Jack McCullough: Illinois: CNN story raises crucial questions: "how reliable is inmate testimony? - and how far will police go to conceal incentives to testify from the court, and what consequences must a prosecutor face who refuses to go along with the lethal charade: "Cold case informant: Cop told me to lie, leak endangered my life." Link to five-part CNN digital series, "Taken. The Maria Ridulph case was featured in a five-part CNN digital series, "Taken," which raised questions about the evidence used to convict McCullough. Among the issues addressed by the series: How reliable is inmate testimony? The primary credibility issue with informants is one of motive, analysts said. Jailhouse informants usually are motivated by a reduction in sentence or other special favors. Others also had doubts, and the conviction started to unravel almost immediately. State's Attorney Richard Schmack decided the conviction couldn't stand. A new prosecutor, Richard Schmack, was elected and took a second look at the evidence. Schmack concluded that McCullough couldn't have committed the crime because records of a collect phone call he made supported his alibi he was 40 miles away in Rockford, trying to enlist in the U.S. Air Force, when Maria was taken. Recruiters also recalled speaking with him that evening and the following morning. The FBI had checked out McCullough's alibi and cleared him within days of Maria's disappearance. But that information was improperly kept out of his trial, an appeals court ruled last year. Still, the court found the error "harmless" and said it would not have affected the trial's outcome. Schmack disagreed. His report on the case included disturbing signs of a disingenuous prosecution, including witness coaching, timeline tweaking, evidence manipulation, courtroom misrepresentations and the use of unreliable inmate testimony. The case was tried without a jury and the judge, James Hallock, specifically cited the inmates' testimony as credible and convincing. John Doe has revealed his identity in a smattering of appellate filings, and Schmack took note of them in his report: "An informant who was permitted to testify under an alias has since filed pleadings, some under oath, which imply that he committed perjury in the trial, and that prosecutors knew and encouraged this." Doe says that after investigators approached him to testify, he expressed reluctance to cooperate, fearing retaliation from members of his former prison gang once they learned he was testifying for the prosecution. He insisted on anonymity and other concessions, including a lower security classification so he could transfer to another prison and serve his time with his father. Hanley, the lead investigator for the state police, promised to make sure prosecutors didn't disclose Doe's identity, the suit says, and assured the inmate that he had "nothing to worry about." Doe also claims Hanley told him "that he could not use the words 'deal' or 'promises' as these were 'magic words' for the court and defense team of Jack McCullough." According to the lawsuit, the investigator explained that "it would undermine the testimony and essentially aid the defense of a child murderer." Trevarthen, who handled most of the witnesses, obtained the gag order from the judge shielding Doe's identity, and the inmate was rushed onto the witness stand a day before he expected to testify. She assured the court: "There's no deal regarding his post-conviction petition." Doe himself denied being promised anything when asked about it in court: "No, sir, state didn't promise me nothing." But he later wrote to McCullough's appellate lawyer, insisting the state's attorney's office "directed" him not to disclose any deal. He says he turned to the judge, Hallock, when he completed his testimony, hoping to discuss the terms of his deal. But, the suit says, the judge cut him off, saying the witness could only speak in response to a question.""..."

STORY: "Cold case informant: Cop told me to lie, leak endangered my life,"  by Ann O'Neill, published by CNN on July 4 2016,

STORY HIGHLIGHTS:  "John Doe," cold case informant, says he was beaten in prison after leak of his identity; In $10 million suit, inmate says he was told to lie about deal to testify in murder case."

GIST: The case went unsolved until McCullough's arrest in June 2011. Besides the inmates, his four-day trial featured testimony from the accusing half sisters, who long suspected their mother covered for him. Maria's childhood friend, by then a grandmother, identified him as "Johnny" in the courtroom. The Maria Ridulph case was featured in a five-part CNN digital series, "Taken," which raised questions about the evidence used to convict McCullough. Among the issues addressed by the series: How reliable is inmate testimony? The primary credibility issue with informants is one of motive, analysts said. Jailhouse informants usually are motivated by a reduction in sentence or other special favors. Others also had doubts, and the conviction started to unravel almost immediately. State's Attorney Richard Schmack decided the conviction couldn't stand. A new prosecutor, Richard Schmack, was elected and took a second look at the evidence. Schmack concluded that McCullough couldn't have committed the crime because records of a collect phone call he made supported his alibi he was 40 miles away in Rockford, trying to enlist in the U.S. Air Force, when Maria was taken. Recruiters also recalled speaking with him that evening and the following morning. The FBI had checked out McCullough's alibi and cleared him within days of Maria's disappearance. But that information was improperly kept out of his trial, an appeals court ruled last year. Still, the court found the error "harmless" and said it would not have affected the trial's outcome. Schmack disagreed. His report on the case included disturbing signs of a disingenuous prosecution, including witness coaching, timeline tweaking, evidence manipulation, courtroom misrepresentations and the use of unreliable inmate testimony. The case was tried without a jury and the judge, James Hallock, specifically cited the inmates' testimony as credible and convincing. John Doe has revealed his identity in a smattering of appellate filings, and Schmack took note of them in his report: "An informant who was permitted to testify under an alias has since filed pleadings, some under oath, which imply that he committed perjury in the trial, and that prosecutors knew and encouraged this." Doe says that after investigators approached him to testify, he expressed reluctance to cooperate, fearing retaliation from members of his former prison gang once they learned he was testifying for the prosecution. He insisted on anonymity and other concessions, including a lower security classification so he could transfer to another prison and serve his time with his father. Hanley, the lead investigator for the state police, promised to make sure prosecutors didn't disclose Doe's identity, the suit says, and assured the inmate that he had "nothing to worry about." Doe also claims Hanley told him "that he could not use the words 'deal' or 'promises' as these were 'magic words' for the court and defense team of Jack McCullough." According to the lawsuit, the investigator explained that "it would undermine the testimony and essentially aid the defense of a child murderer." Trevarthen, who handled most of the witnesses, obtained the gag order from the judge shielding Doe's identity, and the inmate was rushed onto the witness stand a day before he expected to testify. She assured the court: "There's no deal regarding his post-conviction petition." Doe himself denied being promised anything when asked about it in court: "No, sir, state didn't promise me nothing." But he later wrote to McCullough's appellate lawyer, insisting the state's attorney's office "directed" him not to disclose any deal."

The entire story can be found at:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/us/ridulph-cold-case-inmate-lawsuit/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+(RSS%3A+CNN+-+Top+Stories)

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html

Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: 
hlevy15@gmail.com;

Harold Levy;

Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;