(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Seventy-two-year old man gets convicted of murder from 1957 based on eyewitness photo id in 2010

10 Dec 2012 09:48 PM   |   10085 clicks   |   CNN
Showing 1-50 of 78 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
Indubitably     
Gotcha.

10 Dec 2012 09:51 PM
gadian     
I have the dumb tonight, none of that made sense. How did they figure out it was him besides some eyewitness interviewed too many years too late to seem reliable?

10 Dec 2012 09:52 PM
Acharne     

gadian: I have the dumb tonight, none of that made sense. How did they figure out it was him besides some eyewitness interviewed too many years too late to seem reliable?


The judge tossed out all the exculpatory evidence, leaving only the witness and the broken alibi as evidence.

10 Dec 2012 09:55 PM
Sandusky Knows Best     
He was originally the prime suspect. Had an alibi that chief wiggum and lou didn't apparently investigate too thoroughly. Supposedly his train ticket was unused, which means his alibi may have been a lie. Then yes, extremely unreliable eye witness testimony.

//local resident
///interesting to watch unfold here.

10 Dec 2012 09:55 PM
ocrapitstexas     
H mmmm

10 Dec 2012 09:58 PM
bearded clamorer    [TotalFark]  
i2.cdn.turner.comView Full Size


files.abovetopsecret.comView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 09:59 PM
jaytkay     

10 Dec 2012 10:01 PM
Contribution Corsair     
Massively outdated testimony and sparked by a sudden deathbed confession?

I'm gonna go with blah on this. Not to mention if we really wanna get nitpicky this part bugs me too

McCullough was sentenced under laws that were in effect in 1957. So..if he's sentenced by laws that are effective then, shouldn't you also sentence him as his age back then as well?

This whole thing seems to be a mess and I don't doubt appeals will free him.

10 Dec 2012 10:03 PM
semiotix     
McCullough's youngest sister, a baby at the time of the crime, contacted an Illinois State Police tip line in 2008

And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!

10 Dec 2012 10:03 PM
gadian     

jaytkay: .


Yeah, I got that bit. But that seems, well, not something you could prosecute on. I think I mixed up the bit with the ticket and how they finally figured out it was unused.

10 Dec 2012 10:03 PM
doglover    [TotalFark]  
So if we just rule the defense's evidence inadmissable, we can sentence anyone to anything 57 years after the fact.

I don't care if the guy IS the perp, this ain't justice. This is a kangaroo court, pure and simple. Two week trial for life in prison? 1,800 FBI documents directly related to case inadmissable? Eyewittness 55 years after the fact? Pure bullshiat. The ends don't justify the means. The DA and the Judge should both be hung out to dry for this.

10 Dec 2012 10:04 PM
BlackMtnMan     
Reasonable doubt I has a.

10 Dec 2012 10:05 PM
MrEricSir     

Sandusky Knows Best: He was originally the prime suspect. Had an alibi that chief wiggum and lou didn't apparently investigate too thoroughly. Supposedly his train ticket was unused, which means his alibi may have been a lie. Then yes, extremely unreliable eye witness testimony.

//local resident
///interesting to watch unfold here.


Okay, here's what I don't get: if his alibi was that he was enlisting in the military at the time, couldn't the police have just called up the military and check when the guy was enlisting? Seems like that would have taken all of 10 minutes.

10 Dec 2012 10:05 PM
Nem Wan     
Beyond a reasonable doubt? Eyewitness I.D. isn't reliable from 55 minutes ago let alone 55 years ago.

10 Dec 2012 10:06 PM
boinkingbill     
This sounds a lot like Nifong and the Duke non-rape case.
"Here you go girlie, these are pictures of all the guys at the party. Just pick three of them and we will do the rest".

What is strange is that Chapman was an initial suspect, so why didn't the kid identify him then. The police are suppose to put Chapman's picture in a line up of other suspects, which apparently was not the case.

10 Dec 2012 10:07 PM
jaytkay     

gadian: jaytkay: .

Yeah, I got that bit. But that seems, well, not something you could prosecute on. I think I mixed up the bit with the ticket and how they finally figured out it was unused.


You are correct, it's absolutely hearsay. Not admissible in court.

I just meant to counteract the idea that the guy picked out of the blue.

10 Dec 2012 10:07 PM
Spartacus Outlaw     
BS. Poor bastard.
Hearsay evidence from a dying old woman (I know, I think that can be admissable in some cases), an expert on a serendipitously appearing old train ticket, and a photo picked out of a lineup 50 years later (when even within weeks this is notoriously unreliable). But of course, the witness testified that she was sure it was him.
Even if it was him, I don't want this precedent set, these low standards used to accuse someone of murder. What if it was you, or me, that looked like Johnny, or your crazy old dying mother that accused you based on who knows what, perhaps only gossip from the time of the crime.
I just don't like one thing about this.

10 Dec 2012 10:07 PM
1. Put snakes on plane     
The FBI documents are inadmissible, but some random train ticket is proof of murder, and so is hearsay from his sister? And he was only identified now, not when his face would have been fresh in the memory of the girl?

Not saying he couldn't have done it, but WTF?

10 Dec 2012 10:08 PM
jaytkay     

Spartacus Outlaw: BS. Poor bastard.
Hearsay evidence from a dying old woman



I don't think that was part of the court case.

I introduced that to the thread. Mea culpa.

10 Dec 2012 10:09 PM
Spartacus Outlaw     

jaytkay: Spartacus Outlaw: BS. Poor bastard.
Hearsay evidence from a dying old woman


I don't think that was part of the court case.

I introduced that to the thread. Mea culpa.


I think it was part of the court case. I wrote my post before I saw yours.

10 Dec 2012 10:12 PM
Sandusky Knows Best     

MrEricSir: Sandusky Knows Best: He was originally the prime suspect. Had an alibi that chief wiggum and lou didn't apparently investigate too thoroughly. Supposedly his train ticket was unused, which means his alibi may have been a lie. Then yes, extremely unreliable eye witness testimony.

//local resident
///interesting to watch unfold here.

Okay, here's what I don't get: if his alibi was that he was enlisting in the military at the time, couldn't the police have just called up the military and check when the guy was enlisting? Seems like that would have taken all of 10 minutes.


It's been in the local news for months off and on as new things come up, however, doing simple police work was not brought up. It is interesting that all those FBI files are inadmissible due to all the agents involved are either dead or can't testify. I would think that there would be enough reasonable doubt to let him off.

Not to say that there is any correlation, but he lived a pretty good life. Bronze star recipient as a Captain in Vietnam, police officer, semi retired security guard.

10 Dec 2012 10:15 PM
signaljammer     
Our hero has a sheet.

10 Dec 2012 10:16 PM
SpaceBison     
Killing kids in Illinois, killing kids in Vietnam. What's the difference?

10 Dec 2012 10:17 PM
jaytkay     

Spartacus Outlaw: I think it was part of the court case. I wrote my post before I saw yours.


Understood. I am looking at today's stories and it's not clear. I suspect someone around here will soon provide more info.

10 Dec 2012 10:18 PM
ParadisePornoTheater     
If it makes Snarky Subby happy, I'm aware that an axegrinding exgirlfriend's testimony helped get this creep into prison.

I'm as happy about this as I am for Drew Peterson finally getting punched. I hope Casey Anthony finally gets retrialed, too.

May Caylee and Maria RIP.

10 Dec 2012 10:19 PM
LessO2    [TotalFark]  

SpaceBison: Killing kids in Illinois, killing kids in Vietnam. What's the difference?



Better Pho in Vietnam.

10 Dec 2012 10:19 PM
Sandusky Knows Best     

boinkingbill: This sounds a lot like Nifong and the Duke non-rape case.
"Here you go girlie, these are pictures of all the guys at the party. Just pick three of them and we will do the rest".

What is strange is that Chapman was an initial suspect, so why didn't the kid identify him then. The police are suppose to put Chapman's picture in a line up of other suspects, which apparently was not the case.


The 8 year old friend of the murdered child was a suspect? Reading comprehension, how does it work?

10 Dec 2012 10:19 PM
SirDigbyChickenCaesar     
"Judge James Hallock had ruled the documents inadmissible at McCullough's trial"

How can FBI documents on the investigation be inadmissible? These are Justice Department files and should be considered almost unimpeachable.

10 Dec 2012 10:19 PM
ongbok     

Sandusky Knows Best: MrEricSir: Sandusky Knows Best: He was originally the prime suspect. Had an alibi that chief wiggum and lou didn't apparently investigate too thoroughly. Supposedly his train ticket was unused, which means his alibi may have been a lie. Then yes, extremely unreliable eye witness testimony.

//local resident
///interesting to watch unfold here.

Okay, here's what I don't get: if his alibi was that he was enlisting in the military at the time, couldn't the police have just called up the military and check when the guy was enlisting? Seems like that would have taken all of 10 minutes.

It's been in the local news for months off and on as new things come up, however, doing simple police work was not brought up. It is interesting that all those FBI files are inadmissible due to all the agents involved are either dead or can't testify. I would think that there would be enough reasonable doubt to let him off.

Not to say that there is any correlation, but he lived a pretty good life. Bronze star recipient as a Captain in Vietnam, police officer, semi retired security guard.


Wonder who's Wheaties this guy pissed in?

10 Dec 2012 10:33 PM
Sandusky Knows Best     

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: "Judge James Hallock had ruled the documents inadmissible at McCullough's trial"

How can FBI documents on the investigation be inadmissible? These are Justice Department files and should be considered almost unimpeachable.


None of the agents originally involved in the investigation can testify on the file content. I guess that is enough to toss them. Seems retarded. I'm pretty sure there is another document that is over two hundred years old. The um, founders of that document, if you will, aren't alive to discuss it. Maybe this document should be inadmissable during court proceedings. Make things interesting.

10 Dec 2012 10:34 PM
Oxygen_Thief    [TotalFark]  

jaytkay: gadian: jaytkay: .

Yeah, I got that bit. But that seems, well, not something you could prosecute on. I think I mixed up the bit with the ticket and how they finally figured out it was unused.

You are correct, it's absolutely hearsay. Not admissible in court.

I just meant to counteract the idea that the guy picked out of the blue.


Is if the Judge says so...good luck overturning a judge's discretion on appeal. Trial court..thats discretion all the way have to show clear error..unless that is what you are arguing.

10 Dec 2012 10:39 PM
gibbon1     

MrEricSir: Okay, here's what I don't get: if his alibi was that he was enlisting in the military at the time, couldn't the police have just called up the military and check when the guy was enlisting? Seems like that would have taken all of 10 minutes.


Yeah that bothers me, you'd think the cops would have called the enlistment center and asked if he'd showed up that day. If they said he had, cops would have simply stopped investigating him then and there.

10 Dec 2012 10:40 PM
ongbok     

gibbon1: MrEricSir: Okay, here's what I don't get: if his alibi was that he was enlisting in the military at the time, couldn't the police have just called up the military and check when the guy was enlisting? Seems like that would have taken all of 10 minutes.

Yeah that bothers me, you'd think the cops would have called the enlistment center and asked if he'd showed up that day. If they said he had, cops would have simply stopped investigating him then and there.


Seems like the FBI did and cleared him. The trial judge ruled that the FBI files were inadmissible.

10 Dec 2012 10:45 PM
Oxygen_Thief    [TotalFark]  

Oxygen_Thief: jaytkay: gadian: jaytkay: .

Yeah, I got that bit. But that seems, well, not something you could prosecute on. I think I mixed up the bit with the ticket and how they finally figured out it was unused.

You are correct, it's absolutely hearsay. Not admissible in court.

I just meant to counteract the idea that the guy picked out of the blue.

Is if the Judge says so...good luck overturning a judge's discretion on appeal. Trial court..thats discretion all the way have to show clear error..unless that is what you are arguing.


and i can get around hearsay easily as a dying deceleration....probably why it was admitted.

10 Dec 2012 10:45 PM
Molavian     

jaytkay: In January 1994, as she lay dying of cancer, Eileen Tessier pulled Janet close to her hospital bed and confessed her suspicion that her son, John, had been the man who committed the crime.


That's ok, when my mother-in-law was dying from cancer she thought I was an angel.

10 Dec 2012 10:50 PM
AbbeySomeone     
Who's mlooking for recognition based on an incredible prosecution record?

10 Dec 2012 10:51 PM
Sandusky Knows Best     

AbbeySomeone: Who's mlooking for recognition based on an incredible prosecution record?


Probably not Clay Campbell. He lost the election as the incumbent prosecuting the case.

10 Dec 2012 10:53 PM
HideAndGoFarkYourself    [TotalFark]  

jaytkay: gadian: jaytkay: .

Yeah, I got that bit. But that seems, well, not something you could prosecute on. I think I mixed up the bit with the ticket and how they finally figured out it was unused.

You are correct, it's absolutely hearsay. Not admissible in court.

I just meant to counteract the idea that the guy picked out of the blue.


Dying declarations are admissible in court, they're not heresay.

10 Dec 2012 10:57 PM
jaytkay     

gadian: the ticket and how they finally figured out it was unused.


That would really require some scrutiny.

I can tell you this as a guy who rides Metra trains around Illinois. Sometimes - always mid-day, not during rush hour - the conductor does not make it to my car to punch my ticket.

I probably have some "unused" ticket in a pocket somewhere.

I am not saying this guy is innocent. I don't know the particulars of ticket handling in the years before I was born.

But you are correct to point out that the "unused" ticket claim isn't a simple yes/no.

/ CSI

10 Dec 2012 10:57 PM
SirDigbyChickenCaesar     
Wow and apparently the defense requested a bench trial from the judge that excluded all that evidence...wow...

10 Dec 2012 10:58 PM
MrEricSir     

jaytkay: I don't know the particulars of ticket handling in the years before I was born.


Since they still punch train tickets in your area, it sounds like you probably do.

10 Dec 2012 10:59 PM
jaytkay     

HideAndGoFarkYourself: Dying declarations are admissible in court, they're not heresay.


I did not know that. Thank you.

Wikipedia - Dying declarationn 

10 Dec 2012 11:00 PM
jaytkay     

MrEricSir: jaytkay: I don't know the particulars of ticket handling in the years before I was born.

Since they still punch train tickets in your area, it sounds like you probably do.


??

Maybe they had more conductors in the 1950s and ALWAYS punched tickets.

Maybe they trusted people more in the 1950s and NEVER punched tickets.

10 Dec 2012 11:04 PM
gadian     

jaytkay: Maybe they had more conductors in the 1950s and ALWAYS punched tickets.

Maybe they trusted people more in the 1950s and NEVER punched tickets.


Maybe the conductor was having an off day? That and the ticket just happens to appear? This entire case seems to consist of a magic ticket, a drugged woman at the end of her life, a woman who was a baby at the time of the incident, a woman trying to remember a man from when she was a child and an ex-girlfriend with the magic ticket?

10 Dec 2012 11:07 PM
Britney Spear's Speculum     
Unsolved murder from over 55 years ago....
Not admissible: 4000 FBI documents with 1800 witnesses clearing the supposed suspect.
Admissible: Heresay from a death bed telephone conversation. And some unused train ticket.

i1.kym-cdn.comView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 11:11 PM
ModernLuddite     
That has to be the worst defense lawyer in the entire world.

10 Dec 2012 11:17 PM
Bacontastesgood     

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Wow and apparently the defense requested a bench trial from the judge that excluded all that evidence...wow...


Apparently it was the defendant, and it worked once before for him, he was acquitted in the rape of his sister: Link

Plus the grand jury indicted, so maybe he was down to "judge = good" "jury = bad". Who knows? The whole thing is bizarre.

ModernLuddite: That has to be the worst defense lawyer in the entire world.


Yeah, I'm thinkin Lionel Hutz.

10 Dec 2012 11:20 PM
clyph     

doglover: This is a kangaroo court, pure and simple.


Yep. Whether he did it or not, this whole thing smells to high heaven.

10 Dec 2012 11:21 PM
gadian     

Bacontastesgood: Plus the grand jury indicted, so maybe he was down to "judge = good" "jury = bad". Who knows? The whole thing is bizarre.


Even if he's guilty as all hell, if that was truly a good summation of the case and evidence, I wouldn't have voted to convict if a member of the jury. There's a whole lot of reasonable doubt going on there.

10 Dec 2012 11:22 PM
machoprogrammer     

1. Put snakes on plane: The FBI documents are inadmissible, but some random train ticket is proof of murder, and so is hearsay from his sister? And he was only identified now, not when his face would have been fresh in the memory of the girl?

Not saying he couldn't have done it, but WTF?


doglover: So if we just rule the defense's evidence inadmissable, we can sentence anyone to anything 57 years after the fact.

I don't care if the guy IS the perp, this ain't justice. This is a kangaroo court, pure and simple. Two week trial for life in prison? 1,800 FBI documents directly related to case inadmissable? Eyewittness 55 years after the fact? Pure bullshiat. The ends don't justify the means. The DA and the Judge should both be hung out to dry for this.


These^. Hope the guy appeals and wins, then sues the shiat out of the state.

10 Dec 2012 11:44 PM
Showing 1-50 of 78 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined