More than 1,200,000 pageviews from 150 countries


Friday, September 21, 2012

The Jack McCullough Case: Reasonable Doubt?

     On December 3, 1957, 7-year-old Maria Ridulph and her playmate, Kathy Chapman, were playing on a street corner in Sycamore, Illinois, a DeKalb County town west of Chicago. A teenage boy who approached the girls and introduced himself as Johnny, began giving Maria piggyback rides. Kathy left her friend to go home for mittens, and when she returned, Johnny and Maria were gone.

     After friends and relatives searched the neighborhood without finding Maria, the FBI, on the assumption the disappearance was a ransom kidnapping, entered the case. Over the next few weeks agents and police officers questioned more than a hundred potential suspects, including a 17-year-old boy named John Tassier who said he had seen the girl around the neighborhood. Tassier described little Maria as being as pretty as a Barbie Doll. When asked his whereabouts at the time of the abduction, Tassier said he had been on his way to Chicago to take a medical exam before entering the Air Force. When Tassier's stepfather backed up the alibi, investigators moved on to other possibilities. Not long after Maria's disappearance, John Tassier entered military service.

     In the spring of 1958, in a forest 120 miles from Sycamore, hikers came upon Maria Ridulph's badly decomposed body. The autopsy disclosed that she had been stabbed in the throat and chest. Because five months had passed since her death, the forensic pathologist was unable to determine if she had been sexually assaulted.

     John Tassier, sometime in the 1960s, changed his name to Jack McCullough. At the time, he was employed in the state of Washington as a police officer. In the 1980s, after being accused of sexually molesting a teenage runaway girl he and his girlfriend had taken in, McCullough lost his police job. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor sexual offense, and in return, received a probated sentence.

     Jack McCullough's half-sister, in 2008, told DeKalb County authorities that on their mother's deathbed in 1994, she had indicated that Jack had been responsible for Maria Riduph's disappearance and death. About two years later, a woman who said she had dated McCullough in the 1950s, told the police that Jack's stepfather had lied about the boy's 1957 alibi. In 2010, the DeKalb County prosecutor re-opened the 53-year-old murder case.

     Cold-case detectives contacted Kathy Chapman, the playmate who had been with Maria Ridulph when the teenager who called himself Johnny give the 7-year-old piggyback rides on December 3, 1957. After viewing a collection of photographs, Chapman picked Jack McCullough out of the photo-lineup as Johnny. (I'm assuming the photograph Chapman selected depicted McCullough as a 17-year-old. I'm also assuming that the physical description of the suspect she gave to the police in 1957 matched the then John Tassier.)

     Detectives in Seattle where McCullough resided, questioned him about the Ridulph kidnap-murder case. While raising eyebrows with the comment that he remembered Maria as a "stunningly beautiful" neighborhood girl, McCullough denied any role in her death.

     When cold-case investigators questioned one of McCullough's younger sisters, she claimed that in 1962, when she was fourteen, he and two other men had sexually molested her. (The crime, which according to the sister took place in Sycamore, led to charges against McCullough. In April 20ll, a judge acquitted him of the crime.)

     When the Ridulph case investigators spoke to members of the suspect's family, they gave statements to the effect that McCullough's mother, on her cancer deathbed in 1994, uttered comments they interpreted as implicating the suspect in the neighborhood girl's murder.

     On July 1, 2011, detectives arrested 72-year-old Jack McCullough at his Seattle retirement home. The prosecutor in DeKalb County had charged him with the kidnapping and murder of Maria Ridulph. According to the prosecution's theory of the case, when Kathy Chapman went home to get her mittens, McCullough dragged Maria into an alley where he choked her with a wire and stabbed her in the throat and chest. According to the prosecutor, the defendant had been sexually attracted to the victim.

     McCullough's trial, the oldest unsolved crime in United States history to make it into a courtroom, got underway on September 10, 2012. The defendant had waived his right to a jury by requesting a so-called bench trial in which the judge determines the defendant's guilt or innocence. (In a case involving such weak evidence, this was not a good decision on McCullough's part.)

     The prosecution's star witness, Kathy Chapman, after recounting the events of that day 54 years ago when she was seven, made an in-court identification of the defendant as the man she had last seen with Maria Ridulph. Chapman was followed to the stand by three jailhouse snitches who had been in the DeKalb County lockup with McCullough during the months leading up to his trial. One of the informants, a man named Kirk Swaggerty who was facing a 33-year prison term for a home invasion robbery that had led to a person's death, said the defendant had confessed to him. According to this witness, McCullough told him..."he was giving her [Maria] a piggyback ride on his shoulders, and when she fell, she wouldn't stop screaming, and when she wouldn't keep quiet, he suffocated her."

     On cross-examination by McCullough's attorney, Swaggerty admitted that following his cooperation with the police, his attorney had filed a motion for a reduced sentence. Because jailhouse snitches have been known to commit perjury to help their own causes, many jurors do not find them credible. To some members of a jury, this point made by a defense attorney would hit home. But because this case was being tried before a judge who had allowed the jailhouse snitch to take the stand in the first place, the implication that he had lied to reduce his sentence had no impact.  

     Two more jailhouse informants followed Mr. Swaggerty to the stand. If these witnesses were to be believed, Jack McCullough, after keeping his mouth shut for 54 years, had confessed to three men he didn't know during a period of a few months.

     McCullough's defense, which could have been substantial, consisted of a handful of witnesses, and just two hours of court time. The defense attorney put the physician on the stand who had treated McCullough's mother for cancer. According to the doctor, when the woman died in 1994, she was so mentally confused, any deathbed utterances she had made would have been meaningless. Jack McCullough did not take the stand on his own behalf. Perhaps he chose to remain silent because there were no jurors to impress. Moreover, the defense attorney, based on the weakness of the prosecution's case, probably expected an acquittal.

     Just how weak was the case against Jack McCullough? The prosecution, without a confession, a cooperating accomplice, a proven motive, a murder weapon, a time of death, or any physical evidence linking the defendant to the victim, had no choice but to present a 54-year-old eyewitness identification by a then 7-year-old girl, vague deathbed utterances, and three jailhouse snitches. By any standard, this bottom-of-the-barrel evidence barely supported enough probable cause for McCullough's arrest.

     On September 14, 2012, the McCullough trial judge found the defendant guilty of kidnapping and murder. While it is possible, even probable, that Jack McCullough had committed this 54-year-old crime, the state had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Had the defendant been tried before a jury, I can't imagine a guilty verdict in this case. We can only hope that this man is in fact guilty. But that is not how our criminal justice system is supposed to work.

UPDATE

     On December 10, 2012, the judge sentenced McCullough to life in prison. He continues to maintain his innocence.
        

56 comments:

  1. I was at the trial. Concerning the Physician for the Defense in relation to the Mother's Death Bed Confession. You failed to mention that there were 2 Daughters at the bedside who heard the confession. I have been through the same situation as far as a Mother Dying from Cancer. While it is true what the Doctor said about a patient in that situation would be mentally confused and anything they say is meaningless, that is towards the end of that patients battle. Anybody who has ever been through such a horrible experience knows the final stages of Dying. They also know that in the beginning to midway through these stages, the patient is quite aware and Coherent. Nobody ever said that these words were spoken from the Mother's Last Breath.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the daughters did testify but their stories did not match. One sister claimed the mother said "he did it" and the other sister claimed the mother gave a long monologue declaring McCullough guilty.
      Within the first week that Maria was missing Kathy gave three very different descriptions the only common factors being long hair and missing teeth. Jack McCullough has never had long hair and to date still has all of his teeth. Also, Jack is not the only person that Kathy has positively identified. That and Kathy was and still is friends with Jack's sisters, she was shown a picture of Jack in 1955, and 55 years ago the FBI verified his alibi with three military officers. Sadly, those men are no longer alive and their signed affidavits were not allowed

      Delete
    2. I think you missed the point. Regardless of how many people witnessed the mother's statement, she was essentially not there mentally.

      Delete
    3. My Great Aunt, on her death bed, confused me for her Dog.

      Delete
  2. "John Tassier, sometime in the 1960s, changed his name to Jack McCullough" - He did so when he filed for a marriage application on 4/27/1994, per public records.


    FBI report where they gave Jack McCullough a lie detector test and he passed it, as well and the verification of the three military officers about his location from 1957 was not allowed in court. Per court filing by the defense.

    Also, Kathy was childhood friends with Jack's sister, and did go to thier house. The photo line up was normal pictures, and the one of Jack was a blow up of what his ex girlfriend had of him. It was completely different that the other pictures.

    Per the court record, the sisters can not even agree on what thier mom said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did you find 4/27/1994 as the date of his name change?

      Delete
  3. "McCullough's defense, which could have been substantial, consisted of a handful of witnesses, and just two hours of court time." - I think one thing you might be missing here is the budget issues in Dekalb. The defense did not recieve any substaintial increase in their budget for this case, yet the prosecution seemed to have an open check book. Also, because of the limitation placed by the judge, the defense was not able to question the witnesses like they probably should have.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.kingcounty.gov/business/Recorders/RecordsSearch.aspx

    Search for "Tessier, John" with the range of 1/1/1994-12/31/1994. You can pull up the original document.

    If you can't get it, my user name is gmail, shoot me an email and I will send you the pdf.

    Everyone has had access to this since day 1, the reporting he "changed his name and joined the military" was a flat out lie.

    Casey

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Something to Ponder. Compare Jack's Retirement Home Address Number (the place he was arrested) to Maria's Home Address Number.Coincidence?

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The information being provided by comments on this page are inaccurate and fueled by rage. Casey is a vile, nasty person who has made it his goal to vilify anyone having anything to do with the case against Jack Daniel McCullough. Casey not only was not at any of the trials, but his information is being gleaned from Jack himself, the internet, and his girlfriend, who is Jack's alleged stepdaughter. I would take anything said with a grain of salt. Casey is not a reliable source.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Janet Tessier, thank you very much for your comment... as "anonymous" Unfortunately, you say the same thing in most post, so you are known by your writing. For the record, I am married to Jack's step daughter, which is public record, as is every thing I have previously posted. If anyone does not think what I have previously posted, please shoot me an email and I will give you the court documents. As for Janet Tessier, her issues are about the same as her sister's Jeanee Tessier. Google of her writing will tell you a lot about her make up.

    Casey Porter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you are a pedophile too, hence you identify with tessier?

      Delete
  10. The next time I see anything posted about me or my family anywhere from you, Casey, I'm going to take all the saved e-mails and postings you've sent and put up and send them to DCFS in Seattle. Anyone who puts out such awful, violent, horrible words should not be around children. Others, including law enforcement, have seen your writing and have a very good idea what type of person you are based on what you have said. Disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here is an example of the type of thinking Casey Porter has:

    (My sister wrote a piece for a woman's wellness conference a few years back, which Casey found on the internet and decided to not read it for its honesty and pain. Instead, this is his commentary in an e-mail he sent me.)

    "Yes, I keep hearing how many girls Jack is mollested, but I do have an issue with that. Janey is far more attractive that anything you and your sister were at your best (which I can only hope is better than today) and from the age of 12 through 35, Jack never touched her. That is just not consistent with the man you paint him out to be.

    Regardless of who or what Jack mollested, there is a big part of the population which does not jump from mollestation to stabbing a girl three times in the neck. And there is absolutely no evidence Jack mollested anyone in his life outside of you and your sisters stories, and the druggy from Milton. As I count, that would be three women, all of which (at least today) have emotional issues.

    Based on Jeanne's memoirs, she notes you were "fingered" a lot, and mollested a lot by your dad. Jack does not believe this actually happenned, he has nothing but good things to say about Ralph, but maybe it is true. This might explain some of your emotional issues, and your need to punish Jack for your messed up life.

    You were under 4 when Jack left the house. I really don't think he could have abused you that much. And for you to go to live with him, after your older sister says she was mollested by him... that is sort of funny. I think your issue might be with your sister, not with Jack. And given you were 4 when Jack left, Janey has spent far, far more time with him than you have. Maybe you should start having your own memories, and let your sister have hers."

    If anyone wants to see more of his sick, disgusting thoughts, I'll be glad to post more. As you can see, he is much like his "father-in-law", a convicted child murderer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Although Janet's post are a bit off topic, she does post some interesting things, and a few items in my email to her which are factually correct, and do lend to one's analysis of the case.

    Since Janet has made herself available on this blog, I do have some public questions for her, as the person whose testimony is so vital to Jack's conviction:

    1. My understanding is you went to live with Jack because you had serious drug problem as a youth. It is also my understanding throughout your life; you have struggled with issues of drug addiction. For the record, is this true?

    2. Did the idea that Jack killed Maria come to you in 2008 when you were caretaker to Ami Lemberger? Mother to Mark Lemberger, the author of "Crime of Magnitude." "Crime of Magnitude" being a book about an unsolved murder of a seven year old girl.

    Thank you for your time,

    Casey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Casey, did you in fact say this in an email you sent?: "You were under 4 when Jack left the house. I really don't think he could have abused you that much." If so are you implying that even if Jack did molest her the molestation could not have gone on long as she was "under 4 years old" when she left his presence? That would indicate a serious lack of understanding & ignorance on your part about the damage of sexual molestation! One incident of sexual molestation by a parent or trusted relative to a child "under 4" can leave serious psychological scars that are carried years into adulthood sir! I will gladly apologize taking you to task if this statement was never made or you offer an explanation of your words "that much" in the email.

      Delete
  13. Janet Tessier's comments are confusing and appear to be fueled by hate towards Casey. A man she has apparently never even spoken with let alone knows personally. I have read many of Casey's post and none of them are slanderous, "violent", "vile", or "nasty" as Janet claims. It does make me wonder if she can have this much hate for a man she does not even know how much hate could she harbor for her half-brother. I find Janet's comments towards Casey to be of a threatening nature and based solely on irrational emotion. There is no question, as this article mentioned that the evidence against Jack McCullough is "bottom-barrel" and questionable at best. I understand that in a case of this nature that emotions would run high on both sides of the case. However, where is Janet's hate coming from...? Why is it directed at a man she does not know...? Casey is not the only person raising concerns about the outcome of the McCullough trial or questioning how someone could be convicted on such little evidence. As an American citizen I find it terrifying that in this modern day a man can have his freedom taken from him based on such little evidence. An eyewitness identification from a woman that has identified someone before and the fact that she lived in the same town as McCullough, the victim's brother claims that he saw McCullough "thousands" of times, yet Chapman never did. The hearsay testimony told by two woman that did not hear the same thing and that obviously hate the accused and the fact that they waited over 12 years to come forward with their tale of their mother's dying words. The words of a woman who was diagnosed with psychosis and described by her own doctor as "comfortably delusional". I find it terrifying that this is all the evidence that is needed to convict a man of murder and take away his freedom and the life he has created.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You asked for it, Janey and Casey. I'm done. These messages and posts are going to DCFS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to let you know Janet, DCFS is not the appropriate folks to contact to make your false claim. In WA it would be CPS or DSHS. However, making a false claim is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $500 fine. Name calling, slander, and threats is usually the last resort of someone that does not have an argument based in fact or that of someone with mental instability. All of my comments that I have posted come directly from public record, trial transcripts, FBI reports, and Jack's legal defense team.

      Delete
  15. Casey, your understanding of anything wouldn't fit on the head of a needle. Jack's been lying to you about everything. All the information you post is a crock. Here's another piece of news...I didn't know anything about you or Janey until the two of you started posting hateful posts in the DeKalb Daily Chronicle. Prior to that, none of us knew anything about you, nor did we have any feelings about you one way or another, except to feel some pity that you had been in such close contact with Jack for so many years, and had probably been groomed by him to be his little robot defenders. Which is exactly what you are. You believe anything he tells you. And, neither of you knows the truth about anything because you pick and choose crap published on blogs and news sites that are all incorrect in their reporting of the facts. I haven't seen one published news article or blog post that has not had significant errors in their reporting, whether it be dates, times, quotes, or names. Neither of you knows what is true because you believe a liar, and because you want to believe a liar. Fine. Believe him. As far as me answering any questions you might have, I would have gladly done so if both of you hadn't made it your life's work to start a vendetta against me, my family, and anyone else involved in the case. So, drop dead with the questions. It wouldn't matter what I answered anyway---You want to believe Jack so much that anything anyone else says to you won't be accepted. I'm going to call DCFS in the morning, and e-mail them copies of the utter garbage Casey prints out. And, I'm going to tell them how long you two have been targeting my family and all the others involved with the case. I'll let them decide whether or not they should be concerned with the well-being of your children.

    ReplyDelete
  16. For anyone reading this blog, please remember, the person that got this case open, and was the star witness is Janet Tessier. This same person now saying she will try to get our children taken away from us because of what is printed her. Hopefully this give a person some idea of the stability of the prosecutions main witness.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Casey seems to have touched a nerve in anything that may be left of Janet's conscience.For Janet's story is a copycat rehash of the one posted earlier by sister Jeanne who filed different charges and was rightly pronounced unworthy of belief by the (woman) judge who had Jeanne under close observation for a considerable period of time.
    Further,Jeanne had,prior to Janet's accusation, claimed that she was raped by both her father and her brother and that her mother on her death bed made a separate confession to Jeanne that she had known about both "rapes" all along.
    To explain why she never filed a complaint Jeanne also alleges that she had suppressed the whole thing until her memories were revived by a psychiatrist
    named John Taylor.
    Unfortunately she, apparently, waited another thirty years(was Taylor also conveniently dead by then ?) before regurgitating this version.
    She also now claims to have been simultaneously raped by two other of brother John's buddies and to have a third eye witness who did not participate in the rape, but as the prosecutor never bothered to ask their names she isn't able to call them as witnesses either.
    To render this story even(if possible)more dubious,Jeanne got one thing right.She gave the address where the "rape" occurred.And her brother John can be linked by a newspaper article to that address.It seems he accidentally shot a guy at a shooting range who lived at that address.The contemporary newspaper article erroneously gives John's address as the victim's address!
    If there is one house in the world in which Jeanne
    could never have been raped by John it is that one.
    How many times did baby sister Janet hear this junk from big sister Jeanne before conceiving the idea of saying she also received a separate death bed from dear old Mom.Or are we to believe the two women never exchanged notes during the last fifteen years until after Janet went public with the murder "confession"?
    And finally why did Janet Big-heart go public only fifteen years after mother's death despite the probably fervid urgings of sister Jeanne? Simple they waited exactly three weeks after the death of Father Ralph, the last living alibi witness.
    Both Ralph and the FBI had copies of the telephone record proving that Ralph did receive a telephone call from scores of miles away from someone whom he and the mother identified -at the time -not fifty years later,as being their son.This was confirmed by three army officers and the waitress who served John pie after his exam.Or do Jeanne and Janet want us to believe they are all part of the conspiracy against them as well?


    ReplyDelete
  18. Jeanne's story for back up to Roger's comments. If a person does choose to read this, please, read it a couple times. Then, please let me know what parts of it are true. For those that do not think this is part of the murder case, nothing could be farther from the truth. The cases are one in the same, same players, same evidence, etc. -- Casey

    http://unspokentruthexhibit.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/unspoken-truth.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  19. Roger,
    I am curious why you stated that "there is one house in the world in which Jeanne could never have been raped by John..." I have read the rape trial and the murder trial transcripts, after reading those transcripts my belief that Jack is innocent was only enforced. I have a strong belief that the Tessier woman lied on the stand and Kathy Claulfield had to read her grand jury testimony to be reminded of what she said just a year prior but was allowed to testify to what she "remembered" over hearing her mother say to the FBI 55 years ago. The two sisters have two separate versions of what they heard their mother say on her death bed, they both cannot be telling the truth. Of course the mother's doctor did diagnose her as "comfortably delusional" I would love to hear why you are so certain that Jeanne could not have been raped in that house. I do know that she had to adjust the time frame for when it occurred because her original story had the event occurring when Jack was on active duty and of course she was not able to describe the inside of the house accurately. My favorite part of her story is that she was less than six blocks from home but in a part of town she did not know. All of the information in this comment I gained from reading trial transcripts and talking to Jack's defense team, none of my comments are from information gleamed from the media or Jack personally.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well,I still have to learn lots and lots about this case but none of what I am learning seems to back up these obviously indoctrinated witnesses.
    I wrote that it was impossible that Jeanne was raped in that house because Jack could not conceivably have taken Jeanne to the house of a man whom he had previously shot for purposes of rape.The man testified at the trial that he never spoke to Jack after this incident. So I conclude-as the judge who had careful opportunity to observe both witnesses,did- that Jeanne invented or hallucinated this story.Her use of an address for the scene of rape which was erroneously attributed to Jack in a newspaper article logically leads one to the less charitable of these two alternatives.
    Interestingly the prosecution did not ask Jeanne to identify any of the other three people involved.
    Well, is she or she not accusing the defense witness of participating in her rape? And why didn't the prosecutor dare to ask that obvious question.Could it be that even he wasn't satisfied by her answers?
    I am interested in your statement that the two half-sisters gave two different versions of the same "death bed confession".I read this as to being two separate alleged "confessions" to two entirely separate alleged crimes.In which case it is impossible that they did not exchange stories in the course of the following fifteen years when one of them went to the police.Are they now claiming both confessions were given at the same place and the same time and each sister only heard half of what was being said but never asked the other to confirm it? And there was a third (or may be only a second) sister present who didn't hear anything at all.Didn't they ever ask her what she heard? This story grows more incredible by the hour.The first judge is obviously correct in her evaluation of the sisters and Jack should clearly have been acquitted by the second judge as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roger,
      Two sisters were present at the supposed deathbed confession. One sister claims mom grabbed her by the wrist and gave this long monologue while the other sister claims that mom just said "he did it, he did it" and when she questioned her mother she did not clarify or even respond. Now, was mother mumbling in her drug induced state, who is "he" and what is "it". It is mentioned in Jeanne's memoirs that her father sexual abused her as a child and the mother was in denial. Could it be that "he" is Ralph Tessier and the "it" was the accusation of sexual abuse made by the daughter...? Who is to say, since mom is no longer able to elaborate or explain. However, Cathy Claufield (one of the sisters) did need to read her grand jury testimony transcripts while testifying at the trial to better refresh her memory. If this sister is unable to remember what she said less than two years ago how are we supposed to believe she can remember what mom said almost twenty years ago and further more, how is she able to testify to what she heard her mother telling the FBI 55 years ago. One thing that kept coming to mind while reading the murder trial transcripts is people were struggling to remember what they said or experienced in the relative recent past but somehow were able to remember with clarity events and conversations that took place 55 years ago. Of course since the FBI reports were not allowed in people like the eye witness were able to completely change what they said 55 years ago when it was current because the evidence of what they said 55 years ago was not allowed. Kathy Chapman claims she does not remember positively identifying anyone other than Jack. The truth is that she positively identified Thomas Rivald on 12/22/1957.
      Another issue that has bothered me from the trial transcripts is it is brought up numerous times what a small town it was, how everyone new everyone, and how older kids and younger kids would all play kick the can together. Maria's brother is quoted in the paper as saying that he did not know Jack but he had seen him a thousand times. Jack graced the cover of the local news paper at least two times and led a parade. I just have trouble believing that the small town boy who one the silver star, on the cover of the local paper, and touted as a war hero was never seen by Kathy Chapman. Maybe that is why he was familiar to her, he did just live a few blocks away from her and his own sister claims that he would walk home (after returning from the military) to do his laundry at his parents house. Both Tessier sisters testified that they played with Kathy Chapman and were friends with her. The connection with the eye witness and the Tessier sisters that obviously have a great deal of hate for Jack is very unsettling.

      Delete
    2. If they hate him, ad you claim, there is a reason.

      Delete
  21. When reading through the posts on this blog one thing is clear, Janet has a passionate hate for Casey and Jack. She threatens Casey and myself with reporting us to Child Protective Service because we have posted comments that she does not like. The fact that all of our posts come directly from the FBI reports, trial transcripts, and are completely factual does not seem to have any affect on her. In my opinion her threats are not directed at myself as a mother or Casey as a father but threats to my children. Even though I currently have no faith in our judicial system I still have no concern that a person who has never even met my children or interacted with my children and myself feels that she has a valid claim to file with CPS. My mind drifts to what is her goal with that threat...? Is her goal to have two small kids have their stability and family taken from them. I think it just really reflects on her mind set. What is really frightening is if you follow the strands of evidence in the trial almost every single piece leads to Janet and Jeanne Tessier. After reading Jeanne's memoirs and Janet's posts the idea that those two were so instrumental in the case is disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Whelp Casey, time for you to raise the white flag. You put up a good, yet biased fight for your boy Johnny, however, having known the truth for quite some time and reading all of your comments this past year I think it's time you apologize to the Ridulph's and Tessiers. Just watched your boy's interview with 48hrs in which he admits to having sexual relations with his little sister...???? Game Over! Apologize!

    ReplyDelete
  24. what is really scary is that janey and casy both made fun of rape victims and said they were lyeing
    guess that proves their both crazy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps janey and Casey share a pedophilic propensity, like tessier. Blame the victims is standard pedophilic behavior

      Delete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dispassionate observerSeptember 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM

      "Spell checker helps". It certainly does!
      Here, let me help you write like a literate, native English-speaking adult:

      *position
      *no clue what went on there
      *Lacrosse
      *nor DO the tears of Jeanne Tessier
      -oh, and from an earlier post- "molested", not "mollested".
      If you are trying to make an articulate defense of your slimeball friend, you may want to invest some time in editing your posts.

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much for the correction. My wife was not around at the time to proof read my post. I hope you read the blog I have on the case as carefully as you read my post.
      -Casey

      Delete
  26. Jack McCullough is a pedophile. Only he knows what he has and has not done. Regardless of whether he killed Maria or not, he is where he deserves to be due to molesting so many from early on. He refused to admit to relations with his own sister which is an admission on it's own. Next- Mr. McCullough-meet your maker and lie to him..............

    ReplyDelete
  27. Missed opportunity for 48Hrs' Erin Moriarty. When Jack makes the mindless comment "I may be a Sinner, but I'm No Murderer!". Erin's Reply should have been "Jack, is Johnny a Murderer?".

    ReplyDelete
  28. hey, janey how long did jack abuse you sexually?

    ReplyDelete
  29. they took a 72 yr old man with a past and railroaded him into a conviction.
    why? to finally satisfy a community and give them closure,
    there is NO closure when you convict an innocent person.

    when one innocent is convicted, no men are free..

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wow, guilty or not it sounds like there isn't any "Real" evidence in this case. I definitely hope the appeals court reviews this and maybe he can get a fair trial next time.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hey folks, chose anonymous because I don't have any of the required accounts, probably do but don't remember any of the passwords. Name's Robert. I stumbled upon this exchange after reading the CNN article this week. In an effort to try to understand the case, I've been checking various blogs, and found myself right smack in the middle of this highly charged family mud slinging. I don't want to get into the fray, but I think someone needs to referee here. There is obviously a lot of pain here, and a lot of denial. What's more, I recognize it, and understand it. You see, my sister told me when I was 28 years old that my father had molested her for years, and she gave me very specific details that were horrible for me to hear. Of course, my father denied it, even though he and my sister went at each other like two lovers whose love had turned to hate. You see, this is what molestation and incest do...it tears a family apart. The father makes sure he isn't discovered by anyone, puts his own sexual gratification over the sanctity of the father-daughter relationship, and it destroys not only the family, but anyone who marries into it. It's like a cancer that festers, an open wound that never heals. But the mind is a curious thing. It compartmentalizes things it doesn't want to process. It blames. That is what I see going on here...blind emotional hatred where neither side is seeing clearly. I spent years wondering whether or not to believe my sister or my father, until my half sister told me that he molested her too, and that my beloved mother, who died when I was a young child, happened to enter a room when he was molesting my sister. Can you imagine? Furthermore, my younger sister was so traumatized by her experiences, that it messed with all her relationships with men in general, and that included her husband, and myself, her brother. She started seeing a psychiatrist, and I don't think she ever completely came to terms with the emotional damage. Again, you should understand that for a young girl, being violated by an older man that she wants to trust, love, and respect, is emotionally shattering. And it strikes to the heart of this case, because as Jack has already admitted to molesting underage girls both as a teenager and an adult, then we need to put all of this in context and ask real questions, not questions that seem like accusations. Jack was either molested himself when a child, or he caught Ralph molesting his own sisters, and it perhaps gave him some kind of implicit green light to do this himself? What we do know is that human beings are not without guile. The worst murderers in history seemed so gentle and innocuous to all except their victims. Ted Bundy was a charmer. Jeffrey Daumer's mother thought he was a sweet boy, and just knew he was innocent. Likewise, Jack's mother protected him, and made excuses for him, even though there was plenty of indication that there was a personality disorder, and that he could be violent. After all, was he not expelled from school for attacking someone? What we need to do here is look at the facts if we can, and the fact of the matter is, if you separate the family members from the equation entirely, with their emotional judgments and biases, there are plenty of people out there smart enough to look at this objectively, and to be honest, no one does a better job of condemning Jack than Jack does himself. All you need to do is listen to him talk, and if you listen carefully, he gives you the clues. Of course, if you don't want to listen, then that is your choice. O.J. Simpson isn't in prison because he stole some memorabilia he claimed was his...he's in prison because he slaughtered two human beings and got away with it. So there is legal justice, and moral justice. And as we have seen, the law and justice are not always on the same side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonderful post Robert, you have clearly put this in context for me. I read the cnn article a couple of days ago and since then I have been following the blogs.

      Delete
    2. dispassionate observerSeptember 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM

      Superbly stated, Robert. Thank you for your very cogent insights.

      Delete
    3. Well written comment sir. Having been in a 25 year relationship with a victim of sexual molestation myself, you speak the truth! The damage done (even with long term psychological counseling) just destroys all attempts at trust. The relationship could not survive though I still care for her deeply & we talk as friends often. She & I are now in our sixties. I moved on years ago & am very happily married. She has remained alone & celibate! Thank you for your insightful post.

      Delete
    4. Excellent rebuttal and explanation of what sexual abuse does to the mind. Doubt if "casey" will understand.

      Delete
  32. For those still interested, I posted a page on the photo line up:

    http://jackdmccullough.wordpress.com/photo-line-up-a-closer-look/

    Casey
    http://jackdmccullough.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
  33. well I am new to the case and have read everything, including a website favoring McCullough and frankly would have convicted if I were a juror on the case. Not a lot of evidence, would have liked more but I really dont have a doubt about guilt. I also chose anonymous because I dont have accounts or like the poster above, cant remember the password. I believe the friend's identification. I just do.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'm another new anonymous poster. I am also quite new to the case. The family back-and-forth is a little hard to sift through ... and there seems to be errors and biases on both sides. I've been reading through the evidence and found that while Jack was convicted on hypothetical evidence, the thing that strikes me the most, that makes me believe he is guilty, is all the weirdness surrounding the alibi. It's a shame that so many things were left unverified, like the physical location of the phone he used to call collect from Rockford; the mileage on his car, his cars tire treads, his shoe size. Why did nobody check the location of his car? Why did he lie and say he was out on a date with his girlfriend when she stated clearly, she did not see him that night because her father wouldn't let her out. If Jack/John had been in Chicago like he said, why would Jack/John wonder around for hours only to go to a recruiting office that would be closed? and why did he lie so much about incidentals. That kind of behavior by itself is very suspect. If it wasn't for that, I would say the evidence doesn't appear to add up. Lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable because they can be beat. A socio-path or someone suffering from dissociation would be able make themselves believe they were telling the truth but weren't. Also, re: the step-daughter, Janey, there would be a lot of reasons why jack/john would not have molested you (if he were a pedophile) such as maintaining he second life, the fact that you were already too old for his liking or perhaps with age he was not as physically capable. It really doesn't prove anything that he didn't abuse you. It would only proved that he was able to maintain a family life. Which is what many sexual predators are able to do. Being that he admitted to some sexual deviant behavior in his youth when he was less experienced it stands to reason that he would have gotten better at hiding his tracks and would have re-offended. I'm not saying this guy is guilty. But there are a lot things that are being stated that are easily refuted. As for Janet and Jeanne, you're not helping yourselves at all with your tirades. Jack/John is most certainly guilty of many things, and should have probably been in prison a long time ago. But whether he killed Marie, it's hard to say.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The full appeal filed in April 2014 is linked on the following page:

    http://jackdmccullough.wordpress.com/the-appeal-the-law-demands-more-than-nostalgia/

    Casey

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wait until you see an upcoming episode of Dr. Phil. Janey comes off as she is---narcissistic, juvenile, inappropriate, and wrong. It's a veritable hate fest coming from a sick, unhappy woman who thought a talk show makeover made her some kind of wonderful. Not.

    ReplyDelete
  37. hey casey hows your wife? rumor has it she has a boyfreind.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I just want to know what's up with Janey's eyes? Very hard to look at....looks evil

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ya I have seen pics of her and her eyes are beautiful I just don't understand why she is with that casey guy he is a troll I have read a few of the blogs on this topic and I find janey very hot

    ReplyDelete