Part of the information Mr. Schmack released on 3/24/2016 was the Grand Jury transcripts from 10/8/2010.  This is not “new” information, but prior to now, it had not been released to the public.

Following are my comments as I read through it:

Brion Hanley testimoney:

Page 9: He [Jack Mccullough] entered the service 11 days after the disappeared and legally changed his name to Jack Daniel McCullough.

Note: Jack changed his name in 1994, not in 1957.

Page 8: [in relationship to the description given my Kathy Sigman] A tall, skinny individual, sandy blond wavy hair.  He had a gap in his tooth.  He was wearing a a multicolored sweater, orange, green, yellow, red.  And he would always brush his hair back with his hands, a nervous action.

Note:  Kathy picked out Thomas Rivard on 12/22/1957, his appearance is what Kathy thought “Johhny” looked like for the last fifty years.  Thomas was mid 30s,  5’4″ and 156 lbs.  Where in the world did Kathy come up with this new description?  Maybe when Brion Hanley “refreshed” her memory on 9/1/2010, with Jack picture in front of him?  Also, she told the FBI “Johnny” only took his hat off once, not sure how he was constantly brushing back his hair.

Page 9: She [Kathy] then went back outside to look for Maria, could not find her, went to her home and explained to her mother that Maria is gone and at that time her mother called the police.

Note: The police were called at 8:10.  

Page 15: Q: And was he [Jack McCullough] ever discharged or removed as a police officer for misconduct?  A: Yes, he was.  He was employed by the Lacy Police Department in Washington.  He was harboring two juvenile runaways and sexually assaulted them and was charged and eventually fired from the Lacey Police Department.

Note:  Neither girl was a run-a-way.  One accused him of trying to have oral sex with her, the other girl said nothing happened.  He was ultimately charged with a “communication with Minor” charge.  It is a lie that he sexually sexually assaulted both of them, and it is questionable if anything happened with the girl that did accuse him, given he [Jack] had arrested her boyfriend in the prior week.

Page 16:  Q: Was John Tessier’s father interviewed at the time and did he corroborate the story about Rockford and — Chicago and Rockford?  A: He was interviewed and he did not corroborate that story.

Note:  This is a complete and total lie.  One just has to read the FBI documents.

Page 17-74, just BS in my opinion, so I will skip it.  This is a murder case, not a game of seeing who can make Jack look the worst.  I have read it though if anyone has questions.

Next is long, but please bear with me.  Remember Mary Hunt and Janet Tessier were in the room together when Eileen gave her famous statement.

Page 75: Janet Tessier:  She [Eileen Tessier] said, “Those two little girls and the one disappeared and John did it.  John did it.” She kept repeating that.  And then she kept repeating, “You have to tell someone.”

Note:  Mary Hunt in the trial transcripts the murder trial:

Q. During that discussion you indicated — or I’m sorry. Could you tell us what you remember specifically your mother saying?
A. She said, “He did it”.
Q. And she did not say who “he” was; is that correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. And she did not say what “did it” was; is that correct?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Indeed, that was all she said that you recall; is that correct?
A. That is all that I recall.
Q. Did you — did she talk anything after that at that time?
A. I don’t remember anything.
Q. And, in fact, you asked her a couple questions after that; is that correct?
A. I don’t remember anything.
Q. You don’t remember whether you asked her any questions?
A. No, sir, I do not.

Q. Do you remember testifying before a grand jury in 2010?
A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. Is your memory now exhausted as to what you might have said?

A.  I have not seen that transcript so I have no idea what I said.

Q. I understand, but your memory is now exhausted as to what you may have said at that time?

A. I do not recall.

Q. Do you think if you saw the transcript of what you said at that time that could refresh your memory?

A.  Yes, sir.

(Defendant’s Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.)

Q. Ma’am, I’m going to show you what’s been marked as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 4 which is a transcript f the grand jury proceeding at which you testified.  Page 80 calling your attention to the middle, would you read that and then after you’ve had the opportunity to read that hand it back to me, please?
A. (Indicating.)


Q. Is your memory now refreshed?

A. Mmm, yes, sir.

Q. And, in fact, you did try to ask her a couple more questions; is that right?

A. Evidently, yes.

Q. At least that’s what you —

A. That’s what I said.

Q. — remember telling the grand jury?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And she didn’t say anything more to any questions you asked; is that correct?

A. Not that I recall, yes.

Q. And that’s what you testified to; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. SO you don’t recall your mother telling you anything more specific than what you’ve just told us here today

A. No.

Q. with regard to the “He did it”; is that correct?

A. Yes.


So, Mary says she said “He did it” and nothing more, Janet say she said “Those two little girls and the one disappeared and John did it.  John did it.” She kept repeating that.  And then she kept repeating, “You have to tell someone.”   

In trial Janet said: She grabbed my wrist with her hand and she said, “Those two little girls and the one that disappeared, John did it. John did it, and you have to tell someone. You have to tell someone” In trial she dropped all the “kept repeating” portion.  I guess having 17 more words and a name more than Mary was one thing, but repeating it multiple times was a bit too much.

The rest of the transcript is irrelevant to the murder case.  If anyone does have any questions or comments though, please contact me.  ~ Casey