“Joining the investigation was David E. Zulawski, CFI, Senior Partner Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates, who assisted in the interview of the prime suspect Jack “Johnny” McCullough.  Wicklander-Zulawiski was contacted by the illinois State Police to potentially assist with the planning or actual interview of the suspect …” http://www.iaofi.org/CFInsider-Featured-Article

Mr. Zulawski was a key player in the investigation.  Below is the email exchange between the two of us.  In [Red] are my comments to his statements.  The original email is here:  Zulawski.

Mr. Zulawski has spent his life telling half truths, lies, and saying what ever is needed to get a confession out of a person.  He has lost the ability to be factual, and honest.

From: Dave Zulawski [mailto:DZulawski@W-Z.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:57 AM
To: Casey Porter
Subject: your note

Hi Casey,

I think you may be misinformed about some aspects of the case. The FBI reports were not admissible as a matter of law relating to the use of reports [Defense Motion 10.12.11]. However, the reports were indirectly admitted because they were used during the conversation with the defendant. I’m not sure what you think are in the FBI reports [Well, I have posted them: Discovery File] but since I have read them from cover to cover [No, if you had you would know what Eileen actually told the FBI] I know that they do will not in any way exonerate the defendant [No, the FBI completely exonerate him]. In fact, Jack “Johnny” admitted that what he told the FBI was correct in the reports I showed him. [Yes, Jack does not lie]  Unfortunately, his statements at the time to the FBI were directly contradicted by any number [Flat out lie here.] of witnesses who appeared at trial establishing what he told the FBI was not the truth. [And, “any number” would be zero in retrospect.]

The defense had an opportunity to present the recorded interview to establish the “proof” in the reports which you mentioned, however they chose not to. [I really don’t think Zuliwski has a clue what the reports say] The judge had an opportunity to review the entire interview and hear the contents of the reports [no, the judge was given about 8 pages per the August 2012 court documents]. The judge ruled the interview admissible and the defense had copies which they could have introduced to indirectly bring the reports into the record. [no, that was not the ruling] The judge did rule that the interview was admissible so clearly the defense could have chosen to introduce the reports in this fashion if they thought it would help their case in any way [The defense could have introduced how many pages?  Three or four used during the interview?]. Since the judge had already seen the entire [The judge watched the eight hours I have posted to Youtube?] interview the prosecution held the interview back to rebut testimony if Jack elected to testify. As you probably are aware he chose not to take the stand. [What was Jack supposed to say?  The FBI documents, that I am not allowed to use, clear my name??]

There were a number of areas that were judged to be prejudicial to the defendant which were not admitted at trial. For example his ex-wife’s testimony about finding him with a young girl [In my hundreds of hours researching this case, I have never been told this, nor is it in any court document]. His conviction in the state of Washington for having sex with a female minor while he was a police officer [No, wrong again.]. The sexual contact that he had with his sisters [Plural???, only one accused him, the other said nothing happened.] which was forcible [Which he was found not guilty of prior to this email, but let’s not let that get in the way]. In addition, the large number of inappropriate pictures of young girls he had were also not admitted into evidence.  [I have all Jack’s pictures found in the container in Washington state.  There is not one single woman under 21 in any of these pictures.]

Introduced into evidence was his confession to three separate inmates at the DeKalb County jail that he killed Maria. These inmates were not in jail at the same time [No,  Diaz and “John Doe” shared a cell.] could have concocted the same detailed story except by clairvoyance or actually being told by Jack that he had done the murder [they did not have the same detail, in fact, they came up with three different causes of death]. The dates and times of these conversations were also confirmed by jail video. [No, actually there is no video of the John Doe interview]

In short, I think if you read the trial transcript [not only have I read them, but they are posted on with website] you would understand why the judge found the defendant guilty in less than a half hour of deliberation.



David E. Zulawski, CFI, CFE
Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc.
4932 Main Street
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515
630-852-6800 x104