Updated in 2016.
It was Dark:
Let’s remember on December 3, 1957 Dusk was at 4:30, it was DARK at six…. Contrary to what the prosecution would have a person to believe (and lied about in court) there was no street light on the corner. This is even stated in the Tom Braddy report dated 1/14/1958. “He noted that it is very dark on that corner since a street light is quite a distance down the block…” (SAO 2786) and this was supported by other witnesses, and public records.
“There is no street light at Center Cross and Archie Place . But there is one about 50 feet to the north .” (True Republican Dec 6, 1957)
“Three new street lights were approved upon the recommendation of the Streets and Walks Committee . One is at the west end of Charles Street , north of the Elmwood cemetery , a dead end street ; and the other two are on Vista Terrace in the Hoffman addition , east of Sabin Street . Another for Center Cross Street , near Archie Place , was . referred back to the committee , after Chairman Arthur Hap Carlson said that there is a policy not to put lights in the middle of the block.” (True Republican January 17, 1958)
“Last night s city council meeting was a short one , adjourning less than an hour after Mayor Harold Johnson had called the session to order . They quickly passed a resolution setting payments of several , police and firemen , for being included on the city s pension plan . . They set up a new civil defense ordinance , referred a contract with the Walter Deuchler engineering firm for M . F . T . projects , to committee , and discussed the possibility of adding a street light at Center Cross Street near Archie Place where Maria Ridulph was kidnapped three weeks ago . Several other dark spots in the city were also referred to the Streets and Walks Committee .” (True Republican December 24, 1957)
“In addition the council granted the Public Service Company permission to install new type lights at DeKalb Ave . and Fair Street , and Washington Place and DeKalb Ave . ; and also voted to have a new one installed at Center Cross and Archie Place , where the December 3 kidnapping occurred”
And the descriptions of Johnny were:
Also, at 8 pm on December 3, 1957 Kathy was having trouble with the man’s description. (SAO-742) Based on a thorough reading of the FBI reports, Kathy really had no clue what “Johhny” looked like. Let us also remember, One of the first descriptions says: “approximately 25-35, 5’8, 180 lbs. light brown or dark blond long hair. Right upper eye tooth missing. Gray felt hat, no coat, crew neck sweater that’s green, blue and yellow designed. Belt with shiny buckle with a horse emblem on it. Spoke in a thin high voice.” One descriptive attribute was “barrel-chested.” (SAO-631) Yet again, she describes “Johnny” as 5’8″ tall, two inches taller than her father. Per Richard Schmack, prior to 12/22/1957, she had said William Crego appeared very similar to “Johnny”, he was 30 yrs old, 5’6″, light brown hair, medium to long.
Putting six teenagers in front of her was against the laws of Illinois, see bottom of the page. How Kathy can positively identify a 36 year old man on 12/22/1957 yet Brion Hanley puts pictures in front of her with guys all 18 and under is beyond belief. But at a hit tip, Larry Kot was the one that put the line up together.
Let’s take a closer look:
Before we start, on 12/4/1957 Kathy told the FBI that “Johnny” was “RIGHT MISSING EYE TOOTH” “DESCRIPTION ARRIVED AT BY COMPARISON TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS” (FBI Report dated 12/4/1957) Can anyone see the missing eye tooth in the above or below picture? [To really make this fun, prior to Brion having a picture of Jack he interviewed Katheran Caulfield 8/3/2009 on SAO 820. With some evident help from Brion Hanley Katheran stated Jack had a: “chipped or missing K-9 tooth.] First picture taken in 1967 and second picture was taken by Jan Edwards’ father on 11/29/1957.
“Eye teeth” are the third teeth from the center, I have spent hours talking to Jack, he has his eye teeth, trust me. In fact, Hanley and company even verified Jack had them from his medical records, BEFORE arresting him and before Hanley “refreshed” Kathy’s memory related to her prior descriptions.
It’s okay, because in Trial Kathy clarifies this: In trial: Q. Did you report and recall that the person was not — had a full set of teeth, I guess is the way to say it? A. I don’t remember. Q. Did you report later on that the tooth was missing? A. I do not think so.
Now on to the story, let’s remember:
“… not only was [Brion Hanley] the primary investigator involved, but he had just interviewed Kathy Sigman Chapman eight days prior [9/1/2010 first meeting, 9/9/2010 photo identification] to the investigation for nearly an hour and a half. In that prior meeting, officers discussed details of the case with Kathy Sigman Chapman, including using her own prior descriptions in order to try and refresh her memory about the description of “Johnny.”” (Defense motion 10/22/2012, #13, see respective page)
(and he was refreshing her memory with Jack’s picture in front of him, but evidently forgot about the eye tooth missing. After verifying Jack always had his.)
What was one (she had multiple) of Kathy’s “original descriptions”?? “Cathie said that a young man about 24 who called himself Johnny introduced himself to the girls. He was about 6 feet tall with curly blond hair, she said.” “He was “tall, skinny and kinda white-faced,” Cathie said.” (LA Times article, link on abduction page) [I would note here that I do not believe Hanley and Kot had read the FBI reports when they interviewed Kathy, I think they were picking and choosing items that fit Jack from news paper articles.]
For the life of me I could not figure out why Kathy was struggling (Kathy eliminated several photos right away, but she continued to pore over two – No. 1 and No. 4. She studied them for a good two minutes; it felt to Hanley like an eternity. – CNN 8/10/2013.) Then it hit me, she was picking out “Johnny” based on her original descriptions (the one Hanley refreshed her with.) So, which pictures are of a “white-faced” guy with “curly blond hair”. Well, right off the bat, we rule out #2 and #6, they do not have curly hair, maybe a wave, but not curly. #3 and #5 are obviously not blond, they have very dark eyebrows.
Let us remember, having #2, #3, #5 and #6 in the photo line up was AGAINST THE LAW. They did not look like “the eyewitness’ previous description of the perpetrator.”
Then who is left? well #1 and #4. Take a look #1 and #4, they do not look alike, they have different noses, cheeks, eyes, even ears. So why the confusion. Well, let us help Kathy out a bit. What else was there in the description? Let’s see, “kind of white-faced” Which one would that be?
Also, #1 looks like he is 12, not 24.
As a side note, which guy in the line up looks skinny?
Realize of course, all six boys probably have the exact same skin tone, but the shadows on the faces are totally different. In fact, take another look, there are two guys with “curly” hair, and one of the guys with “curly” hair has the darkest face off all six boys.
Take a second look at the picture of Jack and Jan Edwards this line up picture was taken from (and let’s remember, Kathy said he is “barrel-chested”):
How does his face look different between the original and the line up?
Maybe lightened a bit???? Everyone was told it was “over exposed” for the photo line up by mistake. I mean come on, not only does Hanley put only two guys in the line up that match the description he gave to Kathy, but he “mistakenly” lightens Jack’s face????
So, Kathy is told she is picking out a boy/man with curly blond hair and a white face, and Brian puts four pictures in front of her with straight hair or obvious dark hair. Talk about increasing the odds. But given the tens of thousands spent on labor and expense reports in the case by Brion prior to this photo line up, and three years of his life (CNN, and investigation started 9/2008), how can we blame him for having at least one ace up his sleeve? Any fool could have picked out the curly blond with a white face. Oh, and let’s have the guy you need to pick being the only one without a dark coat on…. the only one looking at the camera.
REMEMBER: On December 22, 1957 Kathy positively identified thirty-six year old Thomas Joseph Rivard: DOB 4/16/22, m/w, blue eyes, dark blond/wavy/bushy hair, yellowish teeth w/ small spaces between, 5’4 ½, 156 lbs, ruddy complexion at the Dane County Sheriff Office in Madison Wisconsin. But, she could not remember picking him out when asked in court. I personally read the FBI document where it was discussed that not only did Kathy pick out Thomas, but that she made a movie WITH him for distribution to police departments. She spent a considerable amount of time with Thomas, but can’t remember picking him out. Alzheimer’s?
Brion Hanley, I have some questions for you, as should a lot of people.
Brion, these are the guidelines for your state (they have been modified since Jack’s trial):
(725 ILCS 5/) Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.
(725 ILCS 5/Art. 107A heading)
ARTICLE 107A. LINEUP AND PHOTO SPREAD PROCEDURE
(Source: P.A. 93-605, eff. 11-19-03.)
(725 ILCS 5/107A-5)
Sec. 107A-5. Lineup and photo spread procedure.
(a) All lineups shall be photographed or otherwise recorded. These photographs shall be disclosed to the accused and his or her defense counsel during discovery proceedings as provided in Illinois Supreme Court Rules. All photographs of suspects shown to an eyewitness during the photo spread shall be disclosed to the accused and his or her defense counsel during discovery proceedings as provided in Illinois Supreme Court Rules.
(b) Each eyewitness who views a lineup or photo spread shall sign a form containing the following information:
(1) The suspect might not be in the lineup or photo
spread and the eyewitness is not obligated to make an identification.
(2) The eyewitness should not assume that the person
administering the lineup or photo spread knows which person is the suspect in the case.
(c) Suspects in a lineup or photo spread should not appear to be substantially different from “fillers” or “distracters” in the lineup or photo spread, based on the eyewitness’ previous description of the perpetrator, or based on other factors that would draw attention to the suspect.
(Source: P.A. 93-605, eff. 11-19-03.)