Death. It’s Never Fair.

Posted on August 4, 2012 by

 

Webster’s dictionary simplistically defines “death” as the act or fact of dying, a state of being dead.   

And there is one thing is for sure, we are all going to die. None of us will escape death.

For some, death comes after a long and fruitful life, but death is not always fair.

Webster’s dictionary defines “murder” as the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of a person.

While there are several different motives as to why people commit murder, none of them are justified.

So when an injustice like murder occurs, we rely on our law enforcement and government to search for the truth, to absolve the innocent, find the guilty and bring the guilty to justice.

If we take justice into our own hands, it’s considered vigilantism and also a crime. So we rely on the power given to our government, its authority, and its duty to protect us for the closure that only justice can bring.

I have said this often and cannot put it into power enough words, but I cannot imagine anyone who wouldn’t want justice if their loved one was murdered, whether it be a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister, any relative or friend.

So we can never forget Dyke and Karen Rhoads or any other victim who the government turns its back on and has so callously failed to search for the truth and to give them justice.

Watch On the Case With Paula Zahn:

The Newlywed Murders 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bucRIsES3Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock certainly suffered and unjustly lost a third of their lives because of the state’s cover-ups, but we can’t forget Dyke and Karen Rhoads who still lay six feet under the ground with no justice.

And for over twenty six years, there is still no one in the government trying to search for the truth behind their murders.

Why, because it’s still “too politically sensitive.”

And that is an injustice to all of us.

Why?

Because it shouldn’t happen to anyone, but it did, and it could happen to any one of us or to our loved ones in the future.

Government has a responsibility and every one of us relies on that responsibility.

Dyke Rhoads sister, Andrea Trapp once told the press that Dyke and Karen’s murder “ended their lives and started a nightmare for the rest of us for the rest of our lives… I want (authorities) to find the evidence needed to go to trial, instead of the wishy-washy case Mike McFatridge had 18 years ago.”

Karen’s mother, Marge Spesard, also questioned the state’s case; “I just find it interesting there have always been questions that we’ve never understood…We’re still waiting for the end.”

But it was and still is more important for the state to cover-up the misconduct and buffoonish mistakes in the original investigation and beyond, and the failures to investigate the other suspects.

Dyke’s sister, Andrea Trapp, is a very brave woman that stayed true to her brother despite the state and public scrutiny trying to attack her credibility at every turn. She said it best in a 2009 deposition in Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock’s civil suit against the state;

”I mean we are 24 years into this and you all have turned this into a three ring circus… we want somebody to solve our brother’s homicide. Apparently the Illinois State Police have no concerns about that because their concern is defending their lawsuits with Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlok… I care about Dyke and Karen and I want someone else involved in this case that cares about them too and so does Tony. That’s all we want…We have said help us solve our brother’s homicide, put the person in prison and leave them there and end of story so we can move on with our lives, so that we can be done grieving the situation.”

That’s not that much for a sister to ask for is it?

Or for anyone of us who has a loved one murdered to ask for, is it?

That is, unless, “it’s too politically sensitive.”

In the years to come, Diane Carper has admitted in testimony that I brought serious concerns to her about the Rhoads case, but still we were not allowed to reopen the Rhoads case.

Even former Captain Steve Fermon has testified that Diane Carper admitted to him that she had told Edie Casella and I that we couldn’t reopen the Rhoads case.

Steve Fermon has testified we had too many other cases and too limited resources to reopen the Rhoads case;

“…we had ongoing homicide investigations, we had death penalty cases, we had a lot of other things, and as I’m sure, most everyone would agree, we had very limited resources.”    

 But if it was your loved one murdered, and the police refused to investigate and search for the truth, would these reasons be good enough for you?  

At my deposition in Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock’s civil suit in 2008, Iain Johnston, the Illinois State Police’s attorney asked my attorney, John Baker, to step out of the room.

John Baker came back into the room crimson red, shaking his head and with a big smirk on his face and asked me to step out of the room.

John said that Lt. Colonel Diane Carper (who was at the deposition) wanted Iain Johnston to ask me a question.

His fear to Carper’s asinine question was my anger and John wanted me agree to answer their question with only a “yes” or a “no.”

After hearing the question, and becoming enraged, I readily agreed to answer the question, but not with just a “no.”

So the question was never asked although John Baker did offer several times into the next day for me to answer it.

The state’s pathetic and outrageous new low was to ask me if the only reason I cared about the Rhoads murders was because I had sex with Andrea Trapp.

And while I didn’t get to answer their pathetic and sick question, I did tell an equally outraged Andrea Trapp about the question and you would have loved how she blasted the state in her 2009 deposition.

But that’s the State of Illinois for you, continue the cover-up, and try and discredit those that only wanted to find the real truth behind such a horrible crime and give closure to the victims.

And not only by trying to discredit the cops who took an oath to search for the truth, but even a loving sister who dared to question the state!

Now that’s pathetic!!!

But that’s Illinois for you, arrogant, deceptive, breaks promises and is unaccountable for its mistakes.

All factors for why we are considered the most corrupt state in the United States!!!

Related articles
Posted in Illinois Corruption, Rhoads Murder | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

The United States Supreme Court: Protectors of our freedoms or just politicians???

Posted on July 22, 2012 by

“Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession.
I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”

                                                                        Ronald Reagan

 

Okay, so I’m writing this because I just want to believe in something again.

Something pure, something immune to politics and the puppet politicians who deceive us daily.

Something that is above the influences of the wealthy and their money that really controls our government, the puppet politicians and in the end, all of us.

I want to believe there is some entity out there powerful enough where truth and justice is more important than deceiving us, so we can once again believe in something, something that we all once believed in, but maybe now, no longer have as much faith in.

So my question is are our Supreme Court justices, the legal scholars of all legal scholars, the “anointed nine’ that take an oath to protect “We the People’s” freedoms and civil liberties our protectors or just mere puppet politicians?

What is the Constitution?  

The United States Constitution provided the framework of our federal government, and defines the responsibilities of the legislative, judiciary and executive branches.

The Constitution also defines the importance of our civil liberties and the accountability of the government to protect those freedoms. The Constitution spells out our civil liberties, to name just a few, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, a right to bear firearms and a right to question arrests and property seizures by the government.

The Preamble of the Constitution ensures the general welfare of the American people and sates that the federal government does not enjoy authority outside the established clauses in the Preamble.

In simple words, the Constitution was actually created to protect the people against abusive government control by limiting its power and telling government how it should behave. It protects minorities from the possible abuse of majority rule, and protects the privacy and property rights of the people.

The Declaration of Independence, another beautiful document was also created by our forefathers:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”

Beautiful words, so idealistic and so powerful, thousands of men and women have willingly sacrificed their lives believing in those words.

How it all got started.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a statute adopted on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress establishing the U.S. federal judiciary and that the “judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court …

The Judiciary Act of 1801 gave the President of the United States, (a politician) not the people, the power to appoint our Supreme Court Justices and after affirmation by the Senate, (more politicians) they would be appointed “for life” to their position…  

Marbury Vs Madison, in 1803, was the case that leads to changes in judicial review and the first case where the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court is considered the “highest court in the land,” and has the final say when it comes to laws in the United States. The Court has the power to deem laws as unconstitutional and overturn them. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and ensure that laws stay consistent with it.

Nine Supreme Court justices are appointed by the presiding President (a politician) whenever a vacancy occurs. That individual is then affirmed by the Senate (more politicians); there is no vote or say by the people.

Their job is to interpret our Constitution in order to protect, “We the People,” from losing our freedoms, our civil rights to government control or those who would influence and control our government’s politicians, (like the wealthy campaign contributors and special interest groups who help the politicians gain their position and power for “future favors” because let’s face it, the almighty dollar is all they really care about).

Just look at the power all the wealthy corporations have gained under this court, so don’t fool yourself, powerful health care companies still control our every day health, and there is no such thing as global warming, just ask the oil companies and auto industry. With 7 billion people sucking up the earth’s oil, water and destroying other resources like our rain forests on a daily basis we are told we have nothing to worry about; after all, the earth is an endless gift to us that can take all the abuse we want to give it, all for the sake of the almighty dollar. This keeps us satisfied and enables the rich to get richer so they can really enjoy their time on this earth. To hell with our future generations. Their legacy will be that they had ten mansions, a fleet of cars, jets and  yachts, after all, that’s the American dream for all of us, right? That’s what every one of us should want, right?

We also give billions of dollars of aid to countries like Pakistan and others who actually hate us, yet we have a trillion dollar debt here at home and American’s by the thousands are losing their homes, pensions and health care.

Yep, the Constitution is supposed to protect “We the People” and limit our government’s power, and the watchdogs are the Supreme Court justices. But have they just made it easier to forget “We the People” here at home?

When it comes to the law, certainly, I am no legal beagle, and that’s because I tend to believe in right or wrong, not the tedious and oftentimes meaningless court rules of procedure that educated scholars are trained to get around or use to omit or twist the facts, hide the truth, all under the guise of jurisprudence and its legal complexities.

To me, it’s just about the truth, we don’t need a thousand legal rules to hide or twist it, to seal testimony and facts in court records from us, to me it’s about the truth, common sense and logic, and about those people who would testify to the truth or lie about it.

But the legal system isn’t about justice anymore. Rules and procedure are more important than seeking the truth or any kind of justice.

Instead, we spend millions of dollars on attorney’s who are taught to ask only “yes” or “no” questions, to formulate strategies to hide or twist the truth and their meanings, seal their clients testimony and facts from us, and discredit those who disagree. God forbid letting a witness explain himself or herself on the stand, no, that goes against all legal eagle beagle training.

That’s why I wrote a book, they can’t hide or twist that, attack it all you want and I will answer to it, or even better, I’ll let the government and their minions answer it, caught in their own words and documents to prove what I said. That is if the government will quit sealing everything from us.

But that’s not good legal strategy for attorneys, better to use those rules to hide the truth and seal their clients admissions and buffoonish words so the taxpayers continue to pay the legal beagles and the politicians continue to get their lucrative campaign donations.

The legal system has become a vicious circle.

But let’s get back on point, are our most anointed legal scholars, our Supreme Court above reproach and politics and do they really care about protecting that beautiful document, our Constitution, for ‘We the People?”

Or, are they just politicians in a self-serving government beauracracy?

Let’s analyze this.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the presiding President in power when an opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy occurs.

There is no vote or say by the people.

The president is really a politician who runs for office based on a party line belief, party backing and campaign donations, usually gainingtheir power and position from donations from the wealthy and special interest groups who depend on the government to take care of them.

Presidents usually appoint justices based upon their party line beliefs, conservatives v. liberals. So most appointments are politically motivated.

Once someone is appointed by the President, the Senate must confirm the appointment.

The Senate is made up of even more politicians who also have specific party beliefs, are backed by a specific political party and also receive campaign contributions from the same wealthy and special interest groups.

There is no vote or say by the people.

So a Supreme Court Justice gains his office, not from the people, but from politicians, and usually with support from within their own political party, so therefore, who do they owe their allegiance too from gaining that position of power.

If I’m wrong about this, why are there so many 5-4 decisions from the Supreme Court today?

Are they really legal scholars debating the Constitution for the good of all the people, or just squabbling politicians protecting their party line beliefs and political benefactors?

Is it that difficult for this group of legal scholars to interpret the Constitution, or do politics and the government’s power interfere over protecting the people’s rights?

Isn’t it interesting that almost every 5-4 decision is along party or political lines, the five conservatives v. the four liberals?

Is every case really that complex that legal scholars of this magnitude can’t agree on interpretation of the Constitution or does it just come down to politics?

You saw in my last blog, how in a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy took millions of American citizens, all government employees, Freedom of Speech protections away in a ridiculous ruling.

Do you think our forefathers, when they wrote the Constitution, meant that it would be okay to take away a police officer’s freedom of speech protections in order to protect government wrongdoing and silence those who would speak out on corruption within government?

This court did that, another 5-4 decision, a ruling that took freedom of speech protections away from millions of Americans, actually, in the end, from every one of us, not just government employees, because if you silence those within government, how will any of us ever know what “big brother” is up to.

Really, just take a look at all the 5-4 decisions in the last few years’ people.

Maybe we’re just not that important to the men and women in the high court who took an oath to protect “We the People” and our Constitution?

Has our Constitution and its protections been diminished by this court? Most of think it has, even our current President has criticized this court on several occasions.

The Supreme Court has also continually refused to allow cameras in its courtroom so “We the People” can see how their Excellencies interpret “our” Constitution.

Why?

Justice Antonin Scalia gave a lame reason when he stated that, “Law is a specialized field, fully comprehensible only by the expert.”

There we go again with the legal beagle bullshit, what, attorney’s are a secret society and we the common folk are just too dumb to understand the complexities of the law and it’s plethora of rules?

Someone should have told his Excellency, Justice Scalia, we are supposed to be a self-governing constitutional republic. But he, one of the “anointed nine” thinks we’re just too dumb to understand the complexities of the law. So better to let that arrogant, out of touch, 75-year old man run the show for all us, right? Do you feel protected by his arrogance? Or by his caring legal beagle knowledge?

Maybe many of us are just too dumb to understand all the complexities of the law, but most of us know the difference between right and wrong, but our justice system doesn’t care about right or wrong, truth or justice anymore, the law’s just too complex for things like that.

But really, why can’t “We the People” see and hear those legal scholars who are sworn to protect our rights in action?

Are they afraid of what they will say in front of us, how they might look to us dumb common folk if they say or do something stupid while interpreting our Constitution?

Maybe they would have to actually justify and rationalize to us common folk why they chose to take away things like freedom of speech protections from government employees and instead protect cover-ups and corruption in government!

No, it’s better to allow them to take months to write it down in a scholarly opinion so they can impress us with their knowledge of the complexities of the law.

They are above reproach, appointed by politician’s for life, allegedly to protect our rights, but are they indebted to us or the government’s politicians who put them in power?

Are our Supreme Court justices really protecting our Constitution and “We the People?”

Or are they just politicians and really protecting the government, its self-interests and those who buy our government’s favors with their wealth?

Then ask yourself this, have politics, political parties and the politicians who run the government become more important to self-serving themselves than running the government for “We the People?”   

It’s your answer, cuz I’m just a dumb common folk!

 

        

  

Related articles
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

We the People???

Posted on July 12, 2012 by

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

 

 

Our First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Want a real scare!!!

Our Freedom of Speech is a right and protection given to us by our forefathers that protect “We the people” from government abuse or any evil which may try to silence those who would speak out against it.

At one time, Freedom of Speech protections were the right of every American citizen in this great country.

The key word in that statement is the word “were.”

That’s right, many American citizens, and that’s every local, county, state and federal government employee no longer has Freedom of Speech protections “while on the job.”

The honest cop that would turn in the corrupt cop that plants drugs in your house or car no longer has First Amendment protections to speak out if his superiors tell him to keep it quiet and even refuse to investigate the criminal act.

Or worse, the honest cop that turns in another cop for an unjustified killing of an elderly citizen that’s told to stay silent and keep the scandal covered up.

And it’s any government employee, even the school teacher who reports another teacher for sexually abusing a child, that teacher no longer has First Amendment protections if they go against their superiors and speak out about the abuse after they have been told to remain silent.

And the United States Supreme Court has even said it was okay for the government employee’s superiors to discipline the “honest government employee” who would expose that criminal conduct.

ASK THIS:

What type of government wants to muzzle its citizens?

Can government really silence those who expose its misconduct?  

Who will police the government if it refuses to police itself?

But in 2006, the United States Supreme Court must have assumed they didn’t need to protect the people or our Constitution because there is no corruption in government.

Well, they obviously don’t know about Illinois.

Unbelievable?

How could five highly educated men, esteemed Supreme Court Justices, the very pinnacle of legal scholars, the people entrusted in protecting our Constitution and every American citizen’s freedom of speech rule that government employees no longer have freedom of speech protections when speaking out on government misconduct or criminal conduct.

Sound absurd?

Government employees are not citizens while “on the job” at work!!!

But it’s actually happened!!!

Prior to 2006, every government employee in this country had Freedom of Speech protections, just like any other American citizen, if they spoke out on a matter of public concern.

My First Amendment protections were my last resort to speak out about the egregious misconduct and continued cover ups by those who took an oath just like I did, and ignored the murder of Dyke and Karen Rhoads and the wrongful imprisonment of Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock.

I filed a law suit against my ISP Commanders for violating my First Amendment rights and in April of 2005, I won a two-week jury trial against the biggest adversary I would ever face, the corrupted State of Illinois.

But then, those highly educated legal scholars we entrust to protect “We the people” and our United States Constitution changed the rules and chose to protect the government by silencing those who would speak out about government corruption or misconduct.

In 2006, The United States Supreme Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos ruled:

“When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline …”

Pretty frightening isn’t it!!!

And those scenarios I wrote about earlier in this blog, those have happened and the “honest cop” who spoke out on the cop who planted the drugs and the cops who unjustifiably killed the elderly citizen were the ones retaliated against by their government superiors and then told by the courts that they no longer had Freedom of Speech protections to speak out. What’s an honest cop supposed to do now?

Scared yet, well it’s actually pretty frightening, especially for any of us who aren’t wealthy enough or politically connected to fight corruption like this isn’t it?

And of course, a state like Illinois jumped at the Garcetti ruling and appealed my case to the United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I will never forget and I often recite to audiences, Judge Francis Ripple’s scholarly opinion when the United States 7th Circuit reversed my case and ruled:

“Mr. Callahan spoke not as a citizen but as a public employee, and that speech is not entitled to protection by the First Amendment.”

For twenty-five years, not once when I put my gun and badge on, did I not think I wasn’t a United States citizen!!! 

But what is so frightening…police officers still have the power to take away life, but not the protection of freedom of speech to speak out if it’s done unjustly!

They took away my Freedom of Speech once, but I swore they would never do it again.

And we can’t forget, it’s our right, our freedom, and thousands died fighting for those freedoms, so always remember:

It’s Of the People, By the People and For the People!

Next up: Our Supreme Court. Protectors of our Constitution or just politicians?

Related articles
Posted in First Amendment Rights, Illinois Corruption | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Score: Govt. Attorney’s: Millions Taxpayers: Screwed!!!

Posted on June 30, 2012 by

Just how much of the taxpayers money has been spent to defend those who ignored the wrongful convictions of Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock?

In my First Amendment law suit against my Illinois State Police Commanders, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan hired three private law firms to represent the three commanders.

Please read:

2005 Illinois Times article by Dusty Rhodes: The good, the bad and the expensive

The trial alone cost the taxpayers $685, 059. 13.

But the State of Illinois continued to fight to take away my First Amendment protections. And who would doubt that a state as corrupt as Illinois would want to silence government employees about misconduct.

Total cost to the taxpayers ended up being almost 1.3 million dollars to defend the State Police commanders.

But that’s only the tip of the iceberg taxpayers!

In 2007, Diane Carper even bit the hand that fed her and sued Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan for “Legal Professional Negligence” and for things like “failing to adequately prepare Carper for her pre-trial depositions” in my civil suit.

Somebody should have told Carper, if you just tell the truth, you don’t have to be “prepared.”

But from the looks of her recent testimony, (see previous blog) it looks like her current attorney needs to step up the coaching even more.

But Lisa Madigan is forgiving and again hired private attorney’s to defend Carper and the other ISP defendants in more litigation.

Since 2004, the taxpayers continue to foot the legal bills for Diane Carper and several other ISP defendants in wrongful conviction law suits filed by Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock. That’s eight years of litigation!

But in 2011:

State Police settle wrongful conviction suit with Randy Steidl

In this photo taken April 17, 2009, Gordon “Randy” Steidl, 57, a former death row inmate, is seen outside his house in Charleston, Ill. Steidl left the Danville Correctional Center in 2004 after spending more than 17 years in prison, including 12 on death row, for a double murder he didn’t commit. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)

By DAVID MERCER

The Associated Press

Posted Nov 30, 2011 @ 06:07 PM

Last update Nov 30, 2011 @ 06:25 PM

The Illinois State Police agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a former death row inmate who spent almost two decades in prison for the 1986 murders of a newlywed couple before a judge released him because of flawed evidence.

The settlement comes after the State Police already spent more than $3.7 million to defend the agency against lawsuits filed by the inmate and another man convicted in the killings and later freed, according to documents obtained by the Better Government Association. The Chicago-based watchdog group, which requested the documents through the Freedom of Information Act, says invoices show most of the $3.7 million was spent on attorneys’ fees.

Lawyers for Gordon Randy Steidl say the settlement, first uncovered by the BGA and confirmed by The Associated Press, amounts to an admission that state investigators had a hand in wrongfully sending a man to prison for more than 17 years, 12 of them on death row, for the killings in the eastern Illinois town of Paris.

“He’s getting a very substantial settlement that indicates to us the Illinois State Police defendants are conceding their role,” said Flint Taylor, one of Steidl’s attorneys. “I think the settlement that the state made is a strong indication that they think he was wrongfully convicted.”

But the State Police maintain the settlement reached Oct. 25 isn’t an admission of wrongdoing or that Steidl shouldn’t have been convicted.

“He was not exonerated and settlement is not a reflection of guilt or innocence, nor is it an admission of any wrongdoing on behalf of Illinois State Police,” spokeswoman Monique Bond said.

She declined to discuss the agency’s reason for settling, saying she’d refer the question to an agency attorney who did not respond to calls from The Associated Press….

The problems with the evidence led a judge to order Steidl be freed or retried. The Illinois Attorney General’s office declined to try Steidl again, and he left prison in 2004.

Whitlock was similarly released in 2008.

The two men filed separate lawsuits against the State Police, city of Paris and a former Edgar County prosecutor who tried their cases, but courts joined their suits. Steidl is still pursuing his lawsuit against the city and prosecutor. Whitlock’s lawsuit continues, as well…

The real irony is Lisa Madigan’s privately hired legal beagles made more money than Randy Steidl, the wrongfully convicted victim in this tragic case.

In June of 2012, the United States 7TH Circuit Court of Appeals dealt another blow to the state’s defendants when they denied their requests to dismiss the lawsuits filed by Steidl and Whitlock:

“From the ashes of these gruesome murders rises another deeply disturbing allegation: that police and prosecutors conspired to frame two innocent men of these crimes, and over the course of the next two decades, state officials continued to cover up those misdeeds.”

If their claims are true, a grave and nearly unbelievable miscarriage of justice occurred in Paris, Ill. Two innocent men will have to deal with its consequences for the rest of their lives. We find no reason to delay their day in court for these matters any further.”

                                                                                    Federal Judge Diane Wood

But the legal beagles continue to suck the taxpayers of this state dry.

Herb Whitlock still has pending litigation that they want to stall while they rake in more money.

And of course the jury is still out on whether we, the taxpayers, will have to pay former State’s Attorney Mike McFatridge’s huge legal bills.

That would be a big one to “snort” folks.

So how much of the taxpayer’s money has been spent thus far?

We filed a FOIA, (which only goes up to December, 2011) and which doesn’t include Mike McFatridge’s legal fees, the 1.3 million dollar legal fees spent on my law suit or Randy Steidl’s 2.5 million dollar settlement paid by the state.

Complete Table:  ISP billings for Steidl and Whitlock

So who really wins in this state?

The only winners are the politicians who frivolously spend our money and those that benefit from it; and of course there are probably the campaign contributions made back to those free spending politicians that help to keep them in office.

It’s like the circle of life.

No, it’s definitely the taxpayers who lose.

And of course, the victims, because they’ve become nothing more than an afterthought to the system … Remember, the murder of Dyke and Karen Rhoads remains unsolved.

And nobody is trying to solve it, because, it’s still “too politically sensitive.”              

Next up: What has happened to the “people’s” Constitution?  

 

Related articles
Posted in Herb Whitlock, Illinois Corruption, Randy Steidl, Rhoads Murder | Tagged , | 2 Comments

A GOOD SOLDIER?

Posted on June 22, 2012 by

 

Does a good soldier ignore that two innocent men were wrongfully convicted, while the real killer(s) remain free?

Does a good soldier say a crime is too politically sensitive to search for the truth?

Should a good soldier care about a horrible crime and the injustice done to its victims?     

In 2000 and 2001, Lt. Colonel Diane Carper delivered a strong message from the Illinois State Police upper command that the Rhoads Homicide case, despite all the questions of cover-ups and misconduct was “too politically sensitive” to re-open.

I personally heard her more than once say the shameful words “too politically sensitive” when she told us we couldn’t reopen the Rhoads Homicide case.

And so did other brave Illinois State Police officers who testified to it in federal court:

Michale Callahan,Too Politically Sensitive

April, 2005, In my First Amendment lawsuit against Lt. Colonel Diane Carper, she denied saying the Rhoads case was “too politically sensitive.” But she did testify that;

“Colonel (Andre) Parker described it (Rhoads case) as politically sensitive. I have described it as politically sensitive.”

“Is it politically sensitive? Why? Because my boss said so.”  

Carper also testified that because of certain “ground rules” and “parameters” set down by Colonel Parker, “My best recollection was that we were not going to immediately reopen the Steidl or Rhoads’ case.”

Of course, “immediately” to Carper was ignoring this tragedy through 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, and not until Federal Judge Michael McCuskey ordered the State of Illinois to free Randy Steidl or retry him. But that’s another story for later.

Diane Carper’s attorney told the jury that Mike Callahan “wasn’t a good soldier”; instead it was Carper who was the good soldier who was just following orders.

Then he addressed the jury:

“The whole issue is about the word ‘too.’ She (Carper) was perfectly prepared to say, ‘I did say the situation was politically sensitive.”…Now I admit there are some other people that do say she did, including Mr. Callahan… It may be they misheard and read into this something that they didn’t expect and some people heard the word “too.” Let’s say you think Diane Carper did say “too politically sensitive.” Remember, what else? She said the directive came from above her and it came specifically from Colonel Andre Parker…Colonel Carper, she is the messenger. It is fundamentally unfair to hold her liable for merely passing on an order from her boss.”   

 

March 20th, 2009, almost four years later, Diane Carper testified in a deposition in a federal law suit filed against her and other ISP defendants by Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock for their wrongful convictions.

Q. Did Colonel Parker say to you that it (Rhoads case) was too politically sensitive? (Pg. 131)

A. Not at that meeting.

Q. At some other meeting?

A. It was prior to any meetings.  

Q. He said it to you, what, in a meeting just between you and he?

A. No. It was when we were trying to figure out what information was sent outside the agency.

Carper again testified in the lengthy deposition that we couldn’t reopen the Rhoads case, despite all the questions raised, because of the “parameters” set by the Assistant Deputy Director, Col. Andre Parker.

Q. … I’m talking about granting the authority to the investigative level to open an investigation into the Rhoads homicide. Did you have the authority to do that? (Pg. 123)

A. …we were not going to open the case, reopen the case, while it was being—while it was working its way through the court system.

Q. … The question was whether you had the authority, if you wanted to?

A. Not until it was brought back up to the level of the deputy—assistant deputy director.  

Q. Who set the parameters? (Pg. 174)

A. Colonel Parker.

Q. So then when did Colonel Parker set these parameters about what could and could not be done in the Rhoads investigation?

A. Parameters were established in May and June of 2000.

February 12, 2010, yet nine months later, in a declaration, again under oath, Diane Carper contradicted herself and testified:

“Andre Parker did not instruct me that the Rhoads case was too politically sensitive to reopen or reinvestigate. Andre Parker did not set strict parameters regarding the Rhoads case that prohibited the reopening of the Rhoads case or conducting investigative activities.”

I guess her current attorney has his work cut out, and will now have to argue that, “the whole issue is not just about the word ‘too’ but also the words ‘strict  parameters’ and ‘reopening.’  

In 1987, Debbie Reinbolt testified that Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock murdered Dyke and Karen Rhoads. Later, she recanted her testimony, then recanted her recantation, then recanted her original testimony once again, and then recanted her recantation once again.

When ISP Sergeant Jack Eckerty was asked if he thought Reinbolt was a damn liar years later, he replied, “I will agree that the truth is sometimes not there.”

Michale Callahan,Too Politically Sensitive

According to her testimony in 2005 and 2009, Lt. Colonel Diane Carper said the Rhoads case was just “politically sensitive,” yet we still couldn’t reopen it because of “ground rules” and “parameters” set by her boss, Colonel Andre Parker.

Now, in 2010, she testifies that Parker didn’t set “strict parameters” that prohibited the “reopening’ of the Rhoads case.

Michale Callahan,Too Politically Sensitive

Which one of these two women do you believe?

Next up: You won’t believe how much money!!!

The taxpayers of Illinois have paid millions of dollars and continue to spend our tax dollars on the private attorneys hired by Lisa Madigan to defend this good soldier and all of the other ISP defendants.

 

 

Related articles
Posted in Rhoads Murder, Wrongful Conviction | 2 Comments

Illinois Politics and Business as Usual!

Posted on June 14, 2012 by

Michale Callahan,Too Politically Sensitive

Picture of power point with Rod Blagojevich “guilty” and FBI statement by Robert Grant about how corrupt Illinois is; then these statements and questions.

Current Illinois Governor Pat Quinn was Lt. Governor for eight years under former Governor Rod Blagojevich in one of the most corrupt administrations in the history of Illinois politics.

EIGHT YEARS!!!!

Why hasn’t anyone ever asked these questions?

1) During Quinn’s eight years as Lt. Governor under Blagojevich was he that naïve to the blatant corruption or too inept and stupid to see it?

2) Or did Quinn see the corruption, but was he too afraid or helpless to stand up and do something about it, instead finally relying on the feds to again step up against Illinois corruption?

3) Or was Quinn just part of Illinois politics and “business as usual” in Illinois and he managed to stay under the feds radar like so many other politicians  have?

It takes more than putting a few Governors in prison to stop the corruption and inept politicians in Illinois!

Current Illinois politician’s hypocritically misdirect the public and blame the “old administrations” on our circumstances while they break promises and tell us it wasn’t their fault.

That’s an Illinois politician for you, a promise is worthless, and stealing your tax dollars is priceless!

Illinois politicians have been and continue to be held unaccountable in misspending our tax dollars and stealing the money from hard working state employee’s pension funds for years.

My Grandfather was a wise man and now I understand what he meant when he told me, “I hate to see an honest man go into politics.”

Want accountability???

Next up: You decide when you see the next blog, and you won’t believe what the taxpayers have spent to defend the Illinois State Police defendants’ in the wrongful convictions of Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock. Taxpayers money spent to defend those who can’t even keep their own testimony straight from year to year!

Be sure to read to whole story on the Steidl and Whitlock wrongful convictions in Too Politically Sensitive!

Posted in Wrongful Conviction | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

So what was the real reason behind Mike McFatridge resigning as the Edgar County State’s Attorney????

Posted on June 6, 2012 by


I was told a reason why, but no one let us investigate it because it was one of the “too politically sensitive” issues in this tragic case.

On December 31, 1991, after serving 11 years as the counties prosecutor, Mike McFatridge resigned as the Edgar County State’s Attorney.

McFatridge told a Paris Beacon reporter “…that I can look back at a long list of accomplishments,” he said.

McFatridge said certainly the “most satisfying” were the 1987 murder trials and convictions of Herbert Whitlock and Randy Steidl for the stabbing deaths of Karen and Dyke Rhoads.   

Read original here:    McFatridge Resignation Paris Beacon

So what did Mr. McFatridge accomplish besides railroading two innocent men into prison, while the real killer(s) remained free?

Over the years, there have been many people who questioned Mr. McFatridge’s “most satisfying” accomplishment:

 -May 2, 2000 memorandum from Lt. Michale Callahan to ISP command per request from Randy Steidl’s defense team to review the Rhoads homicide case:

“In reviewing the case file both subjects were subsequently convicted based on the eyewitness testimony of Darrell Herrington and Debbie Reinbolt.”

“But to base the conviction on the testimony of Herrington and Reinbolt with all the documented discrepancies and conflicting statements definitely merits review.”

“I have found many discrepancies in this case which warrant ISP re-evaluating this case. In summarization, the following points lead me to believe that Steidl ( and Whitlock) was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that other viable suspects in this case were not thoroughly investigated.”

-August 15, 2001 memorandum from Lt. Michale Callahan to ISP command in another fruitless attempt to re-open the Rhoads investigation:

“Besides the obvious weaknesses of the case and poor investigative efforts, there remain questions of corruption and payoffs in orchestrating the convictions of Steidl and Whitlock….”

“In addition, I feel it is warranted based on the totality of circumstances from a historical and present day perspective that we reopen the Rhoads case. New technology and new information that has come forward needs to be looked at in what I feel was an incomplete investigation.”

-August 10, 2001, Rhoads Homicide Assessment done by ISP Intelligence Analyst at the request of Major Edie Casella who supported Lt. Callahan. Major Casella was removed as commander 14 days after she submitted this assessment to ISP upper command:

The events surrounding the murders of Dyke and Karen Rhoads do not in my mind lead me to assume beyond a reasonable doubt that Steidl and Whitlock committed these gruesome murders. …It is safe to assume that if the events occurred in the exact same manner as prescribed by all the witnesses and at the approximate times, it would have been almost impossible for Steidl and Whitlock to have committed these murders.”

-June 17, 2003, Federal Judge Michael McCuskey’s order to the State of Illinois to free Randy Steidl or retry him because :

“Acquittal for Randy Steidl was reasonably probable if the original jury had heard all of the evidence.”

-May, 2004, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan concurs with JudgeMcCuskey:

“… That after careful review of evidence in the Rhoads case, information favoring the defense was never disclosed…”

-May, 2004, Illinois Appellate Prosecutor Ed Parkinson declines to retry Randy Steidl:

“The biggest hurdle facing prosecutors is the recantations of the testimony by Reinbolt and Herrington. They have both recanted their testimony then recanted their recantations on multiple occasions. It would be a folly for me to say that’s not a concern…”

Michale Callahan,Too Politically Sensitive

-September 9, 2005, excerpts from Special Agent Jeff Marlow’s email to ISP command:

“… I no longer want to be a part of the case involving Dyke and Karen Rhoads homicide. This case has cost me many nights of lost sleep…I naively wanted to play a part in the discovery of who really killed the kids…At this point, I make no attempt at hiding the fact that I feel the main two eyewitnesses used to convict Steidl and Whitlock were created…Furthermore, I do not want to be part of the attempted railroading of anyone. The frustration level is too great for such a short life.”

Read: Original Marlowe Email

-September 7, 2007, a decision by the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court in Herb Whitlock’s request for a new trial:

“We hold that because of the State’s suppression of evidence favorable to the defense… We find a reasonable probability that but for these errors, considered cumulatively, the verdict would have been different. The trial court’s decision to the contrary is manifestly erroneous. Therefore, we reverse the judgment and conviction and remand this case for a new trial on the first-degree murder of Karen Rhoads.”

Michale Callahan,Too Politically Sensitive

Read Original:  Juror, Verdict compromised

-March 5&6, 2009, Deposition testimony of former Detective James Parrish, Paris Police Department’s lead detective in Rhoads homicide investigation about the credibility of one of the alleged eyewitnesses, Darrell Herrington:

In correspondence with the FBI on January 20-21, 1987, six and a half months after the murders, Detective Parrish advised the FBI that “…Gordon Randy Steidl and Herbert Ray Whitlock were suspects …developed through informant information. (Darrell Herrington) However, he advised that he considered the source to be a poor witness.” On page two of his memorandum, Parrish advised the FBI” …that they have not determined a motive for these crimes and to date do not have probable cause for arrest of the suspects.”    

Twenty-two years after Randy and Herb’s convictions, Parrish was asked and testified:

Q. … And so, in fact, you considered Darrell to be a poor witness, at least as of January 21st, 1987.

A. He was not—he was a witness, but he wasn’t a good enough witness to make an arrest or get a conviction on.

Yet Randy and Herb, with no additional or corroborating information were arrested a little over three weeks later on February 19, 1987 for the murders of Dyke and Karen Rhoads. And Parrish testified before a grand jury that Herrington was a credible witness.

-March 26, 2009, Deposition testimony of Captain Ken Kaupas who “supervised” an  “allegedly renewed” Rhoads homicide investigation:

Captain Ken Kaupas’ testimony reference Special Agent Jeff Marlow’s memo that stated, “Discrepancies between the information supplied by State’s witnesses Debbie Reinbolt and Darrell Herrington are too numerous for explanation other than blatant fabrication.” When asked if he agreed with Marlow’s assessment, Kaupas answered:

A. Again, I wouldn’t choose the words “blatant fabrication,” but I think I’ve already testified to the fact that their stories were not believable.

Captain Kaupas’ testimony concerning a meeting with former Sergeant Jack Eckerty and former Master Sergeant Charlie McGrew in the summer of 2004 and a subsequent email by Special Agent Jeff Marlow documenting statements made at that meeting by Sergeant Jack Eckerty:

Q. Did he (Eckerty) say that “Reinbolt changed her story every time she was interviewed”?

A. Yes.

Q. And did he (Eckerty) also say, “The case against Steidl and Whitlock was no where (sic) near ready to be prosecuted”?

A. Yes. I recall him talking about he felt it was a weak case.

Q. And did he (Eckerty) say that “McFatridge did not divulge any information concerning Steidl and Whitlock if it seemed to weaken the State’s case”?

A. I—I’m not certain he used the words “divulge any information” regarding that, but I believe he (Eckerty) had issues with Mr. McFatridge as to whether or not the case was ready to go to trial.

-July 23, 2009, Deposition testimony of ISP case agent, Sgt. Jack Eckerty when asked if he concurred that eyewitness Debbie Reinbolt was a damn liar:  

A.  I will agree that the truth sometimes is not there.

-December 8, 2010, Federal Judge Harold Baker’s decision to deny summary judgment for former State’s Attorney Michael McFatridge:

“The court is unable to conclude one way or the other without making credibility judgments and is left to wonder about a possible motive for McFatridge to silence Steidl ( and Whitlock) for telling the FBI shortly before the murders about McFatridge’s alleged activities, at best, were incompatible with his position as Edgar County State’s Attorney.”

-May 30, 2012, United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which affirmed District Court Harold Baker’s decision to deny summary judgment to McFatridge and his fellow defendants:

“From the ashes of these gruesome murders rises another deeply disturbing allegation: that police and prosecutors conspired to frame two innocent men of these crimes, and over the course of the next two decades, state officials continued to cover up those misdeeds.”

“It has been nearly 25 years since Steidl and Whitlock were convicted of the Rhoads homicides. If their claims are true, a grave and nearly unbelievable miscarriage of justice occurred in Paris, Illinois. Two innocent men will have to deal with its consequences for the rest of their lives. … For the reasons we discuss below, we affirm the district court’s denial of each defendant’s motion for summary judgment.” Federal Appeals Court Judge Diane Wood.

A GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT BY MR. McFATRIDGE!  But there are certainly an awful lot of people who don’t agree with his “most satisfying” accomplishment!

Let the trial begin and it’s he who will now be judged this time, but fortunately for McFatridge, it’s not his life that’s at stake like the men whose life he tried to take!

MORE IRONY.

Webster’s dictionary defines irony as “an event or result that is the opposite of what is expected.”

Herb Whitlock was freed after the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court ruled, “We hold that because of the State’s suppression of evidence favorable to the defense… We find a reasonable probability that but for these errors, considered cumulatively, the verdict would have been different.”

Withholding of evidence favorable to a defendant is called a Brady Violation, a violation of our United States Constitution.

The Illinois 4th District Appellate Court therefore ruled that McFatridge had committed Brady violations in Herb Whitlock’s case.

Yet in November of 2011, I watched McFatridge’s attorney, Terry Ekl, plead before the same Illinois 4th District Appellate Court, the same court which ruled McFatridge violated Brady. McFatridge and his attorneys are trying to force Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to indemnify the former Edgar County State’s Attorney and have the taxpayers of this state pay for his legal defense.

Terry Ekls himself; a former Assistant Dupage County prosecutor made the excuse that he too, while a former prosecutor had once violated Brady at one time in his prosecutorial career.  He opined to the court that the insurance carrier had dropped coverage of McFatridge’s defense costs and that he was $500,000 in arrears in pro-bono work, and that the burden of paying for Mr. McFatridge’s legal defense should now fall to the taxpayers of this state.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office fought back and accused McFatridge of engaging in “serious, willful misconduct” and that the taxpayers should not have to pay for his misconduct.

But the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court ruled that the taxpayers had to pay McFatridge’s legal fees. Even more ironic, just a few months after the appellate court decision, Mr. Ekl reported to the Chicago Tribune that his unpaid legal bill was now $750,000.

Read Original here:  CHICAGO TRIBUNE JANUARY 2012

WOW, that’s a quick extra $250,000 or a hell-of- a-lot of legal work in just three months!

Mr. Ekl’s must not have heard that Illinois is broke!

Even more ironic, after the court ruled that we, the taxpayers, had to pay for his legal defense, Mr. McFatridge decided to go out and buy himself a Cadillac Escalade.

But I must admit the license plates he picked are very appropriate, SPAWN4!!!

The good news is Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan appealed the Appellate Courts decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 30, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court granted Madigan leave to appeal in the McFatridge indemnity question. Mr. McFatridge may have to pay his own legal bills after all, just another chapter in this ironic and tragic case.

But the question still remains, why did Mike McFatridge resign as State’s Attorney?

Was he doing something criminal like doing drugs while he was state’s attorney?

Why has his attorney sealed 10 pages of his deposition testimony from us?

After all, his attorney wants us to pay for him; shouldn’t we have a right to know what we are spending our tax dollars on?

Like I said, maybe one day, he or others will be called to testify and we can find out why he resigned, and I’m betting it’s REALLY IRONIC….

Related articles
Posted in Wrongful Conviction | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Wrongful conviction case against police, prosecutors wins appeal

Posted on June 1, 2012 by

Gordon “Randy” Steidl, listening to a debate last year about ending the death penalty, won an appeal Wednesday to continue his lawsuit against authorities in his wrongful conviction. He spent 17 years in prison, 12 on death row, in a 1986 murder case. (Michael Tercha, Chicago Tribune 2011 / January 11, 2011)

Court says lawsuit can go forward

Twenty-five years after Herb Whitlock and Gordon “Randy” Steidl were sent to prison on murder charges that were eventually dropped, a federal appeals court has cleared the way for a lawsuit the two men filed against law enforcement officers they say conspired against them.

The federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected arguments made by the multiple defendants that the lawsuit be thrown out and suggested there was an urgent need to move the case forward.

“If their claims are true, a grave and nearly unbelievable miscarriage of justice occurred in Paris, Ill.,” the court’s opinion states. “Two innocent men will have to deal with its consequences for the rest of their lives. We find no reason to delay their day in court for these matters any further.”

Read the complete story at the Chicago Tribune

 

Related articles
Posted in Wrongful Conviction | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Press Release: “Too Politically Sensitive” Author Michale Callahan Launches New Site

Posted on May 30, 2012 by

During his career Lieutenant Michale Callahan helped to put more than his fair share of criminals behind bars, but little did he know that the biggest adversaries he would ever face were those within his own department.

May 29, 2012……Michale Callahan, author of the 2009 book, “Too Politically Sensitive,” recently launched a new site to tell more of the prolonged story of political and departmental corruption that wrongfully convicted two innocent men of the 1986 murder of newlyweds, Dyke and Karen Rhoads in Paris, Illinois. Callahan’s fight continued with his personal battle against a corrupt and powerful state, all the way up to the Governor’s Office, that was more interested in covering up the scandal and silencing its employees than seeking justice. Michale Callahan refused to look the other way, and took a stand against injustice.

A recipient of the 2011 Defenders of the Innocents Award bestowed by the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project, Callahan finally saw the day when Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock were free men, released from prison after serving approximately 20 years of their lives for a crime they didn’t commit.  It was a long and arduous battle, and the story doesn’t end there, the murders of Dyke and Karen Rhoads have yet to be solved.

Reviewing the case evidence, Callahan found several suspects that were never properly investigated, along with profuse incidents of deliberate cover up.  Basically told to look the other way, Callahan took a stand on the side of what’s right, no matter what the outcome, he was bound to uphold the law, and the truth.

Michale Callahan’s search for the truth has been met with numerous roadblocks, politically and judicially, and Michale Callahan,Too Politically Sensitive,ImaginePublicityhis discovery that our First Amendment rights of free speech do not always apply, according to a court ruling, Garcetti v Ceballos. At the time, it was his First Amendment right to speak out that was the protection that enabled Callahan to fight back, to take on a corrupted state and win. Now, the government has taken that freedom away, too, not just from Callahan or other government employees, but from every American citizen.

Readers of Callahan’s site will see information that was not included in “Too Politically Sensitive,” continuing the story of two men, one who came close to death at the hands of the state of Illinois, and the brave men and women who stood up to the powers to see that they were set free.  The state has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in their pursuit of not only Michale Callahan, but also Whitlock and Steidl, who have yet to be completely exonerated and remain in the cross hairs of those who seemingly do not want the murder case solved.

As he perseveres and speaks out about injustice and corruption, Michale Callahan will give readers a first hand look into government misconduct that every American citizen should be willing to expose, no matter what the cost.

Connect with Michale Callahan online:

Michale Callahan Site http://michalecallahan.com

Too Politically Sensitive   http://toopoliticallysensitive.com

 Facebook     https://www.facebook.com/MichaleCallahan  

Twitter: @CallahanMichale 

Michale Callahan is available to speak on college campuses,seminars,conferences and organizational events, please contact:   ImaginePublicity  phone:  843.808.0859  email:  contact@imaginepublicity.com

Posted in Announcements | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

AN EMAIL FROM THE ORIGINAL STATES ATTORNEY THAT PROSECUTED RANDY STEIDL AND HERB WHITLOCK

Posted on May 18, 2012 by

 

Herb Whitlock release

Michael McFatridge’s incredulous reply to a  Chicago Tribune columnist who dared to question the guilt of the two innocent men wrongfully imprisoned.

“Since the gloves are off and we have dispensed with logic and professionalism.  there appears no longer a reason for me to respond to your ranting and ravings. Based upon your last message, I can only assume that you are in the middle of a barfly and substance abuse binge.  By the way, please feel free to share this note with the editor in chief   I tried, and failed, to interject intelligent communication and some levity in this otherwise extremely serious subject matter.

Randy Steidl release

Apparently,  the reason that you are listed last as a Chicago Tribune columnist has nothing to do with the spelling of y our name.   I would call you a moron, but I would not want to insult other morons.  Perhaps it is insensitive. but I truly wish that you personally suffer some crime. so that y ou will be forced to rely on law enforcement that you so eagerly malign.  Were you butt fucked in prison?  There must be some reason for your absurd presumption that all prosecutors are dirty . even those that you have never met.  You falsely characterize testimony regarding court proceedings that you never attended. You selectively ignore incriminating evidence.  Are you getting blow jobs from the defense? I was a cream puff as a prosecutor compared to the tactics of Steidl’s current defense attorneys.  Do you actually think that the defendants come up with their own testimony?  Their intermediary for the Reinbolt recantation is now in prison.  I  will not waste my time trying to honestly respond to your questions when your responses to my inquiries are simply that I already somehow know the answer.  I know that I can look in a mirror and state to myself and my family that I did the best I  could as Edgar County State’s Attorney and did it with pride and integrity.  You probably do not even have a reflection in the mirror.  I know that the words “honestly” and “integrity” are not in your expanded vocabulary.   Have you ever had any real life experiences, or have you hid behind your mother’s skirt in academia land?  From your picture, you look like a pussy.  A story is a story.  Truth be damned.  When I review the content of our correspondence, I can appreciate the embarrassment that you must feel that an lllini is kicking the ass out of some rodent. The only way that I will discuss this case with you again is face to face, man to man.  You can then judge first hand my believability.  Or are you afraid that in a battle of wits you would be unarmed?”

Michael M. McFatridge

Original McFatridge Email

 

 

Related articles
Posted in Wrongful Conviction | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments