September 23, 2021 • 38 mins
The final episode of Murder in Illinois summarizes the case against Christopher Vaughn, the new evidence uncovered in the podcast, updates his legal status and revisits those involved for their final thoughts.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Murder in Illinois is a production of iHeartRadio. Christopher Vaughan
was arrested nine days after his family was killed as
he prepared for their funeral, and he was held for
five years before his trial.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Prosecutors had originally planned to try this case as a
death penalty case. Vaughn is facing four counts of first
degree murder for the killings of his wife, Kimberly, and
their three children, twelve year old Abigail, eleven year old
Cassandra in eight year old Blake. Prosecutors claim it was
Vaughn who pulled the trigger and staged his own injuries.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Prosecutors say Christopher Vaughan killed his family so he could
begin a new life in Canada. Vaughan's attorney says the
evidence will show Kimberly Vaughan committed murder suicide and that
her medication increased her likelihood of suicidal thoughts.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Blood evidence at the scene of the family's suv did
not support Vaughn's version of events on that morning in
June of two thousand and seven. The defense concedes that
Christopher Vaughn was not a perfect husband or father, but
in closing arguments, attorney George Leonard claimed that Vaughn is
not a killer and that the state did not prove
(01:10):
its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Ultimately, Christopher Vaughan was convicted in twenty twelve by a
jury which took less than fifty minutes to come to
a verdict after a five week trial. Vaughn received four
lifetime sentences, one for each member of his family. Gaiale
(01:34):
Vaughan recently found a note she'd handwritten after visiting Chris
after his trial. It dated November eighth, twenty twelve, while
Vaughn was still being held at Joliet and had not
yet been sentenced. I've asked her to read it.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
The note was written on the back of my visit paper.
I usually made an outline when I went to visit Chris,
and we tried visiting him once a week. I took
the train, So here's the note. Chris is realizing that
reading chess, learning Chinese are all to keep him from
feeling or understanding what happened. He needs to understand what happened.
Speaker 6 (02:13):
He may need help.
Speaker 5 (02:16):
He doesn't know where to start, who to talk to.
He has for the past five years thought about everything
except it has been falled off, It's okay to talk
to Bill about the innocent project. George was upset over
(02:36):
the letter from Rose. He said it should have been
sent to Jerry and John. George hopes Chris can wait
until after sentencing to ask for help, because he will
not get it where he is now. That's what I
wrote down, because then it was a trip home on
the train to tell my husband.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
So the George you're referring to was Chris's public defender,
that is correct, and Jerry and John were his first attorneys.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
That is correct.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
So Rose, your younger sister, wrote a letter to Chris's
defense attorney. She was also at every single day of
the trial.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
Yes, she was. She stayed with us the whole time.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Did you know she planned to write a letter to George.
Speaker 5 (03:27):
No, I did not.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Rose kept a copy of that letter, which she has
shared with me. It gives a glimpse into the family's frustration.
Having watched the five week trial and its conclusion. I've
asked her to read one particular paragraph.
Speaker 7 (03:43):
I feel that the jury made their mind up the
second week of trial. After the second week, they seemed
to be asleep more than awake. Specifically, the older lady
in the middle row that set next to the ball gentlemen.
The men in the back road like to talk amongst themselves.
The man in the corner next to the prosecution would
hit himself in the face at times. I'm assuming to
(04:05):
stay awake. After the third week, when the jury would
walk in, they would have more of a glare at us.
During testimony, they would glare in our direction. I would
like for it to have been known that Chris and us,
the family could not see any of the graphic pictures
(04:26):
they wanted to see. All of us have emotion. I
feel that the jury wanted a show. The prosecution gave
them one. They had fancy power points and graphics. We
did not. The interesting thing was the prosecutions weren't always true.
That didn't seem to matter. They needed to know that
(04:47):
you were a public defender, not a high profile attorney.
I mean no disrespect to you, but if I was
a jour that would have meant something. They needed to
know why this case took so long to come to
try aile. Did they think it was because we were
scrounging for evidence. They needed to know about the first
lawyers and why they were not on the case. I
(05:09):
don't believe that they knew or understood what a shadow
of a doubt meant.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
Why did you feel compelled to write that letter.
Speaker 7 (05:19):
Because there was such a difference in our two sets
of lawyers. The first set wanted to know everything, every
single thing that they could possibly learn and get any
glimmer about Chris, our family structure, the whole nine yards.
(05:40):
The second set, which is what I wrote this letter to,
couldn't be bothered. We were there, but we weren't listened to.
He had his own thoughts and direction. He told us
that we were not allowed to talk to anybody, we
were not to show emotion at all in the courtroom,
(06:01):
and I think that really worked against us. I mean,
it wasn't even an hour of deliberation and we get
the verdict. It felt like a gut punch. It was
twisted in such a way that it just was very
much of a disregard of a human life, and it
was just infuriating. It never felt like a fair trial.
(06:23):
I mean, when a juror was asleep, sound asleep, nothing
was said that we saw the judge look at him,
and so how can it be a fair trial? And
that's why I wrote this letter. Because somebody has to
say something.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
I'm Lauren Bright Pacheco and this is the final episode
of Murder in Illinois.
Speaker 8 (06:50):
Cry O Game to see the Ground.
Speaker 9 (07:04):
Gang Crime Gage Well.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Christopher Vaughan is now forty seven years old and at
the time of this episode's release, has been incarcerated for
more than fourteen years. According to the Illinois Department of
Corrections prisoner Database, Christopher Vaughan remains ineligible for discharge. When
we met in person, he told me he strives to
(07:44):
go unnoticed, spending his time mostly alone, drawing, reading, or
studying philosophy in Buddhists thought in effort to process his
loss and his life. As Gails mentioned, he's also taught
himself Mandarin and plays competitive chess. Once in prison, Vaughan
made the conscious decision to develop his mind as opposed
(08:05):
to going the prison route of building his body and
brute strength, because doing that would have only made him
more in keeping with what he had been accused and
convicted of being a monster. Over the course of this podcast,
we have laid out the complicated pieces of an unfathomable
tragedy and the legal aftermath that followed in its wake.
(08:30):
You've now heard the scope of circumstances leading up to
the arrest, indictment, trial, and conviction of Christopher Vaughan. In
addition to the existing evidence, both circumstantial and forensics, you
now have additional insight into the complex dynamics that played
into the family dysfunction and the investigation. So at this
(08:51):
point I pose the question, do you believe there is
reasonable doubt that Christopher Vaughan committed the four murders of
which he's been and for which he served fourteen years.
At the start of this podcast, journalist Erica Wurst was
very specific about her opinion of Christopher Vaughn's guilt.
Speaker 10 (09:13):
I believe with.
Speaker 6 (09:18):
Ninety eight point nine percent, Shorty that Cresta von So
his wife Emi in pe Freakot.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Two days before she was scheduled to tape her final
thoughts for this episode, she canceled, implying they wouldn't have
been utilized. This is where they would have been included. Perhaps,
though worst reaction is in keeping with the polarizing nature
of this case and podcast, which has sparked spirited discussions,
(09:51):
debates online, and coverage from multiple outlets, including Rolling Stone Magazine.
Local Chicago stations like WGN.
Speaker 11 (10:00):
That's an excerpt from a new true crime podcast called
Murder in Illinois.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
It details the murders of the Vaughn family in Oswego
back in two thousand and seven. Husband christ Vaughan has
been arrested and tried and convicted for the killings.
Speaker 12 (10:14):
On the next Doctor Phil.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
The case and podcast will also be featured in upcoming
episodes of The Doctor Phil Show. To put it simply,
Christopher Vaughan's conviction has proven more than worthy of revisiting,
and during the course of these twelve episodes, we have
laid out multiple examples in which circumstantial evidence and emotional
(10:38):
and confirmational bias were used in place of hard evidence
against him. The newly uncovered issues with how his indictment
was secured and the conclusions of the July crime scene
reconstruction also provide new and relevant evidence in support of
his actual innocence. After that crime scene reconstruction, I try
(11:00):
again to meet with Christopher Vaughan. We sat alone and
I asked him what I had to ask him before
the end of this podcast. Did he kill his wife
and children? And did he ever intend or plan to
kill them? Without hesitation and holding eye contact with me
the entire time. Christopher Vaughan answered no, absolutely, not never,
(11:27):
and his eyes watered. As he said it today, fourteen
years after his arrest, there are significant and powerful voices
who believe there is reasonable doubt of Vaughan's guilt.
Speaker 12 (11:41):
When I first heard the story, I had doubt about
Chris Vaughan having committed this murder. When I reviewed Clutter's evidence,
that nagging doubt turned into not only reasonable doubt, but
a little bit of outrage. This man is innocent. He
(12:05):
was wrongfully convicted.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
That's Jed Stone, the Stone of Stone and Associates, a
criminal defense lawyer from Illinois who is respected on a
national level.
Speaker 12 (12:16):
We're a little teeny law firm in Jaukegan, Illinois. It
is not one hundred and sixty five lawyers. It's one lawyer,
one paralegal, a Spanish speaking receptionist in a little town
in northern Illinois. And we've had nine exonerations and my
(12:37):
goal is to make mister Vaughan the tenth.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
But Stone and Associates will not be alone in their effort.
At the time of this recording, Christopher Vaughan is being
represented by Jed Stone, who will serve as Vaughn's lead council,
assisted by Bill Clutter, investigating Innocence, and outside consultant Richard Kling,
clinical Professor of Law at the Chicago Kent College of Law.
(13:22):
The involvement of other innocence organizations is still pending official confirmation.
Here's Richard Klang.
Speaker 13 (13:30):
Jed is wonderful. I know Jed for forty something years.
Jed has everything under control. If he has particular questions
regarding forensic issues. I teach forensic sciences and I've been
involved in many forensic cases. The biggest problem in this
case is the physical evidence merely supports a theory. And
it may be a viable theory, it may be a
wonderful theory. It may be an airtight theory, but it
(13:52):
is nothing more than the theory, and post conviction petitions
or clemency are rarely granted on your theories without something
more merely an uphill. It's an up mountain slope that
mister Vaughan is going to have to climb at. Any
time they call, I'll pick up the phone.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
But it's a steep effort that jud Stone believes he
is both well suited and prepared to.
Speaker 12 (14:14):
Lead The first hurdle that any wrongfully convicted person has
is the sad fact that the law loves finality more
than it loves justice. Judges, prosecutors, the press will all say,
this case is resolved. He's been found guilty. A jury
(14:35):
of his peers found him guilty. In appelle at court
reviewed the jury's findings and affirmed it. They don't like
to have the apple cart upset. I have on my
desk an encased cockroach, and I have it on my
desk for a reason. When I was a graduate student,
(14:56):
many many years ago, living in graduate student housing, I
woke up one night and went into the kitchen and
flicked on the light, and I saw cockroaches scurry as
the light shined on them. I didn't think much about them,
except that cockroaches hated the light being shown on them.
And then years later I became a lawyer, and I
(15:18):
realized that prosecutors and judges don't like the light of
truth shined on them. They scurry, they get nervous, And
so I put this cockroach on my desk. It's been
on my desk for forty five years, and my experience
has been that when the light of truth shines upon
these people, they scurry for cover. It's important because your
(15:43):
podcast is an important addition to the work that Clutter
and I are doing on behalf of mister Vaughan. I
believe that judges and appellate courts and elected state's attorneys
are mindful of the eyes of the public that are
(16:05):
on them, and as long as we can tell the
truth and tell it in a variety of forums, they
will respond. It'll be uncomfortable for them, they don't want
to deal with these truths, but they will respond. And
so those are the two primary hurdles.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Judstone is ready to tackle those hurdles.
Speaker 12 (16:30):
I'm convinced that there are things in the newly discovered
area of evidence that cause great question as to the
quality of the trial that Chris had and the reliability
of the results, and we're going to go after that
with full force.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
And it seems they will fully be met with opposing force.
On September fifth, twenty twenty one, the Chicago Sun Times
was first to break the news there was now effort
underway to free Chris Vaughn. In that article, the will
County States Attorney James Glasgow went on record saying Vaughn
would go free quote when hell freezes over unquote. It
(17:14):
is a comment in keeping with the ones Glasgow gave
at the time of the verdict.
Speaker 11 (17:20):
What this guy did here was a diabolical atrocity. And
he's a heartless, soulless psychopath.
Speaker 10 (17:26):
That's the bottom line.
Speaker 11 (17:28):
That's what he is, without any compassion, without any empathy
for other human beings. There isn't a punishment that fits
this crime. You could lock him up for five hundred
lifetimes and it would not compensate the victims in this
case or the family members.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
It is worth noting that a man known for delivering
such soundbites declined to speak to me about the Vaughan
case or the newly uncovered troubling issues surrounding the way
in which Vaughn's indictment was secured. In two thousand and seven,
here's Bill Clutter's reaction to the newspaper article.
Speaker 10 (18:04):
State's Attorney Glasgow's comments in the Chicago sometimes indicate that
he's willing to defend this conviction despite whatever evidence we
present to him. And that's all the more reason why
we need criminal justice reform in Illinois that establishes a
(18:24):
statewide Conviction Integrity Unit. When new evidence comes to light
that shows that a person may be innocent, it should
be an objective review rather than have the Will County
States Attorney be the arbitrator of truth. That's just simply
not justice.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
In that article, Glasgow also stated his opinion that the
new theory contradicts the crime scene evidence, insisting, quote the
angles are all wrong unquote.
Speaker 10 (18:55):
Yes, and even seeing our crime scene reconstruction, how can
you pass judgment on what we've done without looking at it?
That did take me back a little bit. Means he's
going to dig in his heels, and you know that's unfortunate.
It's a characteristic of how they jumped to the conclusion
that he was guilty, and now they're going to maintain
(19:17):
that belief despite whatever evidence we show them. It happens
time after time after time in all of these cases
that I've been involved in, despite strong and convincing evidence
of actual innocence, the prosepcutors who got it wrong are
always the last to admit that they made a mistake.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
That Chicago Sun Times article ended with James Glasgow declaring
the evidence against Vonn is quote overwhelming unquote and that
his office is quote ready for anything that occurs unquote
back to Bill clutter.
Speaker 10 (19:50):
Well, the evidence wasn't overwhelming, and I think that time
will tell what happens in this case.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
To that effort, Jedstone will also be overseeing a committee
of powerful legal experts and innocence activists that has formed
an effort to support revisiting Christopher Bond's conviction.
Speaker 12 (20:14):
Innocence cases require great teamwork from various angles and various
professional viewpoints, and they are really team efforts. No one
can do these alone. I can't do them alone. Clutter
can't do them alone. Together, we're a pretty good team.
(20:35):
The stronger our team, the better mister Vaughan's chances of
obtaining justice.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
What is the purpose of the committee and what do
you hope it will accomplish.
Speaker 12 (20:46):
A variety of views from a variety of different lenses
will be able to analyze the evidence and come up
with a plan that will formulate the arguments I'll ultimately
present to the Prisoner Review Board or to a court
(21:07):
to gain a reversal of conviction and exoneration. My job
is to consolidate those various ideas into a winning idea
and take the various threads and form a tapestry, take
the various thoughts and form an argument. It's the creative
(21:30):
process of being the lawyer that I love.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
The committee has been growing steadily at the time of
this episode's release. It includes founding board member of the
Innocence Project Jason Flohm, prominent defense attorneys Andrea Lyon, Keith Altman,
Kitty Lyle, and Mario Kasharo. A quick aside before becoming
an attorney, Mario Kasharo was wrongfully convicted of a presumed
(21:55):
murder and serve time a minard before being freed and exonerated.
There he crossed paths with Christopher Vaughn. The two played
chess several times. Also on board is Jason Jutts, a
civil attorney from Hawaii.
Speaker 14 (22:10):
My name is Jason Jutts. I'm an attorney in Honolulu, Hawaii,
and I do complex civil litigation. What drew me to
this case initially was the podcast. I wasn't aware of
the case before listening to the first episode, and I
just found the case and the idea that Chris is
innocent very compelling, which drove me to start digging into
(22:31):
the trial transcripts and the pre trial transcripts, and the
more I looked at that, the more I became convinced that,
if nothing else, the trial was grossly mishandled. I subscribed
to the Blackstonian ratio, which is this idea or philosophy
that it's better to let ten guilty persons go free
than to punish one innocent person, and I think that
(22:52):
that is very prevalent here. I just wanted to reach
out to see what I could possibly do to help,
even though I'm so very far away, don't have the
legal background in criminal justice, let alone anything to do
with Illinois law, but I thought that some of my
skills could come to bear and is sitting in his
exoneration efforts.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Jets is now connected with Jed Stone to offer his
services also pro bono.
Speaker 14 (23:18):
I think it's a great thing that the legal community
in Illinois is starting to get together and mount support
on Chris's behalf. I had a great opportunity to speak
with Jed. He's a very knowledgeable, experienced attorney in Illinois,
and I'm very appreciative that he's stepped up to take
the lead of the committee that's working on behalf of Chris.
(23:39):
One of the great things about this podcast is that
you've shed light on Chris's flight and gained attention for
him individually. But since this is sort of a national epidemic,
I think that it helps bring light to the bigger
issue here of how should we approach these cases moving forward?
How can we help eliminate some of the bas from
(24:00):
the bench and from the prosecutor side. I'm not even
talking about the confirmation bias of the jurors, or the
influence of the media, or the character assassination that Chris suffered,
but just looking at it through that legal lens, what
changes can we make moving forward to try to make
sure that innocent individuals aren't placed in in prison. And
(24:21):
it's really unfortunate when it happens in a situation where
you're talking about somebody's life. And I think that through
the discussion of Chris's case, one thing that's lost frequently
is that this started off as a death row case.
His life was literally on the line.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Bill Clutter's nonprofit Investigating Inno Sense, will continue to fight
for Chris Bond in addition to other wrongful convictions.
Speaker 10 (24:44):
I want to encourage listeners to get involved. There's projects
in most every state, A Lisence project that helps the
wrongfully connected. If listeners are interested in volunteering or assisting
within the instigating innocence, go visit our website and let
us know how you're willing to help. I feel more
(25:07):
confident today that Christopher Vaughn will be free in the
near future and I'll be standing at the gates of
Pinkinbill Correctional Center with his parents and supporters welcoming him home,
and I can envision that day happening soon.
Speaker 15 (25:23):
My hope is that these efforts do lead to either
the governor or a judge at some point ordering his
release and granting relief based on actual innocence.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
Clutter will also be overseeing the second crime scene reconstruction,
which will challenge the state's theory in regards to the
ballistics beyond what was proven in the July crime scene
reconstruction with animation. As mentioned in the first episode of
(26:04):
this podcast, Gail Vaughan has a private Facebook page titled
Christopher Vaughan is Innocent the last word in all caps.
Speaker 5 (26:12):
When Chris went to prison, I tried to figure out
how to share this with all the families without making
multiple phone calls, so I created a Facebook group and
with family and very close friends. There were seventeen of
us altogether. Since this podcast started, we have been growing unbelievably.
(26:37):
It is turned into a support group.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
At the time of this episode, Gail's Facebook group has
grown from seventeen people to more than eleven hundred members.
Speaker 5 (26:47):
It's overwhelming. I mean, we have been kind of climbing
a hill, climbing a mountain, and it's been tough. But
now we have these people that are on Facebook and
they are actually showing support and positive They are actually
reading everything and coming up with their own conclusions and
(27:10):
then discussing the possibilities of what happened. I mean, it's
very refreshing to see everybody thinking, actually thinking, after reading
and hearing after so many years of not so many
positive results.
Speaker 1 (27:28):
Gail finds it difficult to express her family's feelings regarding
the reaction to Chris's case.
Speaker 5 (27:34):
This out pouring from my Facebook, from people, especially from
Jason Plumm and his generous assistance. It's overwhelming. And then
we have these fantastic lawyers that are stepping up and
helping us out with Chris. Chris can't believe it. He's
(27:55):
amazed that people are helping them, but now we Chris
has actually got the possibility of hope in his voice
and his eyes. Chris has got hope. His eyes have
changed to the look of resignation, of being here forever
because there's no way of getting out to Yes, there
(28:19):
is a spark of possibility and it's growing momentum.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
And hoping to build upon that momentum. Gail has also
started a change dot org petition on behalf of her son.
Speaker 5 (28:32):
I have written a petition so to change dot org
and it will be under the same heading as my
Facebook page or It's easy to remember Christopher Vaughan is
innocent and I am hoping to get a lot of
signatures that I can take to the Governor of Illinois
to ask for Chris's release or pardon.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Host of the Wrongful Conviction podcast and Innocence Active Jason
Flohm remains extremely optimistic about the possibility of executive clemency
for Vaughn, having himself brokened an impressive number of successful
ones throughout the country.
Speaker 16 (29:12):
Clemency is such a powerful option, and it's such a
powerful power, right, I mean, for lack of a better
way of saying it, that is why governors and Presidents
in federal cases, of course, are entrusted and given the
power of clemency because they are supposed to be the
stopgap in these cases of overreach or wrongful conviction, or
(29:38):
over sentencing, or other mistakes that are made inevitably in
any criminal justicism in ours unfortunately, way too often, and
probably as much or more than ever before in history.
But the good news is that there's a governor in
Illinois who we know to be an intelligent, fair minded,
and decent man who has done phenomenal things to help
(30:01):
to tip away at the injustice system in that state,
which has a long and sordid history.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Jason Flohm is committed to working on that effort, but
has an additional ask too, an effort to prevent other
wrongful convictions.
Speaker 16 (30:17):
I hope that people who are listening, when you serve
on a jury, you recognize that these people are human
as well. So if you get a jury duty notice,
don't throw it away. I'm talking to our listeners directly.
Speaker 6 (30:29):
Now.
Speaker 16 (30:29):
If you're busy, I know you're busy. Everybody's busy. It's
a huge imposition. It's annoying, it's a nuisance, but you
know you have an opportunity to literally be the voice
that saves the life of the next Chris Vaughan. And
that's not hyperbole. It only takes one vote on a
jury of someone to go no. I heard murder in Illinois.
(30:52):
I understand now how this can actually go off the rails,
and I haven't been convinced beyond a reason doubt. So
I'm not going to go along with the other members
of the jury. I'm not going to do what I'm
being told to do by people who I now understand
are incentivized not to get justice, but to get wins. Right,
(31:13):
these people want wins.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
And some of those wins come from manipulating emotions or
playing into preconceived notions.
Speaker 16 (31:22):
And it's so hard for us. We don't want to
believe that anymore that we want to believe that babies
just die, or that sometimes people snap and sometimes it's
a mom and we don't want to believe that. But anyway,
I'll get off my soapbox now and hopefully, hopefully they'll
touch somebody's heart.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
And if you do, find yourself moved to action. In
addition to signing Gail's petition and supporting the work of Innocence,
organizations in your community. Judstone offers an additional suggestion, We're.
Speaker 12 (31:50):
Back to my cockroach. I think that listeners of this
show can talk about this wrongful conviction, talk about it
in their churches and synagogues and mosques, talk about it
in their workplaces, talk about it over dinner with their family,
(32:10):
discuss how it is that an innocent person can be
convicted of a horrible crime and then raise their voices
and say, not under my watch, it's not going to happen, Judge,
Prisoner Review Board Governor Pritsker, do justice. I'm reminded almost
(32:35):
every week, certainly right now in this conversation, that when
I was a boy sitting in synagogue with my father,
there was Hebrew writing on the wall, and I could
barely read English, but I certainly couldn't read Hebrew. So
I said to my dad what is that? And he
told me it's from one of the lesser prophets, a
fellow by the name of Micah, and it asks in Hebrew,
(32:59):
what is it that the Lord requires of you? And
the answer is really clear and struck me even as
a child with its clarity, What is it that the
Lord requires of you? Only to do justice, to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with God. And I thought, even
as a kid, sit, if that's all the God requires
(33:20):
of me, I should be able to do that. Do justice,
love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Well I've gotten
two out of the three. I've had a hard time
with this humble stuff. But doing justice and loving mercy,
that's all of our jobs in this world. And so
what can the listeners do. They can rise up as
a voice and say to the powers that be judges
(33:43):
in black robes, prosecutors in their offices, governors in their mansions,
do justice, love mercy. That's what the Lord requires of us.
And so that that's what our podcast listeners can do.
They can do justice and love mercy and raise their
voices in support of the wrongfully convicted.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
And as a closing note, the Vaughan family wanted to
address you listeners of the podcast. Here's Gail.
Speaker 5 (34:13):
I want to thank them, thank them for opening their hearts,
thank them for opening their mind, thank them for listening
and drawing their own conclusions, but most of all, supporting us,
supporting Chris, supporting our whole family. It's kind of an
odd feeling because we have never had that feeling before,
(34:37):
so thank you, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
And here's Pierre.
Speaker 6 (34:42):
I just want to say that I'm overwhelmed and thankful
that people have come forward after all this time and
effort that Gail and I have put into this, people
on her website, and people like Jed Stone, Jason plom
(35:08):
doctor Phil Bill Clutter, and especially you Lauren for doing
podcasts and bringing this to everybody's attention. We just want
to say thank you from the bottom of our heart.
We're not public people, so it's very humbling for us,
and once again we're very very thankful to everyone.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
As for me, I'm grateful to have played a part
in creating something that has inspired discourse to a level
where people have actually gotten involved, many even taking the
time to pour through the trial transcripts, crime scene reports,
and depositions before deliberating over the case online and in
chat groups. My team and I truly appreciate your time
(35:55):
and your ear. It's also our sincere hope that we
will soon be dropping enough date into this feed. As
for Christopher Vaughan, he's asked that I share this statement
with you. Thank you so very much for taking the
time to listen to my story. I'm hoping that in
listening to the details of my case, you will pause
(36:16):
to consider the sobering question of innocence and guilt. I
am speaking in relation to the broader perspective, as this
is and should be about more than my one case alone.
I hope that you will consider not only the possibility,
but the reality of our legal system convicting an innocent person.
(36:37):
It will only be through your awareness and effort serving
as the final check and balance, that those of us
wrongfully convicted will have any hope at freedom. Thank you.
Speaker 8 (36:49):
And the crimead You Feel the Ground?
Speaker 13 (37:03):
Are You.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
Murder in Illinois? Is a production of iHeartRadio. Executive producers
are Lauren Braid Pacheco and Taylor Chackoine. Written by Lauren
Brad Pacheco and Matthew Riddle, Story editing by Matthew Riddle,
Editing and sound designed by Evan Tyre and Taylor Chaqoine.
Featuring music by Cicada Rhythm with new compositions engineered and
(37:46):
mixed by Evan Tyre and Taylor Chackoine. Archived news reports
provided by w g.
Speaker 8 (37:53):
N You the word by page, Feel.
Speaker 17 (38:04):
The Ground, Holding Holding Okay, Buying out.
Speaker 4 (38:16):
O Caage.
Speaker 8 (38:17):
You feel the ground holding holding for you.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
You mean.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get the stories that matter
to you.
Murder in Illinois is a production of iHeartRadio. Christopher Vaughan
was arrested nine days after his family was killed as
he prepared for their funeral, and he was held for
five years before his trial.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Prosecutors had originally planned to try this case as a
death penalty case. Vaughn is facing four counts of first
degree murder for the killings of his wife, Kimberly, and
their three children, twelve year old Abigail, eleven year old
Cassandra in eight year old Blake. Prosecutors claim it was
Vaughn who pulled the trigger and staged his own injuries.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Prosecutors say Christopher Vaughan killed his family so he could
begin a new life in Canada. Vaughan's attorney says the
evidence will show Kimberly Vaughan committed murder suicide and that
her medication increased her likelihood of suicidal thoughts.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Blood evidence at the scene of the family's suv did
not support Vaughn's version of events on that morning in
June of two thousand and seven. The defense concedes that
Christopher Vaughn was not a perfect husband or father, but
in closing arguments, attorney George Leonard claimed that Vaughn is
not a killer and that the state did not prove
(01:10):
its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Ultimately, Christopher Vaughan was convicted in twenty twelve by a
jury which took less than fifty minutes to come to
a verdict after a five week trial. Vaughn received four
lifetime sentences, one for each member of his family. Gaiale
(01:34):
Vaughan recently found a note she'd handwritten after visiting Chris
after his trial. It dated November eighth, twenty twelve, while
Vaughn was still being held at Joliet and had not
yet been sentenced. I've asked her to read it.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
The note was written on the back of my visit paper.
I usually made an outline when I went to visit Chris,
and we tried visiting him once a week. I took
the train, So here's the note. Chris is realizing that
reading chess, learning Chinese are all to keep him from
feeling or understanding what happened. He needs to understand what happened.
Speaker 6 (02:13):
He may need help.
Speaker 5 (02:16):
He doesn't know where to start, who to talk to.
He has for the past five years thought about everything
except it has been falled off, It's okay to talk
to Bill about the innocent project. George was upset over
(02:36):
the letter from Rose. He said it should have been
sent to Jerry and John. George hopes Chris can wait
until after sentencing to ask for help, because he will
not get it where he is now. That's what I
wrote down, because then it was a trip home on
the train to tell my husband.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
So the George you're referring to was Chris's public defender,
that is correct, and Jerry and John were his first attorneys.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
That is correct.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
So Rose, your younger sister, wrote a letter to Chris's
defense attorney. She was also at every single day of
the trial.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
Yes, she was. She stayed with us the whole time.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Did you know she planned to write a letter to George.
Speaker 5 (03:27):
No, I did not.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Rose kept a copy of that letter, which she has
shared with me. It gives a glimpse into the family's frustration.
Having watched the five week trial and its conclusion. I've
asked her to read one particular paragraph.
Speaker 7 (03:43):
I feel that the jury made their mind up the
second week of trial. After the second week, they seemed
to be asleep more than awake. Specifically, the older lady
in the middle row that set next to the ball gentlemen.
The men in the back road like to talk amongst themselves.
The man in the corner next to the prosecution would
hit himself in the face at times. I'm assuming to
(04:05):
stay awake. After the third week, when the jury would
walk in, they would have more of a glare at us.
During testimony, they would glare in our direction. I would
like for it to have been known that Chris and us,
the family could not see any of the graphic pictures
(04:26):
they wanted to see. All of us have emotion. I
feel that the jury wanted a show. The prosecution gave
them one. They had fancy power points and graphics. We
did not. The interesting thing was the prosecutions weren't always true.
That didn't seem to matter. They needed to know that
(04:47):
you were a public defender, not a high profile attorney.
I mean no disrespect to you, but if I was
a jour that would have meant something. They needed to
know why this case took so long to come to
try aile. Did they think it was because we were
scrounging for evidence. They needed to know about the first
lawyers and why they were not on the case. I
(05:09):
don't believe that they knew or understood what a shadow
of a doubt meant.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
Why did you feel compelled to write that letter.
Speaker 7 (05:19):
Because there was such a difference in our two sets
of lawyers. The first set wanted to know everything, every
single thing that they could possibly learn and get any
glimmer about Chris, our family structure, the whole nine yards.
(05:40):
The second set, which is what I wrote this letter to,
couldn't be bothered. We were there, but we weren't listened to.
He had his own thoughts and direction. He told us
that we were not allowed to talk to anybody, we
were not to show emotion at all in the courtroom,
(06:01):
and I think that really worked against us. I mean,
it wasn't even an hour of deliberation and we get
the verdict. It felt like a gut punch. It was
twisted in such a way that it just was very
much of a disregard of a human life, and it
was just infuriating. It never felt like a fair trial.
(06:23):
I mean, when a juror was asleep, sound asleep, nothing
was said that we saw the judge look at him,
and so how can it be a fair trial? And
that's why I wrote this letter. Because somebody has to
say something.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
I'm Lauren Bright Pacheco and this is the final episode
of Murder in Illinois.
Speaker 8 (06:50):
Cry O Game to see the Ground.
Speaker 9 (07:04):
Gang Crime Gage Well.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
Christopher Vaughan is now forty seven years old and at
the time of this episode's release, has been incarcerated for
more than fourteen years. According to the Illinois Department of
Corrections prisoner Database, Christopher Vaughan remains ineligible for discharge. When
we met in person, he told me he strives to
(07:44):
go unnoticed, spending his time mostly alone, drawing, reading, or
studying philosophy in Buddhists thought in effort to process his
loss and his life. As Gails mentioned, he's also taught
himself Mandarin and plays competitive chess. Once in prison, Vaughan
made the conscious decision to develop his mind as opposed
(08:05):
to going the prison route of building his body and
brute strength, because doing that would have only made him
more in keeping with what he had been accused and
convicted of being a monster. Over the course of this podcast,
we have laid out the complicated pieces of an unfathomable
tragedy and the legal aftermath that followed in its wake.
(08:30):
You've now heard the scope of circumstances leading up to
the arrest, indictment, trial, and conviction of Christopher Vaughan. In
addition to the existing evidence, both circumstantial and forensics, you
now have additional insight into the complex dynamics that played
into the family dysfunction and the investigation. So at this
(08:51):
point I pose the question, do you believe there is
reasonable doubt that Christopher Vaughan committed the four murders of
which he's been and for which he served fourteen years.
At the start of this podcast, journalist Erica Wurst was
very specific about her opinion of Christopher Vaughn's guilt.
Speaker 10 (09:13):
I believe with.
Speaker 6 (09:18):
Ninety eight point nine percent, Shorty that Cresta von So
his wife Emi in pe Freakot.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Two days before she was scheduled to tape her final
thoughts for this episode, she canceled, implying they wouldn't have
been utilized. This is where they would have been included. Perhaps,
though worst reaction is in keeping with the polarizing nature
of this case and podcast, which has sparked spirited discussions,
(09:51):
debates online, and coverage from multiple outlets, including Rolling Stone Magazine.
Local Chicago stations like WGN.
Speaker 11 (10:00):
That's an excerpt from a new true crime podcast called
Murder in Illinois.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
It details the murders of the Vaughn family in Oswego
back in two thousand and seven. Husband christ Vaughan has
been arrested and tried and convicted for the killings.
Speaker 12 (10:14):
On the next Doctor Phil.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
The case and podcast will also be featured in upcoming
episodes of The Doctor Phil Show. To put it simply,
Christopher Vaughan's conviction has proven more than worthy of revisiting,
and during the course of these twelve episodes, we have
laid out multiple examples in which circumstantial evidence and emotional
(10:38):
and confirmational bias were used in place of hard evidence
against him. The newly uncovered issues with how his indictment
was secured and the conclusions of the July crime scene
reconstruction also provide new and relevant evidence in support of
his actual innocence. After that crime scene reconstruction, I try
(11:00):
again to meet with Christopher Vaughan. We sat alone and
I asked him what I had to ask him before
the end of this podcast. Did he kill his wife
and children? And did he ever intend or plan to
kill them? Without hesitation and holding eye contact with me
the entire time. Christopher Vaughan answered no, absolutely, not never,
(11:27):
and his eyes watered. As he said it today, fourteen
years after his arrest, there are significant and powerful voices
who believe there is reasonable doubt of Vaughan's guilt.
Speaker 12 (11:41):
When I first heard the story, I had doubt about
Chris Vaughan having committed this murder. When I reviewed Clutter's evidence,
that nagging doubt turned into not only reasonable doubt, but
a little bit of outrage. This man is innocent. He
(12:05):
was wrongfully convicted.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
That's Jed Stone, the Stone of Stone and Associates, a
criminal defense lawyer from Illinois who is respected on a
national level.
Speaker 12 (12:16):
We're a little teeny law firm in Jaukegan, Illinois. It
is not one hundred and sixty five lawyers. It's one lawyer,
one paralegal, a Spanish speaking receptionist in a little town
in northern Illinois. And we've had nine exonerations and my
(12:37):
goal is to make mister Vaughan the tenth.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
But Stone and Associates will not be alone in their effort.
At the time of this recording, Christopher Vaughan is being
represented by Jed Stone, who will serve as Vaughn's lead council,
assisted by Bill Clutter, investigating Innocence, and outside consultant Richard Kling,
clinical Professor of Law at the Chicago Kent College of Law.
(13:22):
The involvement of other innocence organizations is still pending official confirmation.
Here's Richard Klang.
Speaker 13 (13:30):
Jed is wonderful. I know Jed for forty something years.
Jed has everything under control. If he has particular questions
regarding forensic issues. I teach forensic sciences and I've been
involved in many forensic cases. The biggest problem in this
case is the physical evidence merely supports a theory. And
it may be a viable theory, it may be a
wonderful theory. It may be an airtight theory, but it
(13:52):
is nothing more than the theory, and post conviction petitions
or clemency are rarely granted on your theories without something
more merely an uphill. It's an up mountain slope that
mister Vaughan is going to have to climb at. Any
time they call, I'll pick up the phone.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
But it's a steep effort that jud Stone believes he
is both well suited and prepared to.
Speaker 12 (14:14):
Lead The first hurdle that any wrongfully convicted person has
is the sad fact that the law loves finality more
than it loves justice. Judges, prosecutors, the press will all say,
this case is resolved. He's been found guilty. A jury
(14:35):
of his peers found him guilty. In appelle at court
reviewed the jury's findings and affirmed it. They don't like
to have the apple cart upset. I have on my
desk an encased cockroach, and I have it on my
desk for a reason. When I was a graduate student,
(14:56):
many many years ago, living in graduate student housing, I
woke up one night and went into the kitchen and
flicked on the light, and I saw cockroaches scurry as
the light shined on them. I didn't think much about them,
except that cockroaches hated the light being shown on them.
And then years later I became a lawyer, and I
(15:18):
realized that prosecutors and judges don't like the light of
truth shined on them. They scurry, they get nervous, And
so I put this cockroach on my desk. It's been
on my desk for forty five years, and my experience
has been that when the light of truth shines upon
these people, they scurry for cover. It's important because your
(15:43):
podcast is an important addition to the work that Clutter
and I are doing on behalf of mister Vaughan. I
believe that judges and appellate courts and elected state's attorneys
are mindful of the eyes of the public that are
(16:05):
on them, and as long as we can tell the
truth and tell it in a variety of forums, they
will respond. It'll be uncomfortable for them, they don't want
to deal with these truths, but they will respond. And
so those are the two primary hurdles.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Judstone is ready to tackle those hurdles.
Speaker 12 (16:30):
I'm convinced that there are things in the newly discovered
area of evidence that cause great question as to the
quality of the trial that Chris had and the reliability
of the results, and we're going to go after that
with full force.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
And it seems they will fully be met with opposing force.
On September fifth, twenty twenty one, the Chicago Sun Times
was first to break the news there was now effort
underway to free Chris Vaughn. In that article, the will
County States Attorney James Glasgow went on record saying Vaughn
would go free quote when hell freezes over unquote. It
(17:14):
is a comment in keeping with the ones Glasgow gave
at the time of the verdict.
Speaker 11 (17:20):
What this guy did here was a diabolical atrocity. And
he's a heartless, soulless psychopath.
Speaker 10 (17:26):
That's the bottom line.
Speaker 11 (17:28):
That's what he is, without any compassion, without any empathy
for other human beings. There isn't a punishment that fits
this crime. You could lock him up for five hundred
lifetimes and it would not compensate the victims in this
case or the family members.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
It is worth noting that a man known for delivering
such soundbites declined to speak to me about the Vaughan
case or the newly uncovered troubling issues surrounding the way
in which Vaughn's indictment was secured. In two thousand and seven,
here's Bill Clutter's reaction to the newspaper article.
Speaker 10 (18:04):
State's Attorney Glasgow's comments in the Chicago sometimes indicate that
he's willing to defend this conviction despite whatever evidence we
present to him. And that's all the more reason why
we need criminal justice reform in Illinois that establishes a
(18:24):
statewide Conviction Integrity Unit. When new evidence comes to light
that shows that a person may be innocent, it should
be an objective review rather than have the Will County
States Attorney be the arbitrator of truth. That's just simply
not justice.
Speaker 1 (18:43):
In that article, Glasgow also stated his opinion that the
new theory contradicts the crime scene evidence, insisting, quote the
angles are all wrong unquote.
Speaker 10 (18:55):
Yes, and even seeing our crime scene reconstruction, how can
you pass judgment on what we've done without looking at it?
That did take me back a little bit. Means he's
going to dig in his heels, and you know that's unfortunate.
It's a characteristic of how they jumped to the conclusion
that he was guilty, and now they're going to maintain
(19:17):
that belief despite whatever evidence we show them. It happens
time after time after time in all of these cases
that I've been involved in, despite strong and convincing evidence
of actual innocence, the prosepcutors who got it wrong are
always the last to admit that they made a mistake.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
That Chicago Sun Times article ended with James Glasgow declaring
the evidence against Vonn is quote overwhelming unquote and that
his office is quote ready for anything that occurs unquote
back to Bill clutter.
Speaker 10 (19:50):
Well, the evidence wasn't overwhelming, and I think that time
will tell what happens in this case.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
To that effort, Jedstone will also be overseeing a committee
of powerful legal experts and innocence activists that has formed
an effort to support revisiting Christopher Bond's conviction.
Speaker 12 (20:14):
Innocence cases require great teamwork from various angles and various
professional viewpoints, and they are really team efforts. No one
can do these alone. I can't do them alone. Clutter
can't do them alone. Together, we're a pretty good team.
(20:35):
The stronger our team, the better mister Vaughan's chances of
obtaining justice.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
What is the purpose of the committee and what do
you hope it will accomplish.
Speaker 12 (20:46):
A variety of views from a variety of different lenses
will be able to analyze the evidence and come up
with a plan that will formulate the arguments I'll ultimately
present to the Prisoner Review Board or to a court
(21:07):
to gain a reversal of conviction and exoneration. My job
is to consolidate those various ideas into a winning idea
and take the various threads and form a tapestry, take
the various thoughts and form an argument. It's the creative
(21:30):
process of being the lawyer that I love.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
The committee has been growing steadily at the time of
this episode's release. It includes founding board member of the
Innocence Project Jason Flohm, prominent defense attorneys Andrea Lyon, Keith Altman,
Kitty Lyle, and Mario Kasharo. A quick aside before becoming
an attorney, Mario Kasharo was wrongfully convicted of a presumed
(21:55):
murder and serve time a minard before being freed and exonerated.
There he crossed paths with Christopher Vaughn. The two played
chess several times. Also on board is Jason Jutts, a
civil attorney from Hawaii.
Speaker 14 (22:10):
My name is Jason Jutts. I'm an attorney in Honolulu, Hawaii,
and I do complex civil litigation. What drew me to
this case initially was the podcast. I wasn't aware of
the case before listening to the first episode, and I
just found the case and the idea that Chris is
innocent very compelling, which drove me to start digging into
(22:31):
the trial transcripts and the pre trial transcripts, and the
more I looked at that, the more I became convinced that,
if nothing else, the trial was grossly mishandled. I subscribed
to the Blackstonian ratio, which is this idea or philosophy
that it's better to let ten guilty persons go free
than to punish one innocent person, and I think that
(22:52):
that is very prevalent here. I just wanted to reach
out to see what I could possibly do to help,
even though I'm so very far away, don't have the
legal background in criminal justice, let alone anything to do
with Illinois law, but I thought that some of my
skills could come to bear and is sitting in his
exoneration efforts.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Jets is now connected with Jed Stone to offer his
services also pro bono.
Speaker 14 (23:18):
I think it's a great thing that the legal community
in Illinois is starting to get together and mount support
on Chris's behalf. I had a great opportunity to speak
with Jed. He's a very knowledgeable, experienced attorney in Illinois,
and I'm very appreciative that he's stepped up to take
the lead of the committee that's working on behalf of Chris.
(23:39):
One of the great things about this podcast is that
you've shed light on Chris's flight and gained attention for
him individually. But since this is sort of a national epidemic,
I think that it helps bring light to the bigger
issue here of how should we approach these cases moving forward?
How can we help eliminate some of the bas from
(24:00):
the bench and from the prosecutor side. I'm not even
talking about the confirmation bias of the jurors, or the
influence of the media, or the character assassination that Chris suffered,
but just looking at it through that legal lens, what
changes can we make moving forward to try to make
sure that innocent individuals aren't placed in in prison. And
(24:21):
it's really unfortunate when it happens in a situation where
you're talking about somebody's life. And I think that through
the discussion of Chris's case, one thing that's lost frequently
is that this started off as a death row case.
His life was literally on the line.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Bill Clutter's nonprofit Investigating Inno Sense, will continue to fight
for Chris Bond in addition to other wrongful convictions.
Speaker 10 (24:44):
I want to encourage listeners to get involved. There's projects
in most every state, A Lisence project that helps the
wrongfully connected. If listeners are interested in volunteering or assisting
within the instigating innocence, go visit our website and let
us know how you're willing to help. I feel more
(25:07):
confident today that Christopher Vaughn will be free in the
near future and I'll be standing at the gates of
Pinkinbill Correctional Center with his parents and supporters welcoming him home,
and I can envision that day happening soon.
Speaker 15 (25:23):
My hope is that these efforts do lead to either
the governor or a judge at some point ordering his
release and granting relief based on actual innocence.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
Clutter will also be overseeing the second crime scene reconstruction,
which will challenge the state's theory in regards to the
ballistics beyond what was proven in the July crime scene
reconstruction with animation. As mentioned in the first episode of
(26:04):
this podcast, Gail Vaughan has a private Facebook page titled
Christopher Vaughan is Innocent the last word in all caps.
Speaker 5 (26:12):
When Chris went to prison, I tried to figure out
how to share this with all the families without making
multiple phone calls, so I created a Facebook group and
with family and very close friends. There were seventeen of
us altogether. Since this podcast started, we have been growing unbelievably.
(26:37):
It is turned into a support group.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
At the time of this episode, Gail's Facebook group has
grown from seventeen people to more than eleven hundred members.
Speaker 5 (26:47):
It's overwhelming. I mean, we have been kind of climbing
a hill, climbing a mountain, and it's been tough. But
now we have these people that are on Facebook and
they are actually showing support and positive They are actually
reading everything and coming up with their own conclusions and
(27:10):
then discussing the possibilities of what happened. I mean, it's
very refreshing to see everybody thinking, actually thinking, after reading
and hearing after so many years of not so many
positive results.
Speaker 1 (27:28):
Gail finds it difficult to express her family's feelings regarding
the reaction to Chris's case.
Speaker 5 (27:34):
This out pouring from my Facebook, from people, especially from
Jason Plumm and his generous assistance. It's overwhelming. And then
we have these fantastic lawyers that are stepping up and
helping us out with Chris. Chris can't believe it. He's
(27:55):
amazed that people are helping them, but now we Chris
has actually got the possibility of hope in his voice
and his eyes. Chris has got hope. His eyes have
changed to the look of resignation, of being here forever
because there's no way of getting out to Yes, there
(28:19):
is a spark of possibility and it's growing momentum.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
And hoping to build upon that momentum. Gail has also
started a change dot org petition on behalf of her son.
Speaker 5 (28:32):
I have written a petition so to change dot org
and it will be under the same heading as my
Facebook page or It's easy to remember Christopher Vaughan is
innocent and I am hoping to get a lot of
signatures that I can take to the Governor of Illinois
to ask for Chris's release or pardon.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Host of the Wrongful Conviction podcast and Innocence Active Jason
Flohm remains extremely optimistic about the possibility of executive clemency
for Vaughn, having himself brokened an impressive number of successful
ones throughout the country.
Speaker 16 (29:12):
Clemency is such a powerful option, and it's such a
powerful power, right, I mean, for lack of a better
way of saying it, that is why governors and Presidents
in federal cases, of course, are entrusted and given the
power of clemency because they are supposed to be the
stopgap in these cases of overreach or wrongful conviction, or
(29:38):
over sentencing, or other mistakes that are made inevitably in
any criminal justicism in ours unfortunately, way too often, and
probably as much or more than ever before in history.
But the good news is that there's a governor in
Illinois who we know to be an intelligent, fair minded,
and decent man who has done phenomenal things to help
(30:01):
to tip away at the injustice system in that state,
which has a long and sordid history.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
Jason Flohm is committed to working on that effort, but
has an additional ask too, an effort to prevent other
wrongful convictions.
Speaker 16 (30:17):
I hope that people who are listening, when you serve
on a jury, you recognize that these people are human
as well. So if you get a jury duty notice,
don't throw it away. I'm talking to our listeners directly.
Speaker 6 (30:29):
Now.
Speaker 16 (30:29):
If you're busy, I know you're busy. Everybody's busy. It's
a huge imposition. It's annoying, it's a nuisance, but you
know you have an opportunity to literally be the voice
that saves the life of the next Chris Vaughan. And
that's not hyperbole. It only takes one vote on a
jury of someone to go no. I heard murder in Illinois.
(30:52):
I understand now how this can actually go off the rails,
and I haven't been convinced beyond a reason doubt. So
I'm not going to go along with the other members
of the jury. I'm not going to do what I'm
being told to do by people who I now understand
are incentivized not to get justice, but to get wins. Right,
(31:13):
these people want wins.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
And some of those wins come from manipulating emotions or
playing into preconceived notions.
Speaker 16 (31:22):
And it's so hard for us. We don't want to
believe that anymore that we want to believe that babies
just die, or that sometimes people snap and sometimes it's
a mom and we don't want to believe that. But anyway,
I'll get off my soapbox now and hopefully, hopefully they'll
touch somebody's heart.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
And if you do, find yourself moved to action. In
addition to signing Gail's petition and supporting the work of Innocence,
organizations in your community. Judstone offers an additional suggestion, We're.
Speaker 12 (31:50):
Back to my cockroach. I think that listeners of this
show can talk about this wrongful conviction, talk about it
in their churches and synagogues and mosques, talk about it
in their workplaces, talk about it over dinner with their family,
(32:10):
discuss how it is that an innocent person can be
convicted of a horrible crime and then raise their voices
and say, not under my watch, it's not going to happen, Judge,
Prisoner Review Board Governor Pritsker, do justice. I'm reminded almost
(32:35):
every week, certainly right now in this conversation, that when
I was a boy sitting in synagogue with my father,
there was Hebrew writing on the wall, and I could
barely read English, but I certainly couldn't read Hebrew. So
I said to my dad what is that? And he
told me it's from one of the lesser prophets, a
fellow by the name of Micah, and it asks in Hebrew,
(32:59):
what is it that the Lord requires of you? And
the answer is really clear and struck me even as
a child with its clarity, What is it that the
Lord requires of you? Only to do justice, to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with God. And I thought, even
as a kid, sit, if that's all the God requires
(33:20):
of me, I should be able to do that. Do justice,
love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Well I've gotten
two out of the three. I've had a hard time
with this humble stuff. But doing justice and loving mercy,
that's all of our jobs in this world. And so
what can the listeners do. They can rise up as
a voice and say to the powers that be judges
(33:43):
in black robes, prosecutors in their offices, governors in their mansions,
do justice, love mercy. That's what the Lord requires of us.
And so that that's what our podcast listeners can do.
They can do justice and love mercy and raise their
voices in support of the wrongfully convicted.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
And as a closing note, the Vaughan family wanted to
address you listeners of the podcast. Here's Gail.
Speaker 5 (34:13):
I want to thank them, thank them for opening their hearts,
thank them for opening their mind, thank them for listening
and drawing their own conclusions, but most of all, supporting us,
supporting Chris, supporting our whole family. It's kind of an
odd feeling because we have never had that feeling before,
(34:37):
so thank you, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (34:40):
And here's Pierre.
Speaker 6 (34:42):
I just want to say that I'm overwhelmed and thankful
that people have come forward after all this time and
effort that Gail and I have put into this, people
on her website, and people like Jed Stone, Jason plom
(35:08):
doctor Phil Bill Clutter, and especially you Lauren for doing
podcasts and bringing this to everybody's attention. We just want
to say thank you from the bottom of our heart.
We're not public people, so it's very humbling for us,
and once again we're very very thankful to everyone.
Speaker 5 (35:33):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
As for me, I'm grateful to have played a part
in creating something that has inspired discourse to a level
where people have actually gotten involved, many even taking the
time to pour through the trial transcripts, crime scene reports,
and depositions before deliberating over the case online and in
chat groups. My team and I truly appreciate your time
(35:55):
and your ear. It's also our sincere hope that we
will soon be dropping enough date into this feed. As
for Christopher Vaughan, he's asked that I share this statement
with you. Thank you so very much for taking the
time to listen to my story. I'm hoping that in
listening to the details of my case, you will pause
(36:16):
to consider the sobering question of innocence and guilt. I
am speaking in relation to the broader perspective, as this
is and should be about more than my one case alone.
I hope that you will consider not only the possibility,
but the reality of our legal system convicting an innocent person.
(36:37):
It will only be through your awareness and effort serving
as the final check and balance, that those of us
wrongfully convicted will have any hope at freedom. Thank you.
Speaker 8 (36:49):
And the crimead You Feel the Ground?
Speaker 13 (37:03):
Are You.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
Murder in Illinois? Is a production of iHeartRadio. Executive producers
are Lauren Braid Pacheco and Taylor Chackoine. Written by Lauren
Brad Pacheco and Matthew Riddle, Story editing by Matthew Riddle,
Editing and sound designed by Evan Tyre and Taylor Chaqoine.
Featuring music by Cicada Rhythm with new compositions engineered and
(37:46):
mixed by Evan Tyre and Taylor Chackoine. Archived news reports
provided by w g.
Speaker 8 (37:53):
N You the word by page, Feel.
Speaker 17 (38:04):
The Ground, Holding Holding Okay, Buying out.
Speaker 4 (38:16):
O Caage.
Speaker 8 (38:17):
You feel the ground holding holding for you.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
You mean.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get the stories that matter
to you.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.