A former Washington state police officer, Jack McCullough, 73, was sentenced today (December 12, 2012) to life in prison for having kidnapped and murdered a seven year old girl, Maria Ridulph, in 1957. The death penalty was thankfully not an option.
Just from reading the wire reports, it is clear there are profound problems with the case. Â
Mr. McCullough’s half-sister, Janet Tessier, shown in news photos with an arm around the victim’s friend, Kathy Chapman, testified that their (her and Jack’s) mother “confessed” to having lied to support her son’s alibi (he was supposed to be on his way to Chicago for an Air Force entrance physical). The mother wasn’t there to testify, as she was dead, but Mr. McCullough’s half-sister was allowed to testify as to the mother’s death-bed “admission” that she had lied to protect her son. But this is not a death-bed admission of guilt, which is generally admissible as evidence, against general prohibitions on admitting hearsay testimony, on the probity assumed of death-bed admissions. Jack McCullough’s mother was not accused of a crime. And what mother wouldn’t instinctively lie to protect her child, whether she knew he was innocent or guilty? She could have as easily been lying to protect him from suspicion as to protect him from the consequences of his actions, which surely, unless he had confessed the crime to her, she wouldn’t have known about. And she didn’t claim her son had confessed the crime to her. Only that she had lied to support his alibi. And whether or not she lied about Mr. McCullough’s alibi does not prove that Mr. McCullough committed the crime.Â
But what had to be the most important piece of incriminating evidence was the “eyewitness” testimony of the last person to see Ms. Ridulph alive (except the killer). Shown a picture of Mr. McCullough, Kathy Chapman identified him as the man (boy of seventeen at the time) who had stopped to play with them the day Ridulph was abducted and killed.  We are to believe, and apparently the jurors bought it, that Ms. Chapman can identify someone from a photograph over fifty years after the fact?  This is utter nonsense. Eyewitnesses often don’t get things right ten minutes after the fact. Â
Neuroscience is accumulating mountains of evidence on how effectively our brains deceive us. We can be made to see, or admit, pretty much anything, if doing so is perceived to be to our advantage by the neural processes subconsciously deciding upon such things (for an excellent primer on the subject, see David Eagleman’s Incognito, reviewed here). In my estimation, eyewitness testimony has proved to be so often corrupted, either intentionally or not, that it should be inadmissible, or should never be the sole basis for a conviction, and the jury should be told to discount its probative value tremendously if it is allowed, pulling out neuroscientific studies if necessary to make the point.Â
It was quite troublesome, the photograph which appeared with the article on McCullough’s sentencing in my newspaper (but that I can’t find on their convoluted web page–it is generally the case, the New York Times being the exception, that print newspapers are horrible web newspapers; my hometown fishwrap, published only three days a week now, is a perfect example–go see for yourself at al.com).  In the photograph, Mr. McCullough’s half-sister, Janet Tessier, is shown with a beaming smile and her arm around Ridulph’s childhood friend, Kathy Chapman, whose smile is equally beaming.  Just from looking at the photograph, it appears that Mr. McCullough might be the victim of a conspiracy between the two woman to pin the murder on him.  Anyone who has half-siblings (I have three) readily understands that the relationships are at best complicated, at worst, quite antagonistic. When I saw that McCullough’s half-sister had testified against him, I was immediately suspicious, as well should have been the jurors. In general, just like eyewitness testimony, the testimony of close family members, either incriminating or exculpatory, should be heavily discounted. Even when the family member may believe they are telling the truth, it is often the case that their perception of truth is heavily impacted by their innate biases resulting from the relationship.
The last problem with the case is that, at least according to reports I’ve read, McCullough apparently never had done anything like this before, and never did anything like it again. But people who kill defenseless little girls while they are still a child themselves are usually possessed of severe mental deficiencies and defects. Yet there was no evidence that McCullough had any mental disease or defect. He seemed to live a perfectly normal life after having committed this horrific crime. It just doesn’t add up.
The only saving grace is that McCullough won’t be executed because of this bogus conviction. Imagine how many people have been convicted on flimsier evidence, who later died by the hangman’s noose or in the executioner’s chair.  The death penalty should be banned because the state prosecutorial machinery is inherently flawed, the result of political biases through which the system is riven, and the degree to which evidence can be manipulated to prosecutorial benefit. Prosecutors know that the public wants to fix blame when someone is murdered. The incentive to give them what they want, whether the actual murderer is identified or not, is just too great for justice to reliably be done.
I don’t know whether Mr. McCullough killed that little girl. What I do know is that the mechanism through he was convicted and sentenced was profoundly flawed, and should never be used to determine whether a man lives or dies.
Janey O'Connor said:
There is much more to this case than you put in your article. The “deathbed confession” was hear by two of the Tessier sisters and they do not agree on what was said. Eileen Tessier (the mother) was diagnosed with psychosis, heavily medicated, and her doctor noted in her medical records that she was “comfortably delusional”. Also, Janet waited 15 years to come forward with this information. Janet also waited less than two months after Ralph Tessier to die before coming forward. Ralph Tessier is the father and was the last living person who could corroborate Jack’s alibi.
The first time Kathy Chapman identified someone was 12/22/1957. The man’s name was Thomas Rivald and he was 5’4″ and at least 30 years old.
The investigation officer (Brion Hanley) was the one to give Kathy the photo line up. These are the critical 6 points in that photo line up
1. all 5 filler photos had a white background where Jack’s had a black background
2. all 5 filler photos had young men wearing a suit and tie where Jack was wearing very different clothing
3. all 5 filler photos had the young men looking off to the right in a year book style pose where Jack was staring directly in to the camera
4. all 5 filler photos had young men with neatly combed hair where Jack’s hair was unruly
5. Jack’s picture had an amateur quality making his ear shine brightly
6. all 5 filler photos were taken directly from a yearbook and Jack’s picture is not
Brion Hanley spent almost two hours with Kathy discussing the case and prepping her for the line up before showing her the photos.
If you thought that Kathy and the Tessier sister appeared to be friends you would be correct, they are friends and have been for some time. I could go on and on with other major flaws in this case but I will wait and see if any one is interested in hearing the truth.
The sad thing is this case was not decided by 12 jurors but Judge James Hallock. Before this case the biggest case Hallock ever heard was DUI cases. He was of course promoted three days after pronouncing Jack guilty.
The Curmudgeon said:
Ms. O’Connor,
Though it was impossible to know for sure from just the wire reports, your description of how Chapman identified Mr. McCullough is not at all surprising. And that the judge was inexperienced, but seemed to be seeking a promotion, explains all that one needs to know about why such evidence was admissible, and perhaps explains how the case even made it past the initial stages of prosecution. Knowing that Chapman and Tessier were friends makes the whole thing even more a travesty.
Your comments solidify my initial suspicion. This case should never have been brought. I ended my post by saying that I didn’t know whether McCullough killed that little girl. I should have said that nobody knows who killed that little girl, including the judge and jury, but it appears highly unlikely that it was Mr. McCullough. I hope he gets better treatment somewhere further along in the judicial system, because the state of Illinois perpetuated a travesty of justice in this ordeal.
Janey O'Connor said:
It was actually a bench trial, so no jury. The original judge assigned to the case was Stuckert and Jack’s original public defender was Regina Harris. However, after Clay Campbell lost his first case against Jack he became so upset that he publicly destroyed Regina Harris with information that was over a year old and that was already well known in the legal community. Clay Campbell also dismantled the drug court that Judge Stuckert over saw with information about a councilor having a relationship with a person going through the drug court. Of course this relationship occurred in the summer of 2011 and the councilor was fired and the entire situation had already been taken care of at the time of the incident. For fear of further reprisals from Campbell Stuckert excused herself from the case. Campbell went to another county to get a judge to hear this case. Judge Benson passed up four other judges that were in line for this case and much more experienced and instead sent Hallock. Judge Benson was also promoted three days after the guilty verdict. My biggest concern at this point is Benson was promoted to appellate court which is the next step for Jack.
It is hard to believe that this sort of thing is actually possible and for someone like myself, with zero experience in law and legal matters I am at a loss as what to do to help Jack. With Jack’s age I am fearful that he will not live long enough to fight this.
Casey Porter said:
On the Bench trial, you have to understand a bit about the community (Sycamore) and the experience Jack had with the rape trial. I know the idea you only have to get one person out of 12 to have reasonable doubt is the standard, but in Sycamore, I don’t think they could have found that. The newspaper in Sycamore was very clear in THEIR editorials they thought Jack was guilty, and the reporting was less than investigative, and unbias….
The Curmudgeon said:
What rape trial?
Casey Porter said:
After Jack was arrested for the murder, they came along a few months later and charged him with raping his step sister Jeanne Tessier, from 1961… She said she was gang raped by him, and two of his friends. No evidence, and the story fell apart in court because she did not have facts right that could be checked, and the other two guys were still alive that lived in the house this was suppposed to have happenned and showed up in court. The prosecution chose to pursue the rape case first, and the murder second. The rape case was a Hail Mary to try to get something on Jack, but it did not work. I tell ya, it is a great story for someone not living it.
The Curmudgeon said:
Unbelievable. But now the testimony of the step-sister makes sense. She just hates her stepbrother, wouldn’t ya say?
Casey Porter said:
All three step sisters hate him… it really is amazing. The sister the went to the police to begin with in 2008 was one years old when Jack left for the military… But the entire case is the sisters, when you peel back the onion, there is nothing but them….. it is a novel waiting to be written….
The Curmudgeon said:
It surely sounds like it. I’ve never written a novel, but have always fancied that one day I would. Maybe this would be a good place to start. As I mentioned in a subsequent post, the information that he had three stepsisters sent a chill down my spine. I have three stepsisters, two of whom hate me enough that it wouldn’t surprise me if they one day tried something like this. And my mother recently died, about a year and a half ago. She was the lone barrier to their expression of hatred in full. I shudder to think what their vindictive little souls might one day conjure. It is telling that the sisters didn’t come forward with the purported death-bed confession until almost a decade after the fact. And the prosecutors were allowed to build a case on it! Incredible.
Casey Porter said:
As a follow up to Janey. If you want the MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
OR A NEW TRIAL, and a few pages of the FBI file, please let me know. It is 17 pages total (including Janey’s letter to the prosecutor). About a 15 minute read, but lays out the majority of the issues in the case. My email is casey1167@gmail.com
Janey O'Connor said:
Positive, it was a bench trial. The first day of court, Jack turned to his lawyer and said he changed his mind and wanted a jury trial. Of course, at that point it was too late. Jack was very worried about a jury trial in Sycamore do to the mentality of the town. I can completely understand his feelings. I was born twenty years to the day after Maria disappeared and I have received quite a bit of hateful comments from residents and Leland Campbell (Clay Campbell’s brother). This has always had the feel of a modern day witch hunt and now more than ever.
As Casey (the other commenter) mentioned we do have some of the FBI files, motions, and other bits of evidence and would be happy to e-mail them to you. Also, Jeanne Tessier’s memoirs are so unbelievable and really explain quite a bit. She went through years of therapy and memory recovery and is now able to REMEMBER her father trying to kill her while her mother was 4 months pregnant with her, she REMEMBERS her father molesting when she was 9 months old, and there is so much more. I think the key word is she remembers. I am not sure about you but I struggle with what happened last month let a lone what happened when I was an infant.
The Curmudgeon said:
If Mr. McCullough’s attorney did not seek a change of venue, that alone should be grounds for appeal.� As Mr. McCullough apparently attempted to withdraw relinquishing his right to a jury trial, the details of how a bench trial instead obtained should also be examined.� � In short, this trial should never have been held in the town where such a notorious crime happened, and the judge should not have allowed it to proceed without a jury.� � I’ve only ever dabbled in criminal law, and so can’t get too technical in my observations without some research, both into the particulars of this case and in the particulars of the applicable law.� But I can resolutely say that trying and convicting a man of a crime that happened over fifty years ago while excluding FBI evidence accumulated during the initial investigation, especially when allowing such prejudicial evidence as the claimed mutterings of a half-deranged woman on her death bed while under heavy sedation, screams of the necessity of appellate review. � Is Mr. McCullough appealing the verdict?� Does he have a lawyer other than his trial counsel for doing so?
Janey O'Connor said:
There is a record of Jack’s original public defender (Regina Harris) requesting a change in venue and that was denied.
Jack has not yet been assigned a new lawyer for the appellate court but the motions have been filed. I have the motions for that if you would like them.
Jack was transferred to DOC two days ago and I have no idea how long the appellate court process takes. I know that Jack does not have the time to wait for an appeal. I feel his only hope is the appellate court. I just hope he does not get Judge Benson
The Curmudgeon said:
Has Jack ever been convicted or charged with any other similar crime to this one? Has he ever been declared incompetent, i.e., committed to a mental institution? In other words, is there anything other than this case that might indicate Jack would do something like this? People who do these sort of things very rarely do them only once. With the time that’s passed since the girl was killed, surely whoever did it has done something similar since.
Janey O'Connor said:
No, no, and no.
I first met Jack when I was 8 years old, he worked for my Grandfather. Jack started dating my mother when I was 12 and they were married when I was 14. Jack had plenty of opportunity where he could have hurt me and he NEVER once made me uncomfortable, afraid, or concerned for my safety. The biggest thing I can tell you is I trust Jack with my 11 year old daughter. Cannot even begin to tell you everything that made Jack such a wonderful Dad and amazing Grandpa. Jack had a standing date with my daughter and son on Fridays. Every Friday he would pick them up take them with him for his household shopping, always coming home with something for them, out to eat, and the library. Jack had my 6 year old son reading and writing Chinese and the pride and love in his face as my son would would recite whatever the latest bit of knowledge Jack had imparted. I am well aware that being a good Grandpa does not mean that a person is not capable of evil acts.
However, the FBI files are so clear, concise, detailed, and prove that he was in Rockford at the time of the kid napping.
I truly believe that Brion Hanley’s actions in his investigation either are criminal or should be. The photo line up was a complete joke. You did not even have to be alive in 1957 to be able to pick out the picture that Hanley wanted. Not to mention he was the one who gave the photo line up to Kathy and spent time before hand her talking to her about the current investigation and prepping her.
The Curmudgeon said:
Then there is no doubt in my mind that Jack is innocent. My thoughts and prayers are with you and Jack.
Janey O'Connor said:
Thank you
Jan Tessier said:
Hi, there. I’m Jan, half-sister to Jack Daniel McCullough—not a “step-sister”. I was one of two sisters who heard my mother’s death bed confession. I’m not going to argue with anything posted, except to tell you that Charles Lachmann has already written an excellent book about this case, and it’s due out November 4th. There is also going to be a Lifetime documentary about the case, based on the book and interviews. That airs November 12.
Here’s some more information for you: Janey showed up at the Dr. Phil interview with her new boyfriend, instead of her husband/boyfriend Casey. Neither Janey nor Casey are or were privy to the information shown in court and during the investigation. I have been apprised of the investigation from the beginning, since it was I who contacted the Illinois State Police in 2008. Much of what Janey and Casey have written about this case is not factual, and a great deal of it is engendered by this baffling hatred they have for anyone involved in this case. Janey has proven herself to be very dishonest, even with her supposed husband, Casey.
It’s too bad that you bought their bullshit hook, line, and sinker. But, it’s your blog, so you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. I’m going to stick with the truth.