jeannie, told him she did not want to pursue it by dredging up old memories. Campbell told her he would respect her wishes. On Sept. 27, 2011 Campbell informed Mrs. Tessier that he was going ahead with the rape case and she would have to testify. McCollough had been under arrest in the Ridulph case since June 2011 but Campbell had decided to prosecute the rape case first.

Jack was easily acquitted of the rape claims due to lack of evidence but the damage was done. In the public eye he had been charged with rape and would soon be going to trial for the kidnapping and murder of a little girl who had been found nearly nude and likely the victim of rape. It is quite possible that the government feared that the FBI files would be allowed into evidence and with that there was very little evidence beyond the 55 year old memory of a 7 year old girl.

 

[DragonAsh]

I would not be surprise if Kathy nor Maria didn't recognized Jack, remembering that Jack was 17 or 18 years old in 1957 he was a adult or grown up to Kathy and Maria (being 7 and 8 years old during the time) i don't think they took much notice of him, unless if they knew him. Young kids don't play with grown up's. Kathy did play with the tessier house with the younger siblings around her age but how we know that Jack was there, if she knew him she would have known he was the Johnny who was playing with them but Kathy said he was a stranger.

Sorry, this doesn't wash with me. If she wasn't observant enough to take much notice of a kid living just around the corner, when she and Maria undoubtedly would have seen him on occasion, particularly since she played with other Tessier kids, then how the hell are we supposed to believe that she remembers a face that she only had the opportunity to see for a couple of minutes while running around, on a dark, cloudy, snowy night, when she had zero reason to remember him.

This was 1957 - everybody knows everybody, and kids don't have Internet and iPads and Playstations. They are always outside....even little kids, allowed to play outside, on a dark, cloudy, snowy night.

I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Kathy absolutely would have seen Jack any number of times growing up - certainly far more often, more frequently, and in better viewing conditions than when she saw Johnny.


Others here have insisted that Jack, as a pedophile, had an 'unhealthy' interest in Maria....yet Maria didn't recognize Jack either.

So you have a conundrum - she's not observant enough to remember the face from around the corner, yet remembers that same face 55 years later? That doesn't add up. If that's literally the only evidence you have, you don't have a case.

Especially when we already know Kathy wasn't a good eyewitness. Remember, she had picked someone else out of a lineup before - right after the case, not after 55 years.

 

[Gunther Toody]

I would not be surprise if Kathy nor Maria didn't recognized Jack, remembering that Jack was 17 or 18 years old in 1957 he was a adult or grown up to Kathy and Maria (being 7 and 8 years old during the time) i don't think they took much notice of him, unless if they knew him. Young kids don't play with grown up's. Kathy did play with the tessier house with the younger siblings around her age but how we know that Jack was there, if she knew him she would have known he was the Johnny who was playing with them but Kathy said he was a stranger.

Kathy also stated that "Jonny talked like they used to" which the FBI report states was "like a Hillbilly."
Since Kathy knew the Tessier family, don't you think she would know if they talked like Hillbillies?

 

[Gunther Toody]

Looking at another aspect of the case...
Elaine Tessier's deathbed statement should not have been allowed as testimony.
The reason being that two people sitting within the same proximity to their mother, heard two different things. One, obviously implicates Jack, while the other is obscure and brief "he did it" without explanation.

So is it possible to apply "he did it" to some other family related event?
Yes, the sexual assaults by their father. At the time when the girls were being assaulted, Jeannie had told her mother, appearing before her in a dirty torn and bloodied dress.

Elaine at the time became enraged and IIRC hit Jeannie accusing her lying. The sexual assaults were ongoing for years and the mother never came to the defense of her daughters.

It could very well be that on her deathbed, the "he did it" was her way of finally admitting what she likely knew all along. That her husband had been sexually assaulting his children. The very fact that this alternative explanation could have applied, should have prevented her statement to be allowed.

The fact that Jack had just been found not guilty in this very same rape case brought by one of the sisters, should have disallowed her as a witness as well, as her testimony may have been tainted by bias over losing the rape case.

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition and in cases of law, it is always on the accuser or State. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence.

In the McCullough case, the State was allowed to vacate their responsibility. Prosecutors made no effort to prove Jack was in Sycamore the night of the murder, and instead focused on an unused train ticket dated November 25th 1958, from Rockford to Chicago. In doing so, they shifted the burden of proof to the defendant to prove his step by step account of that day, which obviously he was not able to nor was he required to do. He did have eyewitness accounts supporting his claims but they were deemed inadmissible.

The State clearly did not meet the required burden of proof that Jack was in Sycamore that night and the ticket should have been inadmissible as evidence and a verdict of not guilty should have been rendered..

 

[youngsters]

This was 1957 - everybody knows everybody, and kids don't have Internet and iPads and Playstations. They are always outside....even little kids, allowed to play outside, on a dark, cloudy, snowy night.

Biggest mistake the parents made was letting their young children 7 & 8 year olds play outside at night without adult supervision. I bet this small quite midwestern farm town changed after Maria's abduction and murder case, they wouldn't be letting their young children play outside by themselves anymore. Sad that stranger danger was not teach to children and their parents back then, something horrible has to happened for them to understand like the kidnap and murder of a little girl, it's to late by then as the child was already taken ):

 

[youngsters]

It could very well be that on her deathbed, the "he did it" was her way of finally admitting what she likely knew all along. That her husband had been sexually assaulting his children. The very fact that this alternative explanation could have applied, should have prevented her statement to be allowed.

It could very well be Ralph who killed Maria. Ralph molested and raped his daughters at ages 6, 9 years old. He hated children who cry and scream and told a couple at a dinner party he, his wife and daughter attend, when the young couple's baby was crying he told them that his children would NEVER CRY as he would put a 'string' around their necks and pull it tight so they would cry or scream. Maria had a sharp cut on her neck it could of been a string, Maria was a screamer her mother told news reporters in 1957. To me Ralph was a real pedophile who liked young children which were little girls. If he could rape his daughter at 6 and 9, telling that hates children screaming and crying and will resort to something extreme violent to stop them. This gives of huge warning signs right there.

 

[DragonAsh]

It could very well be Ralph who killed Maria. Ralph molested and raped his daughters at ages 6, 9 years old. He hated children who cry and scream and told a couple at a dinner party he, his wife and daughter attend, when the young couple's baby was crying he told them that his children would NEVER CRY as he would put a 'string' around their necks and pull it tight so they would cry or scream. Maria had a sharp cut on her neck it could of been a string, Maria was a screamer her mother told news reporters in 1957. To me Ralph was a real pedophile who liked young children which were little girls. If he could rape his daughter at 6 and 9, telling that hates children screaming and crying and will resort to something extreme violent to stop them. This gives of huge warning signs right there.

1) Firstly, I am going to go out on a limb and say you don't have kids. I have two beautiful kids, 3 and 5, and when we're at parties and such and the conversation invariably one of the parents says something along the lines of how exasperated they get when the kids throw a temper-tantrum in the store and what they come close to doing, and usually it's a joke like Louis C.K. might make or something, and all the other parents give the knowing, understanding laugh. Means nothing - less than nothing, even - like, nothing that was on sale or something.

2) 'I can't believe he did so and so, oh I'm so mad I could just kill 'im!' Somewhere, somebody is saying something along those lines probably every second of every day, sometimes in anger, sometimes in jest, sometimes in both anger and jest. Doesn't mean he/she is actually wants to, or would actually, literally kill. Sheesh.

3) I have read that there are allegations he molested his children; I don't recall seeing specific quotes from the children themselves that he molested them - but even if we assume he did molest them....that has nothing to do with him being a murderer. You can't assume, 'well, he likely did this crime, so he might have done [some other, completely different crime]'.

4) Not to mention he was closely involved with the search party, when searchers came to the house to get equipment and such; one imagines he was out and about. I find it hard to believe Kathy wouldn't have known Jack living less than two blocks away here entire life, I find it even harder to believe she wouldn't have seen Ralph that evening or in later days as the search went on.

 

[youngsters]

1) Firstly, I am going to go out on a limb and say you don't have kids. I have two beautiful kids, 3 and 5, and when we're at parties and such and the conversation invariably one of the parents says something along the lines of how exasperated they get when the kids throw a temper-tantrum in the store and what they come close to doing, and usually it's a joke like Louis C.K. might make or something, and all the other parents give the knowing, understanding laugh. Means nothing - less than nothing, even - like, nothing that was on sale or something.

2) 'I can't believe he did so and so, oh I'm so mad I could just kill 'im!' Somewhere, somebody is saying something along those lines probably every second of every day, sometimes in anger, sometimes in jest, sometimes in both anger and jest. Doesn't mean he/she is actually wants to, or would actually, literally kill. Sheesh.

3) I have read that there are allegations he molested his children; I don't recall seeing specific quotes from the children themselves that he molested them - but even if we assume he did molest them....that has nothing to do with him being a murderer. You can't assume, 'well, he likely did this crime, so he might have done [some other, completely different crime]'.

4) Not to mention he was closely involved with the search party, when searchers came to the house to get equipment and such; one imagines he was out and about. I find it hard to believe Kathy wouldn't have known Jack living less than two blocks away here entire life, I find it even harder to believe she wouldn't have seen Ralph that evening or in later days as the search went on.

Fair enough if it was your own children and your just in anger because your children are having a tantrum which you say things but would never do it of course. But Ralph said this to another parents child, and saying that "if that was my child i would get a string tie it around it's neck so it can't breath" i mean that is not funny at all. Remember that Maria was a screamer her mother said, there was a cut on her throat like with a wire mark on her neck. Where did this child molestation of Ralph came from how come it says he raped his daughter at age 6 and age 9.

 

[DragonAsh]

But Ralph said this to another parents child, and saying that "if that was my child i would get a string tie it around it's neck so it can't breath" i mean that is not funny at all.

No, someone said that's what he said. Or someone said they heard that's what they said. Wouldn't even be allowed as evidence in court.


Do you have a cite for the 'wire mark' on her neck? The body was so badly decomposed and picked at by carrion I would be surprised that her skin etc would be intact enough for something like that to be found and distinguishable, not to mention that the evidence was that she had been stabbed not strangled.

Further, Ralph has even *less* of an opportunity or window to commit the murder, plus drive 5-hours round-trip to dump the body. He was home that evening and helped with the search party in the hours and days that followed.

I'm not in the habit of defending child molesters, but neither am I in the business of needlessly and recklessly dredging up accusations when a) I haven't seen any direct evidence for the charge (if there is direct evidence, pls let me know) and b) more importantly, it has zero relevance to the case at hand here; bringing him up and the second-hand allegations him is irresponsible at best. He's not a remotely plausible suspect in Maria's death.

 

[youngsters]

No, someone said that's what he said. Or someone said they heard that's what they said. Wouldn't even be allowed as evidence in court.


Do you have a cite for the 'wire mark' on her neck? The body was so badly decomposed and picked at by carrion I would be surprised that her skin etc would be intact enough for something like that to be found and distinguishable, not to mention that the evidence was that she had been stabbed not strangled.

Further, Ralph has even *less* of an opportunity or window to commit the murder, plus drive 5-hours round-trip to dump the body. He was home that evening and helped with the search party in the hours and days that followed.

I'm not in the habit of defending child molesters, but neither am I in the business of needlessly and recklessly dredging up accusations when a) I haven't seen any direct evidence for the charge (if there is direct evidence, pls let me know) and b) more importantly, it has zero relevance to the case at hand here; bringing him up and the second-hand allegations him is irresponsible at best. He's not a remotely plausible suspect in Maria's death.

Jack's parents were really in a emotional reck when they heard Maria was missing, did they know something, and why did Jack's mother lied about her son's whereabouts when he was not home that night of Dec. 3rd 1957. She was very scared when Jack was being investigatored by the FBI of the abduction of Maria. And when reading Footsteps in the snow Jack's mother mentions to his girlfriends or new wife that he was a suspect in a little girl's abduction in 1957, Maria, Jack himself also mentioned to his wife and girlfriends that he was a suspect in a little girl's abduction and murder, Maria back in 1957.

 

[Gunther Toody]

The real question is whether the State met the burden of proof in the case against Jack McCullough.
Clearly, they did not. A prosecution team given too much leeway coupled with a recently promoted judge may have played more of a role in the prosecution than anything else.

To wit:
It was never proven that Jack was in Sycamore at the time of the disappearance.
The judge determined the cause of death as stabbing.
No weapon was found and nothing was shown to connect McCullough with a knife.
Exculpatory evidence was barred as hearsay, yet inculpatory hearsay testimony from the sisters was allowed.
The railroad ticket brought into evidence was a ticket from Rockford to Chicago only.
It was proven he was in Chicago the day before so the relevance of the ticket is lost on me.
The State bore the responsibility to prove that McCullough had the means to commit the crime, a motive to commit the crime, and the opportunity to commit the crime. The proved none of them and took the word of a single witness who claimed to remember McCullough's face after 55 years as the same face she saw on a dark snowy night on a corner with no street light.

 

[DragonAsh]

Jack's parents were really in a emotional reck when they heard Maria was missing, did they know something, and why did Jack's mother lied about her son's whereabouts when he was not home that night of Dec. 3rd 1957. She was very scared when Jack was being investigatored by the FBI of the abduction of Maria. And when reading Footsteps in the snow Jack's mother mentions to his girlfriends or new wife that he was a suspect in a little girl's abduction in 1957, Maria, Jack himself also mentioned to his wife and girlfriends that he was a suspect in a little girl's abduction and murder, Maria back in 1957.

First of all - none of what you write is in the neighborhood of being even remotely close to being something that could almost be considered to be in the realm of resembling 'evidence'. Secondly, is there any direct evidence for anything you've written? Because it seems to me it's along the lines of 'I heard that someone said something so I'll put that in my book.'. What is your cite for Jack's parents being 'emotional recks' (sic)? What is the evidence that Jack's mother lied about where he was that night?

If you want to claim that he did it, that's fine - but at least have some.....you know, actual evidence.

The State bore the responsibility to prove that McCullough had the means to commit the crime, a motive to commit the crime, and the opportunity to commit the crime. The proved none of them and took the word of a single witness who claimed to remember McCullough's face after 55 years as the same face she saw on a dark snowy night on a corner with no street light.

I agree with all of this, but would point out that I believe there was a street light on the far corner. Although it apparently didn't exactly flood the whole area with light; according to testimony at the trial if you moved just a little bit you were out of the light.

 

[Gunther Toody]

First of all - none of what you write is in the neighborhood of being even remotely close to being something that could almost be considered to be in the realm of resembling 'evidence'. Secondly, is there any direct evidence for anything you've written? Because it seems to me it's along the lines of 'I heard that someone said something so I'll put that in my book.'. What is your cite for Jack's parents being 'emotional recks' (sic)? What is the evidence that Jack's mother lied about where he was that night?

If you want to claim that he did it, that's fine - but at least have some.....you know, actual evidence.


I agree with all of this, but would point out that I believe there was a street light on the far corner. Although it apparently didn't exactly flood the whole area with light; according to testimony at the trial if you moved just a little bit you were out of the light.

There may have been a street light across the street, but the testimony and the Appellate ruling seems to claim that "Jonny" was observed by Chapman directly under the street light.

These quotes are directly from the Appellate Court Ruling.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2015/2ndDistrict/2121364.pdf

 

[Gunther Toody]

There may have been a street light across the street, but the testimony and the Appellate ruling seems to claim that "Jonny" was observed by Chapman directly under the street light.

These quotes are directly from the Appellate Court Ruling.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2015/2ndDistrict/2121364.pdf

View attachment 70857View attachment 70858View attachment 70859View attachment 70860

Here is an image capture from a Mercury Vapor streetlight which would have been typically used at the time of Maria's disappearance. These lights were developed in 1948 and replaced older inefficient incandescent lighting in use prior to that time.



The above image cap was taken from this video.
[video=youtube;KRAWGLb3Zbw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRAWGLb3Zbw[/video]

Does anyone think that a good positive ID can be made in this light from across the street while it is snowing...and remembered 55 years later?

I do not.