The Players – Casey’s thoughts

This page is just my opinion.  The facts and evidence have spoken for themselves since the arrest of Jack.  Jack’s innocence and the complete lack of a moral compass by those involved in the prosecution and investigation of the case are abundantly clear.  Therefore, this page is just for my thoughts, there will be nothing here of interest related to the case not already referenced on other pages, except for my opinions.  I have not updated this page to fully take in the March 2016 filings, what those filings have shown me is Hanley, Kot and Campbell are completely immoral men.  In the below I give them some benefit of the doubt, I was wrong to have done this, they did not deserve it.

It is my feeling the entire murder case is based on Jeanne’s memoirs, and Janet Tessier’s desire to seek justice for the sister she looked up too.  Except for Kathy’s photo identification and three jail house snitches, Jeanne’s memoirs lay out the entire case against Jack for the murder of Maria.  By the time Hanley and Kot started interviewing other people about the murder they had already been convinced by Jeanne and Janet it was true.  Hanley and Kot spent two years “refreshing” peoples memories (Kathy Chapman for one) to get enough dots to connect their lines too, by the time they arrested Jack, failure to link him as the “Johnny” of 1957 would have been extremely hard to explain after all the time and expense reports they had turned in during their two years on the case.  At some point though before the arrest in Seattle, Hanley knew Jack was not guilty, once Hanley verified the location of the payphone, he knew Jack could not have committed the crime.  From the second Hanley verified the phone location he knew he was trying to put an innocent man in prison.  Clay Campbell also knew Jack was innocent, he read the FBI investigation and even if Mr. Hanley did not tell him the location of the payphone, Clay knew at best case it was a huge hurdle to have Jack be the Johnny of 1957.  But it is pretty obvious from this story:  Pay Phone Record convinces prosecutor of McCullough’s innocence  Eveyone knew Hanley was Dirty in November of 2015 at the latest.

Jeanne Tessier

If a person is interested in this case, and has not read Jeane’s memoirs, they should.  This is the link to the memoirs – Unspoken-Truth  Personally, I think 90% of it is made up, but it is well written.  What is somewhat surprising is she has nothing good to say about anyone in her family, reflecting on the memoirs, I think she has something bad to say about everyone in her family… but she does so with such a nice smile.

Let’s be honest about things, Jeanne Tessier TAUGHT communication, she co-wrote a book on interviewing “Interviewing – Art and Skill” by Jeanne Tessier Barone  (still available on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Interviewing-Skill-Jeanne-Tessier-Barone/dp/0205140882 )   Not only did Jeanne write the book, she taught the class in college.   Jeanne, regardless of how I feel about her as a person is usually the smartest one in the room.  One thing Jack has always said is his sister Jeanne is very, very bright, Janet could never put down the bottle, but Jeanne is a smart woman.  Who are Hanley and Kot?  Are people promoted up to the cold case unit of a police department?  No, the cold case unit is the guys that are tired of homicide, and finishing off their years to retirement, or the guys not cut out for homicide.  The cold case unit is not the rock stars, it is not the Rolling Stones, it is the stones the moss grows on.  Kot notes he had three walls of his office covered with this case, evidently he had some time on his hands.  Kot and Hanley seemed to have plenty of time on their hands over two years to play with this case.  I mean, just look at the guys, do they look like guys that watch trash TV all night, or do they look like they have something going on between their two ears?   Was it critical for the state of Illinois to get a 71 year old off the streets that killed someone in 1957, now living in another state? I think the state of Illinois has more pressing criminal issues to deal with, but Kot had time to paper his walls, and Hanley had time to make trips around the country, from Florida to Seattle.  I just hope Hanley and Kot were able to take the kids with them, sounds like a nice vacation.

“Interviewing – Art and Skill” by Jeanne Tessier Barone –  I would wager a bet Jeanne’s IQ is that of Haney and Kot’s combined (seriously).  Janet made the call to open the case, and then Jeanne speaks slowly (not using big words) so Kot and Hanley can keep up with her story.  Think I am wrong?  watch all the interviews of Kot, Hanley, Campbell and Jeanne Tessier and tell me who is, and who is not the sharpest tool in the shed.   I have read a good portion of Jeanne’s book (mentioned above) and it became crystal clear, not only does her intelligence make Knot, Hanley and Clay Campbell look like the evolutionary missing links, but I really doubt if anyone that has interviewed her to date really had any clue WHO they were interviewing.   Jeanne has a chapter just on “The Journalistic Interview,”  I really doubt 48 hours and others had any clue Jeanne probably knew more about interviewing then they did.  As I read and turn the page, there is a section “ON LIBEL”  (and let me tell you, she knows the law), it really hits me about her not wanting to go forward with the Rape trial, she understood vague comments about Rape in 1961 (or 62) were one thing, but what if those guys that lived in the house in 1961 were still alive??? It also hits me (like a ton of bricks) as I reflect on Jeanne’s testimony during the rape trial, she knew what she was saying was a lie, she IS as smart as Jack says she is, she would have known the exact time of year, she would have know the name of the fraternity she was raped at.   If Jeanne would have told Hanley, Kot, Campbell and company Jack was “Ivan the Terrible,” trust me, they (and probably I) would have believed her.  Let me just say in the 414 pages of her book lies a wealth of information about getting people to believe what you want them too, and to present yourself the way you want to be seen.  Did her stories of abuse snow ball over the years after her time with John Taylor?  if so, whatever she says is the truth because she has the communication skill set only owned by a fraction of the population.  I consider myself to be a pretty smart person, smart enough to know if I ever went toe to toe with Jeanne, she would make me look like a fool.  Unfortunately when the FBI timeline of the case is really understood, and people realize Jack could not have committed the crime, there will be a lot of foolish looking men.

With Janet, 48 Hours, Dr. Phil, etc., did their best to put on the right amount of makeup, and get the screen shot just right, but she still came across as the woman she is, that spent her life drinking and drugging, and it appears eating.  There is an expression… putting lipstick on a pig.  I have had enough communications with Janet to know she is a nut job.  What I can’t figure out is how Hanley, Knot and Campbell could take anything she said as worth more than a sow’s ear…..

Janet Tessier                                          Jeanne Tessier

Jeanne having a problem with the rape case going forward had nothing to do about her “reliving” the ordeal, heck she did interviews and wrote about it.  Jeanne was smart enough to know made up events could have a really tough time holding up against historically documented information, and heaven forbid if some of the people were still alive…  Clay Campbell was not that smart, Jeanne speaks of a hallway, Clay could have at least picked a house that had a hallway (remember Jeanne originally said it was an apartment.)  Jeanne spends years saying she did not know how she got home, then Clay picks a house where she would be walking by a large well known graveyard.  I spent a couple of days in Sycamore, and reviewed all the locations of the rape and were Jeanne lived.   Sycamore is not that big a place, the idea she did not know where she was is a joke.   (As noted, she can’t remember where she was gang raped at the college she spent four years at, the only time she gives specifics of abuse are with her father, and he is dead.)  After the trial Jeanne was presented as the victim of both Clay and Jack, while Clay was hung out to dry in the press.  Jeanne tells Clay she can remember exactly what happened, what her mom told the police, if Jack came home on 12/3/1957 and 12/4/1957, but can not remember what month she was gang raped in during 1961-1962, you would think that would be a wake up call to someone with half a brain.  Clay might have been smart enough to pass the Bar, but it is quite obvious Jeanne was the smarter of the two.  It winds up after the FBI documents were released, Mr. Schmack shows that Jeanne was lying about the events of 12/3/1957.  It is just amazing, she lied about EVERYTHING, but everyone believed her.

You might say Jeanne schooled Campbell, Hanley, and Kot.  It is Jeanne who gets the close up on TV, and her statements which close the story, not one of the three stooges.

IGOR!  Bring me the body!

For those that cannot remember 2011, Jack was kept in Seattle for a bit before he was extradited to Illinois.  Clay was on TV stating that Jack was fighting extradition which is a complete lie.  What Clay was doing is keeping Jack in Seattle till the right moment, that moment being July 27, 2011, the day he dug up Maria’s body.  I have seen pictures of what was put in that coffin, the same pictures Clay looked at, I read the same original autopsy report Clay read.  I will not give a full description of the body, but the idea there would be DNA or any other useful evidence to be found is a complete joke.  I can’t imagine what the Ridulph family was put through with this exhumation, but Clay was on national news, so it all worked out.  Clay is an evil man, he might look like a cute bald Smurf, but make no mistake, his actions in this case were just evil and immoral.

Refreshing –

One of the problems with looking at the murder trial and the rape trial (and they are the same trial in my mind) without reading the full trial transcripts is a person does not fully grasp the issue of investigators “refreshing” people’s memories about events from 1957-1962.

The idea an entire rape trial can be held after months of preparation  and tens of thousands in cost, and no one on the prosecution knew the Ford Mustang did not come out until 1964 simply boggles the mind.  So much time was put into helping people remember this red convertible, but no one bothered to let the people know what kind of red convertible they were suppose to be remembering.  The idea Clay Campbell would ask Jeanne twice about walking down a hall, a hall that did not exist is shocking also (the house is so small, it does not even have a hallway).  I question if Jeanne in her entire lifetime ever even saw this house even though she lived in Sycamore.  There are a lot of really small houses in Sycamore, one thing I noticed when I was there.  I think the prosecution found the newspaper article stating  Jack had lived there, and presto, this was the place Jeanne was raped.  Jeanne was very public (she posted it on the internet) that she did not know how she got home, but then after being told where the house was, she then “remembered” the streets she walked to get home.  Of course, it was an apartment at first she was raped in, but don’t let that muddy the waters.  There is also serious doubt based on the trial transcripts if Jack even lived in this house to begin with.

In the murder trial, the word “refresh” is used repeatedly.  Investigators are “refreshed” on what they wrote a year ago, and witnesses are “refreshed” on what happened 50 years ago.  Unfortunately for Jack he was not “refreshed,” he was supposed to remember perfectly 12/3/1957, and when he did not, he was a creepy, evil, liar.  On a side note, I don’t believe anyone remembers 12/3/1957.  Nothing happened on this day for anyone to remember until 7 pm, and the only people that would have memories of this day are all dead at this point.  What we have are a bunch of old people, that are getting to the age where they are having trouble with their memories (and I feel the same way about Jack.)

Kathy Chapman’s “refreshing” is really amazing.  Her memory about events was “refreshed” by Hanley to include the portions of her description of “Johnny” that matched the picture Hanley had, but not on other portions of her description.  Kathy could not remember that the original “Johnny” was missing an eye tooth, and wore a shinny belt buckle (eye level to an eight year old), but remembers he had curly hair.  Remembering, he had a hat on most the time, and only took it off for a moment, but she remembers the curls, not the distinctive MISSING TOOTH!  Kathy talks about this streetlight, you know, the one that was not there per public records and the FBI documents.    Also, she remembers the sweater, but even the sweater she describes today does not match the sweater she described in 1957, though it does match the description of the sweater the Tessier sisters say Jack owned.   If Hanley would have “refreshed” her memory on what she had originally said; “Johnny” was missing an eye tooth, there would have been no picture she could have picked out.

I am sorry, but Kathy’s lack of memory of picking out Thomas Rivard is either a lie, or she is loosing her memory.  Thomas Rivard was a huge deal at the time, and she even had her picture taken with him because even though she was wrong about him being “Johnny” she was so sure he looked like “Johnny” that after that point someone matching Thomas Rivard’s description was who was being looked for.   How she could forget this is not reasonable, every person on the defense, prosecution, and investigators (Hanley, Kot) knew she identified Thomas Rivard on 12/22/1957, and this “dark secrete” was skillfully kept out of trial.  As I watch interviews of Kathy, and speak to people having interviewed and talked with her, it also becomes questionable if she is all there mentally at this point in her life.  I am not insulting her, but I am questioning if her mental health is what it used to be.   But then again in reading the FBI reports it appears she was not all there in 1957 either.  In interviews, and in court, she is able to recite her lines, but any deviation and she is lost.  This is very apparent on the Dr. Phil show (if they air all her speaking.)

One more point about Kathy; Brion Hanley according to Kathy was told her identification of “Johhny” was not important because they already had sufficient evidence in the case.  Brion had nothing up to this point on the case outside of Jeanne and Janet Tessier, he really had nothing when you look at what was actually used in trial, and when the “evidence” was obtained.  So, during Hanley’s interview of Kathy, at what point did he start telling the truth?  When he was refreshing her memory on her “original” descriptions was he truthful about them, or pick and choose which portion described Jack?  It is evident from Kathy’s testimony in trial, Hanley did NOT refresh Kathy’s memory on her descriptions, he only chose features Jack had.  If he would have just read her the fifty some words that included all her descriptions, she would have known about the belt, eye tooth, and other features Tom questioned her about in trial.  Tom basically got up in trial and said: “Good girl for reciting what Mr. Hanley told you, now please tell me if you actually remember a single damn thing!”

It hit me just recently; I always thought Hanley just fed Kathy the information on the description of “Johnny” that agreed to the picture of Jack he had in front of him and she picked the right guy.  I now think I was wrong about this.  Hanley had to realize he was not dealing with the sharpest tool in the shed, in order to guarantee she got the right picture he had to have flat out told her who it was.  I stood at Kathy’s old house, and I stood at Jack’s old house, and the playground.  I looked at the yards Kathy and the Tessier girls said they played at.  Kathy had seen Jack plenty of times,

The core to this case is Hanly is honest, and Jack is a liar.  If Hanley is less than honest, there is no case.  If a person for just a moment acknowledges what Mr. Schmack prooves,  that Hanley and Kot asked witnesses leading questions, and picked and chose only those items that helped their case to put into reports, there is no case.  Everyone has to have faith Hanley and Kot are investigators pure as the driven snow, because outside of what Janet and Jeanne say everything else in the case has Hanley and Kot’s fingerprints all over it.  After some more reflection related to Kathy not even knowing “Johnny” had a shinny belt buckle after Hanely “refreshed” her memory, it is apparent the guy is dishonest.  How can you spend time going over at maximum of 100 words of total descriptive things she said and not mention the belt buckle, it was important to the FBI.  Ya, Hanley should really trade places with Jack.  Hanley is as a pure as the yellow driven snow.

Charging Papers

I remember reading the Charging_Papers  for the first time with my dear wife Janey (the ones issued for Jack’s arrest in June of 2011) and I thought the case against Jack was airtight. My friend actually emailed me a copy that was linked to a story in the Seattle Times. As I read the document I thought it was a closed case, Jack was nailed, he was guilty as sin. Two years later I read this document and my blood boils as I now recognize 90% of the document to be either a flat out lie, or a twisting of the truth. There were so many interviews of Clay Campbell in the months following the arrest asking about what the evidence was, and Clay kept on saying how there was more evidence, but “we just can’t tell you about it.” One just has to read the trial transcript to realize Clay was lying through his teeth, there was no other evidence than what was presented in the charging papers, zipo, zero, none.  If you read the trial transcripts you will realize they didn’t have any “evidence” till they went around to prisons making promises for testimonies, or at least eluding to the inmates there was something in it for them… I just would really like to see all the visitation records for the three inmates involved, my bet is Brion Hanley is on a few of the sheets.

I would bet my next paycheck there was not a single one of the witnesses in the trial that were not shocked what was said in trial was all there was. All these people adding their little tidbits of “evidence” based on being told the case was already closed had to come to realize the little tidbits they had to offer were the case. Pam Long has no clue what her dad said at a dinner in 1957, but when asked for her little tidbit, she came up with something. At some point I will have a separate page on just the charging papers.  As I recall, Pam Long came along AFTER the arrest, when they started the “tip” line.  Campbell should have just been honest, “we arrested the guy, we have no evidence, help.”

Freedom of information

One of the hard parts of this case is the FBI documents have not been released to the public, and legally they can not be except as attachments to court motions, or documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request.  I know better than any how completely impossible it is to get documents on this case, and I know better than any the Office of Public Defenders in Sycamore follows the law to a “T” in never releasing sealed documents / evidence.  But, that is not the case with the prosecution.  Anyone looking at the Tom Braddy document can see this document was not obtained through a FOIA request, or attached to a court document.  This document was Larry Kot’s break in the case to somehow show the abduction happened earlier than 6:40 pm on 12/3/1957.  Three quarters of page two of this document was blanked out before it was released to the press, and I fault the press for not fighting tooth and nail for the full document.  But the bottom line is the prosecution released this document and in doing so they violated the law.  I question if there is even one in law enforcement that would even question it is a violation, and I question if there is even one in law enforcement that would hold the prosecution accountable.

The Braddy document makes my blood boil because I have been told by more than a few investigators / reporter that it says Braddy did not see the girls at 6:20 PM, when the document says no such thing.  Is there a document where Braddy says he does not see the girls when he leaves?  well I guess there is because that is what people tell me.  There is also a document where the bus driver does not see the girls, but I have not seen that document either.  The girls are playing a game of hiding from car headlights, and the bus driver does not see them???  Wow, now there is a shock.  There is a point in journalism when getting the story printed quickly is not as important as not publishing a lie.  Journalism is about asking the follow up question, and reviewing supporting evidence, not acting as a glorified typewriter to publish people’s statements.  Clay Campbell and Larry Kot say the abduction happened at 6:10 or 6:20, and why?  What follow up questions were asked?  The time frame they give is based on when people remember they ate dinner on 12/3/1957, and nothing else.  Forget all the FBI documents except the Braddy document, the Braddy document makes an abduction prior to 6:25 impossible, yet Clay and Larry can tell the press this and not even be questioned on it.  The fact is, Clay is a local boy, and he knows the trip from the abduction site to the pay phone in Rockford would take about 45 minutes that time of night with snow falling.  If you want to know how long the drive would take, just look at when the prosecution says the abduction happened.  When I read Clay’s time of abduction, I knew the guy was lying about the case.  A person can shift the time of abduction a bit on the FBI documents, but 6:10 pm is not even remotely possible.  I think Clay knows Jack is innocent, but rationalizes the case because Jack deserves to be in prison because of Jeanne’s terrible abuse.  In the end, Clay is either stupid, or dishonest, and personally I don’t think he lacks that much intelligence.

As an update to the Braddy document, the part of the page that Hanley or Kot whited out before they released it to the press says: “Later, at 8:00 P.M. he [Randy Strombaum] went to the Sigman home with Kay and Chuckie Ridulph where he thought Cathy [Sigman/Chapman] was confused with her stories about the man’s description and what happened and Mrs. Sigman pointed this out to Kay.”   Nice to white out the portion of the page that shows your star eye witness was already confused about “Johnny’s” description an hour after the abduction.

The Monster: Katheran (Tessier) Caulfield

Well, Katheran Caulfield lied about the the time of a 4-H meeting on 12/3/1957, lied about what her mother told the FBI on December 8, 1957, threw in Jack had a multi-colored sweater (actually not matching Chapman’s original description) that she never saw him wear again (I guess she did not go to Korea with him) and changed her story a few times about everything.  Mrs. Caulfield seem to be a pretty dishonest and wicked person, but wait!  There is more!

The lies Mrs. Caulfield told Brion Hanley and the courts is one thing, but these lies do not truly show what a wicked woman she is.  One has to read Jeanne’s memoirs ( Unspoken-Truth ) to really know how wicked she is.   In these memoirs we learn Mrs. Caulfield and Jack were both really bad people, and they were a pair.  We learn how Mrs. Caulfield snapped and shunned poor Jeanne.  We learn Mrs. Caulfield is unable to love.  We learn how Mrs. Caulfield faked being sick and sent her little helpless sister Jeanne repeatedly to be raped and abused by her father.  I am not sure who is worse, the brother that supposedly molested and raped Jeanne, or the sister that repeatedly sent Jeanne to be raped by her father.  Remember, this is not my opinion, I am quoting Jeanne Tessier!

As Jeanne puts it: “Looking back on her sending of me, I feel sad now that any child was ever so desperate to escape suffering and so unable to love that she would sacrifice a younger sibling to save herself. At the time, though, I felt like a lamb sent to slaughter. And slaughtered I was.”

My oh my.  What a wicked woman.  Lets have a picture here so small children can keep away from her:

We know he beat you

When Sue McCullough was interviewed by the investigators in Seattle it was thrown out that they knew Jack beat her.  Evidence for this?  Zero.  History of Jack beating women? None has ever been given.  Sue was threatened with arrest because of the pot she had in her freezer if she did not comply, when did blackmail become standard police procedure?  But what the heck, the investigators and prosecution are after the “truth,” telling lies is how they get people to tell the truth.  One thing I have found in studying this case is though the public might be fine with investigators lying to get the truth out of a suspect, the public does not realize a person can not lie continually as part of their job, and then be expected to change hats and be completely honest.  I question how may people that were witness in the case outside of Jeanne and Janet Tessier had there memory “refreshed” before they shared their memories, and I wonder how many people were told there was sufficient evidence before they added their tidbit of information that they just happened to “remember” from an afternoon 50 years ago.

Remembering you saw a car drive down the road on 12/3/1957 but do not remember who was driving it is a flat joke.   Jack’s car might have been unique, but 50 years later a man says he remembers seeing it on a specific day, and testifies under oath?  He saw the car driving down the road, and this is so memorable you don’t forget for 50 years?  Did the car burst into flames?  Run over 50 school children?  Turned into a spaceship?  why was it so memorable that it comes to mind 50 years later?  This kind of testimony works in Sycamore I guess, in Seattle using this kind of evidence would have been a huge red flag the case was a fraud.  I would commend the prosecution though, at least in this trial no one was driving a 1964 Ford Mustang in 1957.  Let’s stop for just a moment.  Jack’s car was so memorable people remember it just driving down the street, and can remember the time and day 55 years later, BUT, the 8 year old girl that lives a block away never in her life saw this car, or the 17 year old that drove it.  The question is; “how long has pot been legal in Sycamore?”

Jack was caught in so many lies in the six hours after his arrest, I have heard this hundreds of time.  What were the lies?  I have yet to see a list, yet he was caught in so many.  If you were to sit me down and have an expert brought in from Chicago (Zulawski, I have a page on him for a Reason) plus three other detective and question me over six hours as to what I did last Sunday afternoon, you would catch me not remembering a lot. Ask me what I did on the day I turned 18, and I could not even tell you off the top of my head what state I was in, who I was dating, or what year of college I was in.  Yet Jack was expected to be able to account for his time to the minute.  I have communicated with Jack a lot over the last couple years and he, like any honest person, simply can not remember specifics from decades ago.  In the end what really came out of six hours of investigation?  Jack is creepy and gets mad.  The prosecution had so little evidence in the case they bring the female cop from Seattle to tell the court Jack is creepy and gets mad when accused.  I sometimes wonder how Campbell could call some of the witness with a straight face.

Clay pays to fly someone from Seattle to Sycamore, put them up in a hotel, so they can tell the court Jack is Creepy and gets mad.  How much did that cost the County?  It is just like having the famous train ticket authenticated it was not used, how much did that cost?  And notice, the train ticket was never even brought up in court, why?  everyone knew from day one it was meaningless.  We lie to the accused to get them to tell the truth, and we lie to the public because that is just what we do.

The Daily Chronicle

Okay, I edited most of this section out, Eric Olsen has made up for some horrid reporting in the past.  But I will just leave in a few things.

The Daily Chronicle is almost sickening when it publishes the Letter to the Editor from Chief Thomas.  Chief Thomas whines 48 Hours did not show conclusively Jack McCullough was guilty, and 48 Hours could have taken time to really lay out the case against Jack.  Well, Daily Chronicle, did you ask the Chief to do so for you??  Nope, you did not.  48 hours and CNN both said Jack was creepy, but made it very clear there were some issue with the case (to cover their respective asses in my opinion) and what does Chief Thomas say??? the EXACT same thing Clay Campbell said after the arrest, there is so much evidence, we just can’t share it with you.

Clay plays one of the three stooges with Hanley and Kot when it come to dealing with Jeanne Tessier, but then switches parts and plays the Wizard of Oz with Chief Thomas when it comes to telling people (in a God speaking to Moses kind of way); “THERE IS EVIDENCE” and to ignore the little man behind the curtain.

48 Hours

I don’t want to piss off 48 Hours, because CBS might do a follow up on story down the road.  I will say this though, the people at 48 Hours are highly intelligent, and they understand the case very well.  They understand all the issues, all the problems, and understand the timeline does not work for Jack’s involvement. (my opinion, not something they told me.)  Given this, they decided in reporting the case to do a story on the abuse and amazing recovery Jeanne had after years of abuse from Jack, with the murder as a side point.  And really, who should have been the star of the 48 Hours show?  How about the brother that was there, the brother that stood shoulder to shoulder with police, Charles should have been the one narrating the entire story, but sorry Charles, you don’t look as good on camera as Jeanne.

I look at the hits on this blog, and what people are interest in.  For the most part, people do not look at the evidence, or the FBI documents, they read the page on Jeanne’s rape.  After the CNN article, there were more people that looked at the pages on the murder case, but still Jeanne’s rape dominates the hits.  After the 48 hours showing (twice) I had to check the website to see if all the pages still opened because all that was getting read was Jeanne’s rape.  Janet and Kathy are the stars of the case to some point, but in the end, Jeanne’s word or interview close the show.  This was not the case with the CNN article, but only because Jeane would not give Ann an interview.  Not putting down Ann at all, but if you want to sell advertising on TV or the internet, Jeanne’s is the face you want, not Janet or Kathy.  I bet if I titled a page “Jeane’s naked Golden Retriever” it would be the most popular page…. last days of Rome….

Leave it to Beaver (And yes, I did watch it as a kid)

There are many that will mention how messed up the Tessier family was, and still is.  If you read the CNN article this become apparent if you read just those portions dealing with the family interactions (it helps to download the story into word, and make notes as I have.)  But if you really want to see just how screwed up the family is (not was, but still is) read Jeanne’s memoirs.  What she writes about her sister and others 50 YEARS after the fact is shocking.  Sure, Ralph Tessier violently rapes her, sexually abuses at least three of the girls, mom is a nut job that breaks her arm, and Jack a good looking monster, but read what she has to say about her sisters.  Sisters that are still alive, sisters that evidently except for Janet never read her memoirs.

Also, any question of why Johnny picked Maria over Kathy is explained in the memoirs, Kathy was an ugly duckling.  Kathy says she spends all this time wondering why Johnny took Maria and not her… Well honey, you were not the cute one.  I have no idea what Kathy and Maria looked like outside of some black and white pictures, but Jeanne helps us out in knowing who was a looker, and who was not, who was pretty, who was the dumb looking chunky girl.

Closing Paragraph

I need to get a quote from Jeanne to close my thoughts on this case.  Not sure if she will ever give me an interview, but maybe she will.  For the time being, just pretend I have Jeanne talking about pebbles in a river symbolizing our life’s shining after the dirt of time is washed away by the waters of rediscovery, or some crap like that.  I think I will have a beer now…. and have my memory refreshed.