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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
those lights do look bright in that video. I would imagine that one street light on that corner would have been smaller in height than those seen in that video. And don't forget the road on that street corner was very busy 24/7 traffic lots of cars passing, so their would of been lots of lights around, plus the moon would shine light.

There was a man would was questioned of Maria's abduction in 1957, he said to the FBI that he was driving his car and got lost and stop on a street corner on dec. 3 around the time Maria was abducted and he asked two little girls for directions, this man lawed up when he was a suspect and Kathy didn't recongize him as the Johnny. Strange how a adult would ask 7 and 8 year olds for directions lol.
 
You’re joking, right? You think, based on that picture, that the area was well-lit?

Actually, shouldn’t you listen to the person with the infallible memory even after 50-odd years? Chapman herself says it was ‘very very dark’ and that if you moved just a little bit you’d be out of whatever light the streetlamp, using 60-year old technology, gave off.

The road was busy 24/7 – yes, it was so busy, so full of traffic, that not a single person driving through the area in that small town saw the girls or Johnny. Yes, it must have been a virtual Indy 500 of cars going by. Sheesh.

As for your ‘full moon backlight’ theory – please. IT WAS SNOWING. There was no moon visible that night – that’s why Chapman herself says it was ‘very very dark’.


At this point I can only conclude people just want someone, anyone, locked up for the crime, and who gives a damn about actual justice.

I can understand having an opinion on Jack’s guilt. But this willful ignorance, this complete inability to think about the cornerstone of our judicial system – guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – the stubborn insistence on leaping to any idea or conclusion, no matter how shaky, flawed, or illogical, if it ‘proves’ Jack’s guilt, is baffling to me.

I’m sure this post will be removed because it’s ‘rude’. SMH.

Anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, Obama birthers – and this. This is what willful ignorance looks like, and it is ugly.
 
those lights do look bright in that video. I would imagine that one street light on that corner would have been smaller in height than those seen in that video. And don't forget the road on that street corner was very busy 24/7 traffic lots of cars passing, so their would of been lots of lights around, plus the moon would shine light.

There was a man would was questioned of Maria's abduction in 1957, he said to the FBI that he was driving his car and got lost and stop on a street corner on dec. 3 around the time Maria was abducted and he asked two little girls for directions, this man lawed up when he was a suspect and Kathy didn't recongize him as the Johnny. Strange how a adult would ask 7 and 8 year olds for directions lol.

The moon that night was "Waning Gibbous" with 53% of the moon shining.
Here is the detailed weather page for that day/night at Rockford Airport - 40 miles away.
http://www.wunderground.com/history...e=Illinois&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=
While their may be a little difference in snow amounts or weather in general in Sycamore, the moon should be the same.
 
The moon that night was "Waning Gibbous" with 53% of the moon shining.
Here is the detailed weather page for that day/night at Rockford Airport - 40 miles away.
http://www.wunderground.com/history...e=Illinois&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=
While their may be a little difference in snow amounts or weather in general in Sycamore, the moon should be the same.
That link is for December 3, 1958. The link I provided shows the full moon on December 7, 1957, meaning it would have been at least 3/4 full on December 3. In fact, here's the wundergound link for Dec 3, 1957. The moon was waxing gibbous.

http://www.wunderground.com/history...e=Illinois&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=
 
OK, the State’s timeline is definitely screwy, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why the defense didn’t jump on this.

According to the testimony of Charles Ridulph, Maria’s older brother, he was at home looking at baseball cards and listening to records with his friend Randy Strombom when Kathy came to the door and asked if Maria was there. He says no, Kathy leaves, but returns less than 10 minutes later.

So now Charles tells his parents, and Charles and Randy head out to look for Maria as well. They go down Archie Place towards Center Cross, where Maria and Kathy had been playing, turn on Dekalb Avenue and stop at a friend’s house to see if Maria is there, then head back home.

In his testimony, Charles says this first search took about 15 minutes, and that by the time he got home from the first search, there was already a huge commotion going on and that the police were then called.

Now – we know the police were called at around 8pm. That means he went outside at around, say, 7:40-7:45pm. Which means that Kathy was at his house around, say, 7:20-7:30pm or so.

Kathy testified that she was outside playing with Maria for between ’15-30 minutes’ when Johnny showed up, and that Johnny was on the scene for only a few minutes, definitely less than 10 and probably less than five.

This means either one of two things.

1) If the abduction happened at around 6:20pm as the State now insists, eight-year old Kathy spent an hour or more searching for Maria, by herself, before asking anyone for help. Not only is this not remotely believable, it doesn’t match Kathy’s testimony, which is that she very quickly went to Maria’s house and spoke to Charlie.

2) Alternatively, the abduction happened after 7pm. Not only does this match the original FBI timeline - the DeKalb County sheriff said Maria didn't call Kathy and ask her to come out and play until 6:30pm – it exactly matches the timeline based on the testimony of Kathy and Charlie:

6:30pm: Maria calls Kathy to go out and play
6:35-6:40pm: Maria and Kathy are outside playing
6:55-7:05pm: Johnny shows up. Says he’s 24, not married. When Kathy asks him what time it is – presumably when Maria has gone to get a doll - he says that it’s ‘7pm’
7:05-7:10pm: Kathy goes back home to retrieve her mittens. By the time she gets back, Maria and Johnny are gone
7:20pm: Goes to Maria’s house.
7:30pm: Returns to Maria’s house a second time
7:35pm: Charlie and Randy head out to search for Maria
7:50-8:00pm: Charlie and Randy arrive back home to a ‘huge commotion’ and the police are called.
 
OK, the State’s timeline is definitely screwy, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why the defense didn’t jump on this.

According to the testimony of Charles Ridulph, Maria’s older brother, he was at home looking at baseball cards and listening to records with his friend Randy Strombom when Kathy came to the door and asked if Maria was there. He says no, Kathy leaves, but returns less than 10 minutes later.

So now Charles tells his parents, and Charles and Randy head out to look for Maria as well. They go down Archie Place towards Center Cross, where Maria and Kathy had been playing, turn on Dekalb Avenue and stop at a friend’s house to see if Maria is there, then head back home.

In his testimony, Charles says this first search took about 15 minutes, and that by the time he got home from the first search, there was already a huge commotion going on and that the police were then called.

Now – we know the police were called at around 8pm. That means he went outside at around, say, 7:40-7:45pm. Which means that Kathy was at his house around, say, 7:20-7:30pm or so.

Kathy testified that she was outside playing with Maria for between ’15-30 minutes’ when Johnny showed up, and that Johnny was on the scene for only a few minutes, definitely less than 10 and probably less than five.

This means either one of two things.

1) If the abduction happened at around 6:20pm as the State now insists, eight-year old Kathy spent an hour or more searching for Maria, by herself, before asking anyone for help. Not only is this not remotely believable, it doesn’t match Kathy’s testimony, which is that she very quickly went to Maria’s house and spoke to Charlie.

2) Alternatively, the abduction happened after 7pm. Not only does this match the original FBI timeline - the DeKalb County sheriff said Maria didn't call Kathy and ask her to come out and play until 6:30pm – it exactly matches the timeline based on the testimony of Kathy and Charlie:

6:30pm: Maria calls Kathy to go out and play
6:35-6:40pm: Maria and Kathy are outside playing
6:55-7:05pm: Johnny shows up. Says he’s 24, not married. When Kathy asks him what time it is – presumably when Maria has gone to get a doll - he says that it’s ‘7pm’
7:05-7:10pm: Kathy goes back home to retrieve her mittens. By the time she gets back, Maria and Johnny are gone
7:20pm: Goes to Maria’s house.
7:30pm: Returns to Maria’s house a second time
7:35pm: Charlie and Randy head out to search for Maria
7:50-8:00pm: Charlie and Randy arrive back home to a ‘huge commotion’ and the police are called.

We can substantiate this timeline with information directly from the FBI files found here..
https://jackdmccullough.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/fbi-files-from-cnn.pdf

As well as historic television schedules found here.
http://ctva.biz/US/Western/Cheyenne.htm

Maria's father Michael Ridulph was interviewed by FBI Agent Robert Wilson on Dec. 7th, 1957.
Ridulph gave a detailed account of his interpretation of the events of the evening of Dec. 3rd...the night Maria disappeared.

Here is a copy of the relevant part of his statement.
fbifile.JPG

He recalls reading the paper until about 6:30 PM then began watching television. He believed the show was "Cheyenne" or some other Western.
This next image is a small snip of the history of the show "Cheyenne" and it indicates that it did indeed start at 6:30 PM on that evening and the episode was entitled "Town Of Fear".
chey.JPG

The above image was clipped from this page.
http://ctva.biz/US/Western/Cheyenne.htm

Ridulph went on to state that he was still watching tv (presumably-Cheyenne) when Maria came in and went to "her corner" for something. Mrs. Ridulph supported this by stating that at about 6:40, Maria came to her and asked if she could take her new doll outside. Mrs. Ridulph told the FBI that she did not allow Maria to take the new doll, after which Maria retrieved an older one from her corner.

After Maria had arrived back at the corner, Kathy had run home to get her gloves.
When Kathy returned to the corner she did not see Maria and went to her house looking for her.
She went to the side door and asked Charles if Maria was at home. Mrs. Ridulph stated that this occurred at 6:45. Kathy, then went back to the corner looking for Maria, only to return 5 minutes later, telling Charles that Maria was gone. Charles told his mother, who then went into the living room and told her husband.

On one hand there is clear and provable evidence that Maria had come into the living room to retrieve her doll while "Cheyenne" was showing on the television, and the show started at 6:30 PM CST. We know that Maria was again seen by Kathy after that time on the corner. It was when Kathy left to go home, Maria disappears.

On the other hand, there is ISP Larry Kot who was reinvestigating the case and based on the fact that Tom Braddy, did not see anyone on that corner when he passed at 6:15 or so...and a bus driver saw no one there at 6:30, Kot decided that the crime happened at 6:20. It makes absolutely no sense and for the State to use that as a basis for a time line, especially in light of the known and provable statements of the Ridulphs, makes this a clear miscarriage of justice. Even if the FBI files were deemed inadmissable in court. the ISP knew what was stated in them and that their new timeline was flawed.

But in typical fashion, they needed someone to prosecute and Jack fit the bill.
 
Which means that even if we take the earlier time line from Maria's father - i.e., that Maria went outside to play at 6:15pm - there still isn't time for Jack to commit the crime. Kathy's testimony was that she was outside with Maria for '15-30 minutes', which means the absolute very earliest Jack is on the scene is 6:30pm, plus what, 5-10 minutes before Kathy comes back and finds the girls gone?

It is impossible for Jack to have been in Sycamore at 6:40pm and then be 40 miles away, in Rockford making a two-minute phone call at 6:57pm and at the recruiter's office at 7:15pm. It's literally against the laws of physics.

So I guess people that say Jack is guilty have to say that Maria's father was lying about what time this all happened? Or are they saying that the FBI agents investigating this - a very very high-profile case, and being closely watched by very powerful people above them - were completely incompetent?
 
Which means that even if we take the earlier time line from Maria's father - i.e., that Maria went outside to play at 6:15pm - there still isn't time for Jack to commit the crime. Kathy's testimony was that she was outside with Maria for '15-30 minutes', which means the absolute very earliest Jack is on the scene is 6:30pm, plus what, 5-10 minutes before Kathy comes back and finds the girls gone?

It is impossible for Jack to have been in Sycamore at 6:40pm and then be 40 miles away, in Rockford making a two-minute phone call at 6:57pm and at the recruiter's office at 7:15pm. It's literally against the laws of physics.

So I guess people that say Jack is guilty have to say that Maria's father was lying about what time this all happened? Or are they saying that the FBI agents investigating this - a very very high-profile case, and being closely watched by very powerful people above them - were completely incompetent?

Its a very good point.
Do people who believe McCullough committed this crime also believe Michael Ridulph is lying?
 
Its a very good point.
Do people who believe McCullough committed this crime also believe Michael Ridulph is lying?

Parents under the very stressful situation when their young child has been kidnapped and maybe wasn't even looking at the time when their little girl went outside to play. The parents would of been in a complete panic state all they would be thinking is to get their little girl back.

I do believe a grown up should of been watching these children while they play outside by themselves at night especially 7 and 8 year olds, but this was a small quite neighbourhood of the 50s where they consider it safe for young children to play outside without supervision, well thats what they thought as it turned out they were wrong. Maria wasn't allowed to cross the street or road by herself without her older siblings or adults or her parents around as the road was very busy, i think that would be a rule for any children that age.

The time must be earler than 7pm when Maria and Kathy started to play outside, as Maria's brother mentioned that her bedtime was 8:00pm and would be in her mother's bedroom reading a bedtime story before her bedtime.
 
The time must be earler than 7pm when Maria and Kathy started to play outside, as Maria's brother mentioned that her bedtime was 8:00pm and would be in her mother's bedroom reading a bedtime story before her bedtime.

Well, strictly speaking there is zero correlation between the first point ('must have been earlier than 7pm') and the second point ('her bedtime was 8pm') - Maria's bed time has no bearing on what time the kids went outside to play. And besides, nobody is suggesting the time they started to play outside was after 7pm; all the evidence, including from Maria's father, points to Maria and Kathy being outside from around 6:30pm and being abducted around 7pm or a little after. The timeline fits the testimony of both Maria's father and her brother perfectly.

Parents under the very stressful situation when their young child has been kidnapped and maybe wasn't even looking at the time when their little girl went outside to play. The parents would of been in a complete panic state all they would be thinking is to get their little girl back.
Nobody says Maria's father specifically looked at the clock the second Maria went outside, but he didn't have to - he clearly tells us what he was doing - he knows he read the paper until the Western came on, which was 6:30pm. He wasn't in a panicked state when he was reading the paper, he wasn't in a panicked state when he was watching the Western, it's not like he wouldn't remember what he was doing after dinner.

The timeline says the abduction happened closer to or slightly after 7pm, which completely and indisputably clears Jack of the crime. If you think he's guilty, you have to believe that Maria's father and brother lied, both 55 years ago at the time of the murder, and (in Charlie's case) at Jack's trial.
 
I guess people have their own deals but I was an 11-year-old boy in 1957 and I wasn't allowed to play outside after dark and, that time of year, it's black a midnight at 6:30PM. Back then, primetime TV started at 6:30PM in the Central Time Zone.
 
This case, like the case against Kenneth Hansen in the Peterson/Scheussler murders of 1955 shows that truth and justice is secondary to obtaining a conviction, even if it comes on the flimsiest of evidence. And like this case, Hansen's conviction was bolstered by the testimony of three shady characters and highly questionable activities of law enforcement.
 
I guess people have their own deals but I was an 11-year-old boy in 1957 and I wasn't allowed to play outside after dark and, that time of year, it's black a midnight at 6:30PM. Back then, primetime TV started at 6:30PM in the Central Time Zone.

Maria's mother said she doesn't normally let Maria play outside after dark, but she was begging her mother all day if she could just play outside with her friend and Maria was very excited as it was the first snowfall so her mother finally gave in and let her play. This was a quiet and safe neighbourhood the parents never think of the safety, kathy's mother also gave her permission to play outside. But as we know the parents made a big mistake as we know that there are very bad people out there who kidnaps and kills children no matter what decade it is. There are always these sick people out there who preys on children and will catch them when there are no adults around, befriend the child and take them.

Very sad that Maria's school, parents didn't teach children about stranger danger, they did when Maria was kidnapped and taken away but it was to late by then as the little girl was kidnapped and killed ):
 
In our TV routine, Cheyenne was on our regular schedule so I suppose we were watching that night. Clint Walker was a big star because of that show and he later went on to the epic Killdozer. Most people hadn't heard of him before Cheyenne. He's still living and in his late 80s.
 
Here is a book on the Maria Ridulph case I am currently writing. There will be illustrations which will detail the visual events of the kidnapping of the child.

Please join my FB page: the book is currently under development.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fox-Books-The-Illustrated-Novelist-Writer/910762015680839?fref=nf

The Piggyback Ride That Stole Away Seven Year Old Maria Ridulph: The Child Abduction and Murder of A Little Girl That Haunted A Small Quite Mid-West Town
11822502_910779645679076_4555933112539144293_n.jpg

family-vacation-in-iowa-in-the-summer-of-1957.jpg
 
Which means that even if we take the earlier time line from Maria's father - i.e., that Maria went outside to play at 6:15pm - there still isn't time for Jack to commit the crime. Kathy's testimony was that she was outside with Maria for '15-30 minutes', which means the absolute very earliest Jack is on the scene is 6:30pm, plus what, 5-10 minutes before Kathy comes back and finds the girls gone?

It is impossible for Jack to have been in Sycamore at 6:40pm and then be 40 miles away, in Rockford making a two-minute phone call at 6:57pm and at the recruiter's office at 7:15pm. It's literally against the laws of physics.

So I guess people that say Jack is guilty have to say that Maria's father was lying about what time this all happened? Or are they saying that the FBI agents investigating this - a very very high-profile case, and being closely watched by very powerful people above them - were completely incompetent?

I just finished Lachman's book. It seems to be very objective - presenting both sides of the case, historical records and court transcripts without putting on a subjective spin (unlike many true crime authors). I have not seen the documentary, but usually the TV versions have a bias one way or another.

As many have already pointed out, it is hard to see how there was enough evidence presented to convict.
1) If you have been with an elderly loved one who is dying over several weeks, you know they are often delirious, crying out things that don't make sense, on morphine, etc. Also, the two sisters differed quite radically in their account of the deathbed statement. Hard to understand how this can be considered credible.
2) The timeline is a huge stretch, even if the crime is moved up 15 to 30 minutes.
3) The eyewitness hesitated when selecting the suspect and had to look at a few of the photos more than once. This doesn't seem like someone who has an image burned into her brain. Also, she had selected a different person from a line-up right after the crime. LE can prompt subtly and unintentionally (or even intentionally) in a situation like this. Amazing that the court relied on 50-year-old memory of a face seen for just a few minutes, even if it was a traumatic experience.
4) 7 children and 2 adults lived in the suspect's very small house. There is no way he could have stuffed a body into his bedroom window - and then back out of the house - without somebody outside or inside noticing. Criminals lie and inmates are always hoping for something in return for a rat-out, even if nothing is promised. Those hardened criminals were not just being altruistic.
5) The rape case was tried first to make sure the public and the judge knew Jack was a sexual pervert (which he was). Its sole purpose was to sway sentiment in the murder trial.

However, I do think McCullough is guilty. He has changed his story every time new evidence has been uncovered - in order to explain the evidence (unused ticket discovery, etc.). Innocent people don't do that. His most recent confession is that his parents did, in fact, lie to the FBI about his whereabouts and also about his father picking him up in Rockford. But he has no real reason why they would do that, other than some vague notion that they thought he might be in trouble. That, to me, speaks volumes. Further, he did have a car at the time, so why would he be hitchhiking, taking trains, getting rides from his father, etc.? That makes no sense. All 18 year old boys want to drive their own cars. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't trace the car ownership records (title transfers should be available).

Anyway, just a couple of observations
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
841
Total visitors
1,054

Forum statistics

Threads
607,023
Messages
18,214,106
Members
234,019
Latest member
Crackerjack82
Back
Top