September 9, 2021 • 46 mins
Chris Vaughn possibly lands significant support when social justice activist and host of the Wrongful Convictions podcast, Jason Flom, agrees to look into his case. Bill Clutter also uncovers a troubling aspect to the timeline and testimony that secured Vaughn’s indictment in 2007.
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. At this point,
it was April of twenty twenty one, and the last
email I'd received from Christopher Vaughan began with Lauren, I'm
so sorry to have wasted your time. I am done
with the podcast. That email ended with I thank you
(00:24):
for your compassion and your willingness to help. I wish
you all the best, Chris. This was an unexpected and
unfortunate turn, especially in light of the potential insight. Chris's
five page letter provided something I conveyed to his parents
on April first. It's so strange that he sent that
(00:44):
to me, because today I got my first shot of
the vaccine, so I'm that much closer to being able
to visit with him. And I think you were right.
You both said that he knows what to expect from life.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Right now, well digitally.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
That's why he hasn't called us this week, because he's been.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Overthinking going through it. Going through a new trial is
like pulling chief with him. He doesn't want to go
back to Joli yet. He doesn't want to bring up
the loss of his children again. He doesn't want to
point a finger at Kim and then he gets scared.
He doesn't want to put hope out there. He thought
(01:27):
that he was not good enough to take care and
watch over and save his children, and he doesn't want
it out there again that he was unable to do that.
For him, time has stood still.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
That might be.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Fourteen years later, but for him, I think he's just
rerunning it all the time.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
Well, like Gale said, he has nothing to do twenty
four to seven but think about this, and he's got
anxiety about going through this all again.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Well, there are other avenues for post conviction relief other
than a trial.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Okay, that would help, because right now Chris only sees
a retrial. I know that if we could actually get
to talk to him, visit him, and it would help
things a lot.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
I was becoming increasingly convinced that Bond's version, as laid
out in the letter, provided answers to issues I'd personally
had with both the prosecution and the defensive scenarios of
the events. I have been through everything with a fine toothcomb.
They theorize how he did it, but they can't explain
(02:50):
why there is no blood trail from the passenger side
if he was shot on one side and he was standing.
On the other he would have had to have walked
around the car. Are either the front or the back?
None of it makes sense. They proved motive, but they
never proved that he did it. Forensics are explained by
(03:12):
his version of what happened that day. I'm Lauren Bright Pacheco,
and this is murder in Illinois.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
Gange Dilloy.
Speaker 5 (03:26):
Cry Gange feel ground.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Well, that's disappointing, yes, but understandable. I reached out to
Bill to discuss Chris's email about no longer moving forward.
There have been parts of his memories that he's kept
really hidden from himself and locked away for a long time,
(04:21):
and now they're all out there. He had to put
them on the page, and now he's living with them
on a daily basis. I told his parents that I
was going to keep corresponding with him and just ask
that he meet with me. At least his version of
the events really seems to explain the forensics of the car.
(04:43):
If his letter ends up being backed up by your
crime scene reconstruction, is there another option other than going
through another trial, perhaps going to the ag or to
the governor.
Speaker 6 (04:58):
Yeah, I mean, it's a lot on all of these
avenues are just extremely difficult, but executive clemency it stands
a better chance than going back.
Speaker 7 (05:11):
To wil County.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Executive clemency would be a possible way of avoiding another trial.
It referred to the general powers of the President and
of governors to pardon, grant, amnesty, communion, or reprieve to
individuals who've been convicted. Two days after that discussion, Gale
and Pierre called with news they'd finally heard from Chris.
I immediately reached back out to Bill. They spoke to Chris.
(05:35):
They said, he cannot give up on himself, and he
cannot quit until he has sat with us in person
and we've talked to him about his other options and
he's back on board.
Speaker 7 (05:50):
That's great, That is a positive development.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Yeah, he's stirred up all these feelings and emotions and memories,
and on many levels, I think he's come to the
conclusion that it would be easier to just stay where
he is and live what he knows.
Speaker 7 (06:12):
He just has resigned himself to just isolating, and it's
good that his parents were able to get through to it.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Another obstacle would be getting Chris to agree to share
the information in that deeply personal letter he'd sent his parents.
It is also the only eyewitness account of the events
that day, and if it does end up overlapping seamlessly
with the forensics in terms of recreating the crime scene,
(06:45):
it's ultimately the key to getting him out, and so
we need to address it.
Speaker 7 (06:55):
It's an incredibly difficult cases, it is, but having his
cooperation is essential.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Absolutely. It becomes very clear that he was incapable or
unwilling to defend himself until this point. So it is
a breakthrough, you know, it's as if he was challenging
people to figure it out without his help.
Speaker 7 (07:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
My next step was to reach out for advice to
a prominent force in the innocence community, Jason Flam, the
host of the Wrongful Conviction podcast that bears his name.
Our pads actually crossed a few years back when I
picked up a freelance producing job for the Doctor Phil
Show solely for the chance to meet Flom in person.
As it turned out, he was listening to Murder in Oregon,
(07:47):
one of my previous podcasts at the time, and we've
stayed in touch since. As an aside, Jason's three decades
of work in the field of justice, reform is as
impressive as his day job as a record label executive.
He's launched the careers of acts like Matchbox twenty, Katy Perry,
and Lord. He's a truly impressive, inspiring guy.
Speaker 8 (08:12):
I am the founding board member of the Innocence Project
in New York, not the founder by any means, but
the founding board member of Big Difference. The founders, of course,
are Parry Schech and Peter Neufeld. I don't remember the
exact case, but I turned on the TV and there
was the story that the Innocence Project, which was a
brand new organization back then, had found the DNA in
(08:33):
a case of a guy who was about to be executed,
and at sort of the last hour, had ridden in
like the Avengers and proven that this man was innocent.
Not only did he not get execute it, but he
was freed. And I thought, that's the most amazing, craziest
shit I've ever heard. It never occurred to me back
then that innocent people went to prison.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
That was thirty years ago, and ever since, Flohm has
become a power full voice for the powerless and voiceless,
and well versed in the misconception surrounding wrongful convictions.
Speaker 8 (09:08):
There's growing awareness, for sure about the scourge of wrongful convictions,
but I think it's probably hard for the human mind,
or the American mind, to process the idea that it's
as common as it is, because if you accept that,
then you have to also understand that it could happen
to you. The fact is, it happens all the damn time,
(09:31):
and social scientists different studies have estimated between four and
seven percent of people in prison are innocent in America,
some say as high as ten percent. I personally think
it may be higher because it's the guilty plea problem,
and that doesn't even take into account the huge number
of people that are in jail who haven't been convicted
(09:53):
of anything.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Flom is all too familiar with the most sobering statistics
about our legal system, in particular pre conviction incarceration.
Speaker 8 (10:02):
Almost five hundred thousand people in jail right now as
we're talking who haven't been convicted of anything, and the
majority of those people are actually innocent. So when you
add all those numbers together, you get to a really
high number of people that are actually innocent. I mean,
over two hundred thousand seems to be very likely two
(10:24):
hundred thousand people innocent of the crimes for which they're
serving time or awaiting trial is nuts. And every one
of them has a story and had dreams and hopes
and aspirations as a family of some sort. It's a massive,
massive problem. But I'm super humbled and grateful that people
(10:45):
listen to my podcast and are learning and getting involved,
and change is coming. It's happening right now.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Change and reform he's dedicated to making sure also addresses
the treatment of people after they've served their sentences.
Speaker 8 (11:00):
Yeah, there's almost an analogy I would draw where you've
probably seen these cities and counties where they take the
spots where homeless people sleep at night, and they put
spikes on the benches and things. I mean, isn't it
bad enough that these people are without a place to live,
and now we're going to take away what little comfort
(11:21):
they may have been able to find under a bridge
or god knows where. And it's sort of like the
same thing we do with people coming out of prison,
innocent or guilty, right where we should be providing them
with the tools that they need to re enter society,
to be able to go back to their community, to
their family, to their school and have a chance, a
(11:43):
real chance at rebuilding their life. Instead, we put up
roadblocks at every turn. Basically, they have to live a
life of purity and sanctity and perfection and promptness, and
they have to be on time for their parole officer
and whatever. They can't you need a poppy seat bagel
because they'll fail a drug test and otherwise they're going
(12:03):
back to jail. And of course there's all the other
barriers right into employment and housing.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
That's the other thing. I think that there is this naivete,
this misconception that if someone is innocent and you can
prove it, that they're automatically welcomed back into society led
out of prison. And it's a huge hurdle. And that's
why I'm reaching out to you, because in the case
(12:33):
with Chris Vaughan, I didn't want to reach out to
you actually until I felt that I could very clearly
articulate why I needed your advice and why I needed
your guidance and your help in this. With Chris's knowledge
and his parent support, I'd sent Jason Bond's five page letter.
(12:54):
In addition to extensive background information, crime scene reports, depositions,
and build Clutter's twenty ten detailed summary, which made the
case for murder suicide based on forensic evidence.
Speaker 8 (13:09):
I often think that the only thing worse than being
wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for the rest of
your life or death row, or any any variation of that,
is being wrongfully convicted of murdering a relative, particularly a child,
your own child, or a parent or sibling. I guess,
but something about the child or the parent is particularly
(13:31):
difficult for me to process. Arresting him at the funeral
is just particularly six scenario. And you know, but it
goes on all the time, right, It's like, what are
the authorities kicking people's doors allegedly looking for drugs? If
you're looking for drugs, why not wait till somebody emerges
from the house in the morning and arrest them. Then
you know. But it's all it's all just backwards, and
(13:53):
it's all designed for maximum cruelty and abuse. That's the
system that we're in, and he unfortunately caught the very
worst of all of it.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
I wanted Flohm's seasoned opinion to weigh in on the
one I was finally ready to voice.
Speaker 8 (14:09):
The letter.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Honestly, it's like you take an overlay, and all the
missing puzzle pieces just materialized and you could see for
the first time the clear picture, and it just makes
the whole thing that much more tragic. Actually, on so
many levels.
Speaker 8 (14:28):
Jason.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
You have the defense theory, which didn't make sense because
they wanted to believe the reason why he couldn't remember
anything was dissociative amnesia, and that he was in the
car when the kids were shot, and that he rolled
forward in kind of a frozen state, and that he
sat back into her blood. None of that made sense.
(14:52):
But the prosecution's theory made no more sense, and it
wasn't until you get his letter and you realize that
he was behind the car, heard this explosion inside the car,
that as he was opening the driver's side she shot
him once, tried to get back in, she shot again,
(15:13):
and then shot herself. So when he sat back down
into the driver's seat and turned around to check on
the kids, her blood was all over his back, but
her body was also slumped, and in his panic, he thought,
I'll drive to go get help, and in doing so,
he tried to pull her belt which she had taken off,
(15:35):
and his blood from his wounded left wrist was all
over the belt, and his hands were shaking so much
while he was trying to buckle her in because she
was also blocking that buckle, that the blood pooled on
the council and then he gave up because he was shaking,
and it retracted and went back and he got out
(15:59):
of the car. But that's why none of his blood
is on the exterior perimeter back or front of the car.
If he had shot her, there would have been blood
all over him and he would have had to have
walked around. And it wasn't until Chris wrote the letter
which I had shared with you, that I started this
(16:20):
thinking what if he were innocent? And now I sincerely
feel he is. Chris Vaughn allowed himself to be convicted.
He was incapable or unwilling for fourteen years to adequately
(16:44):
defend himself. In many levels, it's just this perfect storm
of tunnel vision, confirmation, bias, character assassination, and then blood
splatter evidence, which it's this interpretive science, which is like
reading an ink block. Blood spatter expert Paul Kish was
(17:19):
utilized by the prosecution to contend that the blood spatter
evidence did not conform with Vaughn having left the vehicle
before his wife was shot, due to the presence of
his blood on the seat belt console and droplets on
the passenger side. Obviously, Kish wasn't privy to Bond's latest revelations,
but even at the time of the trial, Kish conceded
(17:39):
that he couldn't rule out murder suicide based on the
blood evidence either. Here again is Jason Flamm.
Speaker 8 (17:47):
Let's talk about blood spatter because I think people watch Dexter,
they watch CSI or whatever they watch, and they have
this totally unrealistic view. Because the National Academy of Sciences, right,
the real thing, right, the people who we should hold
(18:07):
in the highest regard, in two thousand and nine did
a very intensive study real scientific integrity, and they were
extremely critical of a number of the junk sciences. But
I think they saved some of their strongest words for
blood spatter, and among other things, that this blood spatter
(18:28):
analysis is more subjective than substantive.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
It's whatever you want to say, and it can be
used to prove whatever you want to prove given most scenarios.
Speaker 8 (18:40):
No, you're absolutely right. It is the probably the worst
of all the junk sciences, and to call it a
science is ridiculous. Right, you can take a forty hour
course to become a bloodstained pattern analyst and then you
can actually go and testify in court. It's ridiculous. It's
absurd because the people are getting up and testifying as
(19:02):
experts forty hours. What can you learn in forty hours.
Almost nothing. There's nothing scientific about it. It's foolishness, that's
what it is, except for the fact that the consequences
are so extremely serious and real. So that should have
been the end of it. It should never have been
used again after that was made clear. But again the
(19:26):
courts fall back on themselves and the system protects itself.
It doesn't protect the people. It doesn't work for the
Chris Bonds, it doesn't work for any of the people
it's supposed to work for, which are the people whose
lives are in the hands of the system that is
supposed to protect their rights and all of our rights.
(19:50):
And once once it starts down a road and that
television sets in, as you said, Lauren, they will find
ways to railroad you and they just put these blinders
on and it doesn't matter. And as I was listening
to you talk, it occurred to me that Chris is
(20:10):
exactly the person that we were referencing a few minutes ago, right,
because he didn't believe that he could be wrongfully convicted,
which is why he didn't really mount the defense. First
of all, this poor guy's just lost his entire family.
He's just seen his entire family dead in front of
his eyes. Right, he saw his kids murdered like seconds earlier,
(20:33):
bleeding to death whatever the backseat of his car, and
then his wife. Now grant that he wasn't badly hurt,
but I've never been shot. I'm sure it's kind of traumatic.
To be shot twice and then find your family dead
is something nobody should ever have to go through. And
it's unbelievable to even imagine what the hell. And it's
also disgusting for us to think that we know how
(20:54):
someone should or should not act that has been through that.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
And yeah, you're right, he was on his demeanor. He
didn't act the way he should. I think that he
didn't want to implicate his wife because he felt guilt
that he thought that his actions drove her to do
something so horrific and out of character.
Speaker 8 (21:18):
And you know, in my view, he's guilty of being
maybe not the best husband. But I'm not going to
sit there and judge him, and I would say that
no one else really should either. We don't know what
was going on in their relationship or in their home,
and that is also not a crime. It might be
a moral failing, but it's not a crime. And also
that I think he was in a certain way protecting
(21:39):
the reputation of the woman that he had been married to.
But this also reminds me, Lauren of, in a certain way,
the case that we covered on wrongful Conviction, the Larry
Delile case, right where Larry was in his car with
his four kids and his wife, gas pedal jammed and
the car went screaming into the river off a dock,
(22:02):
and he and his wife I don't think they could swim,
but they managed to get out, and the kids were
tragically drowned. And then started this narrative where he's not
emotional enough, the press is stalking him at his house.
He's they were sitting outside, he and his wife having
an iced t or a beer or something. Now, he
(22:22):
was on a lot of medications after this. He was
taking so many pills to try to deal with this
unimaginable trauma. But they wanted to believe what they wanted
to believe, and I think in that case, people couldn't
process the idea that this car could have malfunctioned in
(22:42):
such a way with such awful consequences. So even when
the evidence emerged that is in fact exactly what happened,
and even when it became clear that one hundred and
seventeen I think other cars of this exact same make
and model had been recalled because the accelerator jammed. And
even though his wife said the accelerator jammed, the story
got out there in the media that he had confessed.
(23:04):
That's debatable, but Larry is still in prison now thirty
I think it was nineteen eighty nine. So yeah, this
unfortunately is going back to what your question from earlier.
This is terribly, terribly common, and we need to overhaul
the system. And you know, Lady Justice, with the scales,
(23:25):
it's not a realistic depiction at all of our system. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
I know, this concept that justice is blind.
Speaker 8 (23:32):
I think it's deaf, and it's interesting as it relates
to this case, right to the advant case, because you know,
another thing that I think is really not in the
public consciousness is that science and justice are practically opposite.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Right.
Speaker 8 (23:50):
Science is based on the analysis of data and information
that is processed in a way that is scientific, and
justice is based on precedent. Right. So while science moves forward,
justice looks backward. And some of these junk sciences are
(24:13):
similar in certain ways, right, just as with bitemark evidence.
And so what I mean by that is a judge
will look at a case and say, well, there's another
court that ruled that bite marks are okay. Even though
you have a huge body of evidence that you've just
presented that shows that bite marks are as unscientific as
(24:36):
could be, I'm going to allow it because another court
allowed it. Justice should be about making sure that, whilst
mistakes will always be made, that we minimize those mistakes,
and that people who don't do their jobs. And that
extends to the defense bar as well. If you have
(24:56):
a defender public or private who shows up drunk or
doesn't mount any defense re client, or is corrupt in
any way, they should be disbarred, just like an other
profession's and it almost never happens on the other side.
On the prosecution side, we know that police and prosecutors
lie with impunity, as do Unfortunately many forensic examiners. They
(25:19):
either lie or they just don't know what they're talking about.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
And while there are many cases worthy of Jason's help,
he agreed to explore whether Vaughn's was worthy of re examination.
Speaker 8 (25:31):
That's unbelievable. Yeah, Kafka meets Victor Hugo in the worst
possible ways, and I feel, as you do, compelled to
want to help him.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Next, I LinkedIn with Bill Clutter to discuss more details
about the case.
Speaker 7 (25:50):
Sergeant Gary Lawson had already formed an opinion from day
one that Chris Vaughn committed the murder of his wife
and three kids. Sergeant Lawson's theory just conflicted with the
ballistic evidence. We conducted our own examination of the Ford expedition,
(26:10):
and Tom Bevell, our bloodstained expert, notices that in the
back of the Ford Expedition, behind where the children were seated,
there's a third seat and there was a bullet lodged,
and so he asked to get a doll rod. He
put it through the back of the seat where Cassandra
(26:31):
was seated in the middle of the two other children,
and pushed it through the third seat where the bullet
was lodged. It showed that the shot that killed Cassandra
was fired from the passengers seat, and then Luke Caid,
who was a ballistic expert, inspected the vehicle again with
laser and so clearly that shot came from where Kim
(26:56):
was seated. And the irony about this whole case the
state doesn't they acknowledge that the crime scene evidence suggests
a murder suicide, but that Chris Vaughn was this mastermind,
that he was so smart that he read this article
in PI magazine, which you know they fingerprinted. His fingerprints
(27:17):
weren't on it, and the article was the cover story
about it was a detective from New York City. It
dealt with staging a murder to look like a suicide. Well,
the example that he was writing about was some case
where a woman had been strangled to death by the
killer and then the killer stages it to look like
(27:38):
she had hung herself and committed suicide, totally separate, and
so they tried to infer and to argue with the
jury that somehow, but it's all confirmatory biased. The police
see that article, they say, ah, he must have staged
it to look like a suicide. But that was their case.
Speaker 8 (27:57):
Yeah, bail and I want to say that this is sadly,
tragically not an uncommon narrative right where law enforcement decides
that the person who they claim to be the perpetrator
is both a deranged psychopath and a criminal mastermind.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
Right.
Speaker 8 (28:19):
I believe when it's caught up along with the media
shit storm and the heightened emotions around a case like this,
it's like the thing just grows and everyone is able
to put on the same set of blinders and go, yep,
that must be what happened. To any trainee investigator or
(28:40):
first year law student, or someone who even watches TV
crime shows. You could look at us and go, no,
just no, that's not how this could have happened. The prosecutor,
I'm sure, would have had the jurors in the palm
of his hand as he or she presented this narrative
because they don't want to believe that mom killed the
(29:03):
kids and there's nobody alive to blame.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
But to challenge Bond's conviction, both the state scenario and
the one recently conveyed in Chris's letter would need to
be scientifically tested to know which one aligned with ballistic
and blood evidence. In regards to the crime scene.
Speaker 7 (29:22):
The state's theory that Paul Kish testified to that Kim
was her seat belt was buckled when she was shot
and killed, but that Chris unbuckled it to somehow stage
the crime scene. I always felt all along that would
have been virtually impossible. The way her body was positioned.
He would actually have to move her body to try
(29:43):
to unbuckle her seat belt it was buckled. And then
the second thing is her blood would be somewhere on
that seat belt as that seat belt's retracting. So that's
one scenario that we'll test. But the other one is
whether Chris the act of trying to buckle her in
which he describes in his statement.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
Bill Clutter believes by demonstrating how each scene unfolded and
by testing which scenario is supported by the actual crime
scene evidence, he can call Vaughn's guilt into question. Jason
Plomm agreed that there was enough reasonable doubt to question
Vaughan's conviction and to warrant mounting a crime scene reconstruction.
Speaker 8 (30:23):
Because there's this freaking thing in the Constitution where it
says innocent until proven guilty, and there's that other thing
about reasonable doubt. I don't know how and when that
went out the window. But we need to restore those principles.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
But crime scene reconstructions cost money. Bill Clutter had applied
for a fund that could potentially cover the costs of
one for Vaughn and was waiting for news on that grunt.
Speaker 8 (30:52):
If there's anything that I can do, if there's a
financial support, if there's a need for a task that
you can't get the money for it, I mean, I
will just call it.
Speaker 7 (31:00):
Here's what I want to do, and I'll send you
the grant. But we're going for the grant too, fun
the crime scene reconstruction. I'd like to get this crime
scene reconstruction done by August.
Speaker 8 (31:11):
Well, you know, let me know. I'm I'm happy to
write a check if that's what's needed. You know, I've
been lucky enough to make some money and this is
what I decided choose to spend it.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
And suddenly, with that act of unexpected generosity, Christopher Vaughan's
conviction was that much closer to getting a very real
and very significant chance for reevaluation. It was about this
(31:52):
time that we uncovered a potentially troubling timeline concerning Christopher
Vaughn's indictment in July of two thousand and seven, Bill
was going back through the discovery from the Vaughnd case
and happened upon a phone record memo regarding a conversation
between the state and its DNA testing lab.
Speaker 7 (32:11):
The decision to arrest Christopher Vaughan was made on Friday,
June twenty second. He was arrested the next day, right
before the funerals for his family were to begin, and
that decision really focused on two issues. One was Chris's
inability to remember how his wife's blood was transferred to
(32:33):
the back right side of his jacket and the belief
that he had staged the crime scene by unbuckling his
wife's seat belt, and that was based on Bob Deal's
observations that there was a large saturation stain on his
wife's passenger seat belt that appeared consistent with her bleeding
(32:58):
onto the seat belt. That assumption turned out to be
wrong and it was disproved by DNA testing. All of
the blood turned out to be Chris's blood, and that
wasn't discovered until about a week after they arrested Chris
when the DNA results came back.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
So what day did the DNA results come back and
what did they show and who was aware? Pay close
attention to the timeline and details you're about to hear.
Speaker 7 (33:28):
We obtain a phone conversation log that was kept by
the crime lab. The general practice of the forensic scientists
or to keep telephone logs of contacts with investigators and
even private investigators like myself. On June twenty seventh of
two thousand and seven, at around ten am, Kelly Crachnach
(33:51):
from the Joliette Crime Lab contacted Sergeant Gary Lawson and
she gave him a verbal report of the DNA results,
which included one of the stains on the passenger seat belt,
and that stain turned out to be Chris's blood, not
Kimberly's blood as they first believed.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
So I'm reading it now and it says reason for call.
Ten am, June twenty seventh, two thousand and seven, I
called to speak to Gary Lawson. I gave him verbal
DNA results on the latest batch of exhibits. He asked
me to inform the State's Attorney's office. I'll give them
a call period and then what happens. She had left
a message and that would have been according to the memo.
(34:33):
At ten thirty five am, and then what happened.
Speaker 7 (34:36):
And then she got a call back by both Jim Glascal,
the state's attorney, and his assistant, John Connor, And that
was at two o'clock. And there was a later call
at four just to confirm whether they wanted the statistical
analysis of the DNA and this is the probability of
the DNA, and that occurred around four pm.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
So it is your understanding that they should have known
whose blood was on the retracted belt at that point.
Speaker 7 (35:04):
At that point, yes, based on the DNA results that
were given to them.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Christopher Vaughan was indicted the following month. An indictment requires
the state prosecutor to go in front of a grand
jury and present evidence of the alleged crime and ask
the grand jury to bring charges against the defendant. All
capital crimes and those for which the death penalty as
a punishment must be presented by indictment. You're about to
(35:32):
hear the exact transcript from the closed grand jury testimony
that was presented on July twenty fifth, two thousand and seven,
nearly a month after it was known that the DNA
results on the retracted belt belonged to Christopher, not Kimberly Vaughan.
Speaker 7 (35:49):
This is where Sergeant Lawson testified before the grand jury
which ultimately indicted Chris and there was a series of questions.
He was asked about the seat belt.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
I will read the part of the female prosecutor and.
Speaker 7 (36:04):
This is one of the other prosecutors, Leah Norbitt, and
she's talking about the crime scene investors.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
They looked at the seat belt right, yes, and on
that seat belt as if the seat belt were pulled
to be seat belted. Someone in correct, there was blood
on that seat belt, was there not?
Speaker 7 (36:25):
Yes, it was.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
And when Kimberly Vaughan was found by the paramedics and
by the police, she was not wearing a seat belt.
That's correct, and that is significant because she was wearing
that seat belt when she was shot.
Speaker 7 (36:41):
That's correct.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
What's problematic from your viewpoint about that testimony in front
of a grand jury, which means, if I'm not mistaken,
that he could not have been cross examined. It was closed, right.
Speaker 7 (36:56):
The problem is is that they've got DNA testing that
contradicts their initial assumption that this was Kim's blood, and
the DNA testing contradicts that initial assumption. So you can't say,
based on the DNA testing that she was seatbelted when
she was shot, because her blood wasn't on the seat belt.
(37:19):
That's the problem with that testimony.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Well, they would have had verbal confirmation of the DNA
results a month earlier, on the twenty seventh of June,
but when would they have had written confirmation?
Speaker 7 (37:33):
And this is where it becomes problematic because after Sergeant
Lawson gives that testimony, there's a DNA report that stated
the day after, which is July twenty six, two thousand
and seven. But the problem is we found in discovery
that same report had been actually dated July third, two
(37:56):
thousand and seven, three weeks before he gave that testimony.
And on that report there was dated July third, There
was in handwritten notes draft at the top and on
each page. So it appears that it gives sergeant loss
and plausible deniability about the results of the DNA having
it dated the day after he testified at the grand jury,
(38:19):
and the report was actually dated July third, about three
weeks before he testified, and so it really raises all
kinds of questions as to who directed the DNA analyst
Kelly Craajenek to mark draft. If that's her handwriting, what
was the purpose of marking a draft.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
Was there any difference between the version that's marked draft
on the third of July and the final version, which
is dated the day after the closed grand jury testimony.
Speaker 7 (38:52):
The only difference is the day. The reports are identical.
The conclusions of the DNA results are identical. The only
thing that's different is that changing of the date on
the report.
Speaker 1 (39:05):
How do you characterize that.
Speaker 7 (39:07):
It smells of fraud. That's what it smells to me.
It really deserves further investigation and to get to the
bottom of why that report was manipulated. I've never seen
it in my thirty five years of investigating for police
reports and forensic labs. I've never seen this ever in
my career, and so it really begs the question why
(39:29):
was it done and who directed.
Speaker 8 (39:31):
It to be done.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Why would the date have been changed to the day
after loss and testified when it was known that he
had this information a month before that time. If this
was done intentionally, it does give the appearance that, in
order to secure Christopher Vaughn's indictment, the prosecution was trying
to hide the fact that this information was known at
the time of loss and testimony. I reached out to
(39:56):
the office of the Will County States Attorney to request
four clarification. After sending two emails, I followed up by
phone and was informed by James Glasgow's director of public
Affairs that mister Glasgow was not interested in providing a
statement or response. With that in mind, I wanted to
(40:17):
speak to a legal expert and get their thoughts. Richard
Kling is a clinical professor of law in Chicago at
the Kent College of Law and a practicing defense lawyer.
What are your thoughts just on the fact of Will
County State's attorney seeking a grand jury indictment as opposed
to a preliminary hearing.
Speaker 9 (40:36):
In most of the murder cases, the state's attorney generally
takes it to the grand jury. It's not unusual in
my experience. The vast majority of murder cases and sex
cases are taken directly to the grand jury.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
Although the DNA testing had disproven the initial theory that
Kimberly Vaughn was wearing her safety belt when she was
shot allegedly, Sergeant Gary Lawson appeared before the grand jury
and testimony was elicited that suggested that Kimberly Vaughn was
wearing the seat belt at the time of her death.
(41:09):
Having read over that transcript, how would you characterize that
testimony in light of the fact that he knew the
results a month before.
Speaker 9 (41:19):
It certainly erroneous, Whether it was mistakenly erroneous or intentionally erroneus.
Obviously I can't get into somebody else's mind, but it
was certainly a mistake to bring that in front of
the grand jury the way it was.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
Would you categorize it as misleading?
Speaker 9 (41:32):
Well, it is misleading to the grand jury. Realistically, they
didn't have the full story.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
And I know that in Illinois police are were and
are allowed to lie to a suspect during interrogations to
coerce our confession or secure a confession. I should say,
is there any scenario in which an officer of the
law would be allowed to lie on the witness stand?
Speaker 9 (41:54):
Absolutely? Not that the law is abundant. Police officers are not
allowed to lie to grand juris.
Speaker 1 (42:00):
Kling was already very familiar with the Christopher Vaughn case
and investigating Innocent's efforts on his behalf. For him, it
called to mind another famous Illinois case which we referenced
in a previous episode that led to the abolishment of
the death penalty in Illinois and involved the vilification of
another investigator, much along the lines of Bob Dial's experience.
Speaker 9 (42:22):
The parallels are spookily similar to the extent that Mike Callahan,
who was the state police officer when forty eight Hours,
was going to do a piece about Randy's tidel he
was asked by the state Police to investigate, essentially to
make sure that they were covered. And what happened with
Callahan is that he ended up finding out that the
state police had screwed around with a lot of stuff,
(42:43):
as well as the local police, and he eventually went
from being a decorated lieutenant in charge of the whole
district to writing traffic tickets. In I fifty five, the
parallels are very similar to the extent of the state
police was asked to do an investigation to make sure
that the Witleck title came went well, and when Palahan
came to the conclusion it didn't go well, he ended
(43:04):
up getting xed. And it's similar here.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Ultimately, former Illinois State Police investigator Michael Callahan would vile
a civil lawsuit which determined his constitutional rights had been
violated by his superiors. He wrote a book detailing his
experience called Too Politically Sensitive. As mentioned previously, the two
men convicted for murders they did not commit, HERB Whitlock
and Randy Stidle, were ultimately released as a result of
(43:29):
the corruption a misconduct Callahan uncovered. Stitle had been imprisoned
for seventeen years, Whitlock for twenty one. Back to Richard Klang.
Speaker 9 (43:39):
Yeah, I think the bottom line is, I would hope
is that the state police, as well as the rest
of the world, is not interested in having somebody who
was innocent convicted, and hopefully they would want to reopen
it and hopefully the result for mister Vaughan will be
the same that it was for Whitlock.
Speaker 1 (43:54):
Ands title, Richard Kling is very clear on where he
stands in regards to Christopher.
Speaker 9 (44:00):
I was a public defender in Cook County for ten years.
In November, I will have been practicing fifty years. I've
tried over five hundred murder jury cases, including DNA, so
I'm not just speaking from the standpoint of academia. I'm
speaking from the standpoint of being in the trenches, and
I think it's a case that needs to be reevaluated.
Speaker 4 (44:21):
Cay you he the.
Speaker 5 (44:25):
Gry out O feel the ground holding load?
Speaker 4 (44:35):
Are you.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
On the next Murder in Illinois? I finally meet Christopher
Vaughn in person. Right as we get closer to the
prison is absolutely pouring quorks of lightning before Bill Clutter
takes on meticulously mounting an ambitious crime scene reconstruction. We're
all going to get the visual of every scenario, and
(45:11):
that's important that we'll put Bond's version of events to
the test.
Speaker 8 (45:15):
As you pull back these layers, it becomes so painfully obvious.
Speaker 1 (45:24):
Murder in Illinois is a production of iHeartRadio. Executive producers
are Lauren Bright Pacheco and Taylor Chackoine. Written by Lauren
Brett Pacheco and Matthew Riddle, Story editing by Matthew Riddle,
editing and sound design by Van Tyre and Taylor Chaqoine.
Featuring music by Cicada Rhythm with new compositions engineered and
(45:45):
mixed by Van Tyre and Taylor Chackoine.
Speaker 6 (45:49):
You see the Ground.
Speaker 1 (46:16):
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. At this point,
it was April of twenty twenty one, and the last
email I'd received from Christopher Vaughan began with Lauren, I'm
so sorry to have wasted your time. I am done
with the podcast. That email ended with I thank you
(00:24):
for your compassion and your willingness to help. I wish
you all the best, Chris. This was an unexpected and
unfortunate turn, especially in light of the potential insight. Chris's
five page letter provided something I conveyed to his parents
on April first. It's so strange that he sent that
(00:44):
to me, because today I got my first shot of
the vaccine, so I'm that much closer to being able
to visit with him. And I think you were right.
You both said that he knows what to expect from life.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Right now, well digitally.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
That's why he hasn't called us this week, because he's been.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Overthinking going through it. Going through a new trial is
like pulling chief with him. He doesn't want to go
back to Joli yet. He doesn't want to bring up
the loss of his children again. He doesn't want to
point a finger at Kim and then he gets scared.
He doesn't want to put hope out there. He thought
(01:27):
that he was not good enough to take care and
watch over and save his children, and he doesn't want
it out there again that he was unable to do that.
For him, time has stood still.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
That might be.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Fourteen years later, but for him, I think he's just
rerunning it all the time.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
Well, like Gale said, he has nothing to do twenty
four to seven but think about this, and he's got
anxiety about going through this all again.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Well, there are other avenues for post conviction relief other
than a trial.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
Okay, that would help, because right now Chris only sees
a retrial. I know that if we could actually get
to talk to him, visit him, and it would help
things a lot.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
I was becoming increasingly convinced that Bond's version, as laid
out in the letter, provided answers to issues I'd personally
had with both the prosecution and the defensive scenarios of
the events. I have been through everything with a fine toothcomb.
They theorize how he did it, but they can't explain
(02:50):
why there is no blood trail from the passenger side
if he was shot on one side and he was standing.
On the other he would have had to have walked
around the car. Are either the front or the back?
None of it makes sense. They proved motive, but they
never proved that he did it. Forensics are explained by
(03:12):
his version of what happened that day. I'm Lauren Bright Pacheco,
and this is murder in Illinois.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
Gange Dilloy.
Speaker 5 (03:26):
Cry Gange feel ground.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Well, that's disappointing, yes, but understandable. I reached out to
Bill to discuss Chris's email about no longer moving forward.
There have been parts of his memories that he's kept
really hidden from himself and locked away for a long time,
(04:21):
and now they're all out there. He had to put
them on the page, and now he's living with them
on a daily basis. I told his parents that I
was going to keep corresponding with him and just ask
that he meet with me. At least his version of
the events really seems to explain the forensics of the car.
(04:43):
If his letter ends up being backed up by your
crime scene reconstruction, is there another option other than going
through another trial, perhaps going to the ag or to
the governor.
Speaker 6 (04:58):
Yeah, I mean, it's a lot on all of these
avenues are just extremely difficult, but executive clemency it stands
a better chance than going back.
Speaker 7 (05:11):
To wil County.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Executive clemency would be a possible way of avoiding another trial.
It referred to the general powers of the President and
of governors to pardon, grant, amnesty, communion, or reprieve to
individuals who've been convicted. Two days after that discussion, Gale
and Pierre called with news they'd finally heard from Chris.
I immediately reached back out to Bill. They spoke to Chris.
(05:35):
They said, he cannot give up on himself, and he
cannot quit until he has sat with us in person
and we've talked to him about his other options and
he's back on board.
Speaker 7 (05:50):
That's great, That is a positive development.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Yeah, he's stirred up all these feelings and emotions and memories,
and on many levels, I think he's come to the
conclusion that it would be easier to just stay where
he is and live what he knows.
Speaker 7 (06:12):
He just has resigned himself to just isolating, and it's
good that his parents were able to get through to it.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Another obstacle would be getting Chris to agree to share
the information in that deeply personal letter he'd sent his parents.
It is also the only eyewitness account of the events
that day, and if it does end up overlapping seamlessly
with the forensics in terms of recreating the crime scene,
(06:45):
it's ultimately the key to getting him out, and so
we need to address it.
Speaker 7 (06:55):
It's an incredibly difficult cases, it is, but having his
cooperation is essential.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Absolutely. It becomes very clear that he was incapable or
unwilling to defend himself until this point. So it is
a breakthrough, you know, it's as if he was challenging
people to figure it out without his help.
Speaker 7 (07:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
My next step was to reach out for advice to
a prominent force in the innocence community, Jason Flam, the
host of the Wrongful Conviction podcast that bears his name.
Our pads actually crossed a few years back when I
picked up a freelance producing job for the Doctor Phil
Show solely for the chance to meet Flom in person.
As it turned out, he was listening to Murder in Oregon,
(07:47):
one of my previous podcasts at the time, and we've
stayed in touch since. As an aside, Jason's three decades
of work in the field of justice, reform is as
impressive as his day job as a record label executive.
He's launched the careers of acts like Matchbox twenty, Katy Perry,
and Lord. He's a truly impressive, inspiring guy.
Speaker 8 (08:12):
I am the founding board member of the Innocence Project
in New York, not the founder by any means, but
the founding board member of Big Difference. The founders, of course,
are Parry Schech and Peter Neufeld. I don't remember the
exact case, but I turned on the TV and there
was the story that the Innocence Project, which was a
brand new organization back then, had found the DNA in
(08:33):
a case of a guy who was about to be executed,
and at sort of the last hour, had ridden in
like the Avengers and proven that this man was innocent.
Not only did he not get execute it, but he
was freed. And I thought, that's the most amazing, craziest
shit I've ever heard. It never occurred to me back
then that innocent people went to prison.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
That was thirty years ago, and ever since, Flohm has
become a power full voice for the powerless and voiceless,
and well versed in the misconception surrounding wrongful convictions.
Speaker 8 (09:08):
There's growing awareness, for sure about the scourge of wrongful convictions,
but I think it's probably hard for the human mind,
or the American mind, to process the idea that it's
as common as it is, because if you accept that,
then you have to also understand that it could happen
to you. The fact is, it happens all the damn time,
(09:31):
and social scientists different studies have estimated between four and
seven percent of people in prison are innocent in America,
some say as high as ten percent. I personally think
it may be higher because it's the guilty plea problem,
and that doesn't even take into account the huge number
of people that are in jail who haven't been convicted
(09:53):
of anything.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Flom is all too familiar with the most sobering statistics
about our legal system, in particular pre conviction incarceration.
Speaker 8 (10:02):
Almost five hundred thousand people in jail right now as
we're talking who haven't been convicted of anything, and the
majority of those people are actually innocent. So when you
add all those numbers together, you get to a really
high number of people that are actually innocent. I mean,
over two hundred thousand seems to be very likely two
(10:24):
hundred thousand people innocent of the crimes for which they're
serving time or awaiting trial is nuts. And every one
of them has a story and had dreams and hopes
and aspirations as a family of some sort. It's a massive,
massive problem. But I'm super humbled and grateful that people
(10:45):
listen to my podcast and are learning and getting involved,
and change is coming. It's happening right now.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Change and reform he's dedicated to making sure also addresses
the treatment of people after they've served their sentences.
Speaker 8 (11:00):
Yeah, there's almost an analogy I would draw where you've
probably seen these cities and counties where they take the
spots where homeless people sleep at night, and they put
spikes on the benches and things. I mean, isn't it
bad enough that these people are without a place to live,
and now we're going to take away what little comfort
(11:21):
they may have been able to find under a bridge
or god knows where. And it's sort of like the
same thing we do with people coming out of prison,
innocent or guilty, right where we should be providing them
with the tools that they need to re enter society,
to be able to go back to their community, to
their family, to their school and have a chance, a
(11:43):
real chance at rebuilding their life. Instead, we put up
roadblocks at every turn. Basically, they have to live a
life of purity and sanctity and perfection and promptness, and
they have to be on time for their parole officer
and whatever. They can't you need a poppy seat bagel
because they'll fail a drug test and otherwise they're going
(12:03):
back to jail. And of course there's all the other
barriers right into employment and housing.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
That's the other thing. I think that there is this naivete,
this misconception that if someone is innocent and you can
prove it, that they're automatically welcomed back into society led
out of prison. And it's a huge hurdle. And that's
why I'm reaching out to you, because in the case
(12:33):
with Chris Vaughan, I didn't want to reach out to
you actually until I felt that I could very clearly
articulate why I needed your advice and why I needed
your guidance and your help in this. With Chris's knowledge
and his parent support, I'd sent Jason Bond's five page letter.
(12:54):
In addition to extensive background information, crime scene reports, depositions,
and build Clutter's twenty ten detailed summary, which made the
case for murder suicide based on forensic evidence.
Speaker 8 (13:09):
I often think that the only thing worse than being
wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for the rest of
your life or death row, or any any variation of that,
is being wrongfully convicted of murdering a relative, particularly a child,
your own child, or a parent or sibling. I guess,
but something about the child or the parent is particularly
(13:31):
difficult for me to process. Arresting him at the funeral
is just particularly six scenario. And you know, but it
goes on all the time, right, It's like, what are
the authorities kicking people's doors allegedly looking for drugs? If
you're looking for drugs, why not wait till somebody emerges
from the house in the morning and arrest them. Then
you know. But it's all it's all just backwards, and
(13:53):
it's all designed for maximum cruelty and abuse. That's the
system that we're in, and he unfortunately caught the very
worst of all of it.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
I wanted Flohm's seasoned opinion to weigh in on the
one I was finally ready to voice.
Speaker 8 (14:09):
The letter.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Honestly, it's like you take an overlay, and all the
missing puzzle pieces just materialized and you could see for
the first time the clear picture, and it just makes
the whole thing that much more tragic. Actually, on so
many levels.
Speaker 8 (14:28):
Jason.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
You have the defense theory, which didn't make sense because
they wanted to believe the reason why he couldn't remember
anything was dissociative amnesia, and that he was in the
car when the kids were shot, and that he rolled
forward in kind of a frozen state, and that he
sat back into her blood. None of that made sense.
(14:52):
But the prosecution's theory made no more sense, and it
wasn't until you get his letter and you realize that
he was behind the car, heard this explosion inside the car,
that as he was opening the driver's side she shot
him once, tried to get back in, she shot again,
(15:13):
and then shot herself. So when he sat back down
into the driver's seat and turned around to check on
the kids, her blood was all over his back, but
her body was also slumped, and in his panic, he thought,
I'll drive to go get help, and in doing so,
he tried to pull her belt which she had taken off,
(15:35):
and his blood from his wounded left wrist was all
over the belt, and his hands were shaking so much
while he was trying to buckle her in because she
was also blocking that buckle, that the blood pooled on
the council and then he gave up because he was shaking,
and it retracted and went back and he got out
(15:59):
of the car. But that's why none of his blood
is on the exterior perimeter back or front of the car.
If he had shot her, there would have been blood
all over him and he would have had to have
walked around. And it wasn't until Chris wrote the letter
which I had shared with you, that I started this
(16:20):
thinking what if he were innocent? And now I sincerely
feel he is. Chris Vaughn allowed himself to be convicted.
He was incapable or unwilling for fourteen years to adequately
(16:44):
defend himself. In many levels, it's just this perfect storm
of tunnel vision, confirmation, bias, character assassination, and then blood
splatter evidence, which it's this interpretive science, which is like
reading an ink block. Blood spatter expert Paul Kish was
(17:19):
utilized by the prosecution to contend that the blood spatter
evidence did not conform with Vaughn having left the vehicle
before his wife was shot, due to the presence of
his blood on the seat belt console and droplets on
the passenger side. Obviously, Kish wasn't privy to Bond's latest revelations,
but even at the time of the trial, Kish conceded
(17:39):
that he couldn't rule out murder suicide based on the
blood evidence either. Here again is Jason Flamm.
Speaker 8 (17:47):
Let's talk about blood spatter because I think people watch Dexter,
they watch CSI or whatever they watch, and they have
this totally unrealistic view. Because the National Academy of Sciences, right,
the real thing, right, the people who we should hold
(18:07):
in the highest regard, in two thousand and nine did
a very intensive study real scientific integrity, and they were
extremely critical of a number of the junk sciences. But
I think they saved some of their strongest words for
blood spatter, and among other things, that this blood spatter
(18:28):
analysis is more subjective than substantive.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
It's whatever you want to say, and it can be
used to prove whatever you want to prove given most scenarios.
Speaker 8 (18:40):
No, you're absolutely right. It is the probably the worst
of all the junk sciences, and to call it a
science is ridiculous. Right, you can take a forty hour
course to become a bloodstained pattern analyst and then you
can actually go and testify in court. It's ridiculous. It's
absurd because the people are getting up and testifying as
(19:02):
experts forty hours. What can you learn in forty hours.
Almost nothing. There's nothing scientific about it. It's foolishness, that's
what it is, except for the fact that the consequences
are so extremely serious and real. So that should have
been the end of it. It should never have been
used again after that was made clear. But again the
(19:26):
courts fall back on themselves and the system protects itself.
It doesn't protect the people. It doesn't work for the
Chris Bonds, it doesn't work for any of the people
it's supposed to work for, which are the people whose
lives are in the hands of the system that is
supposed to protect their rights and all of our rights.
(19:50):
And once once it starts down a road and that
television sets in, as you said, Lauren, they will find
ways to railroad you and they just put these blinders
on and it doesn't matter. And as I was listening
to you talk, it occurred to me that Chris is
(20:10):
exactly the person that we were referencing a few minutes ago, right,
because he didn't believe that he could be wrongfully convicted,
which is why he didn't really mount the defense. First
of all, this poor guy's just lost his entire family.
He's just seen his entire family dead in front of
his eyes. Right, he saw his kids murdered like seconds earlier,
(20:33):
bleeding to death whatever the backseat of his car, and
then his wife. Now grant that he wasn't badly hurt,
but I've never been shot. I'm sure it's kind of traumatic.
To be shot twice and then find your family dead
is something nobody should ever have to go through. And
it's unbelievable to even imagine what the hell. And it's
also disgusting for us to think that we know how
(20:54):
someone should or should not act that has been through that.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
And yeah, you're right, he was on his demeanor. He
didn't act the way he should. I think that he
didn't want to implicate his wife because he felt guilt
that he thought that his actions drove her to do
something so horrific and out of character.
Speaker 8 (21:18):
And you know, in my view, he's guilty of being
maybe not the best husband. But I'm not going to
sit there and judge him, and I would say that
no one else really should either. We don't know what
was going on in their relationship or in their home,
and that is also not a crime. It might be
a moral failing, but it's not a crime. And also
that I think he was in a certain way protecting
(21:39):
the reputation of the woman that he had been married to.
But this also reminds me, Lauren of, in a certain way,
the case that we covered on wrongful Conviction, the Larry
Delile case, right where Larry was in his car with
his four kids and his wife, gas pedal jammed and
the car went screaming into the river off a dock,
(22:02):
and he and his wife I don't think they could swim,
but they managed to get out, and the kids were
tragically drowned. And then started this narrative where he's not
emotional enough, the press is stalking him at his house.
He's they were sitting outside, he and his wife having
an iced t or a beer or something. Now, he
(22:22):
was on a lot of medications after this. He was
taking so many pills to try to deal with this
unimaginable trauma. But they wanted to believe what they wanted
to believe, and I think in that case, people couldn't
process the idea that this car could have malfunctioned in
(22:42):
such a way with such awful consequences. So even when
the evidence emerged that is in fact exactly what happened,
and even when it became clear that one hundred and
seventeen I think other cars of this exact same make
and model had been recalled because the accelerator jammed. And
even though his wife said the accelerator jammed, the story
got out there in the media that he had confessed.
(23:04):
That's debatable, but Larry is still in prison now thirty
I think it was nineteen eighty nine. So yeah, this
unfortunately is going back to what your question from earlier.
This is terribly, terribly common, and we need to overhaul
the system. And you know, Lady Justice, with the scales,
(23:25):
it's not a realistic depiction at all of our system. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
I know, this concept that justice is blind.
Speaker 8 (23:32):
I think it's deaf, and it's interesting as it relates
to this case, right to the advant case, because you know,
another thing that I think is really not in the
public consciousness is that science and justice are practically opposite.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
Right.
Speaker 8 (23:50):
Science is based on the analysis of data and information
that is processed in a way that is scientific, and
justice is based on precedent. Right. So while science moves forward,
justice looks backward. And some of these junk sciences are
(24:13):
similar in certain ways, right, just as with bitemark evidence.
And so what I mean by that is a judge
will look at a case and say, well, there's another
court that ruled that bite marks are okay. Even though
you have a huge body of evidence that you've just
presented that shows that bite marks are as unscientific as
(24:36):
could be, I'm going to allow it because another court
allowed it. Justice should be about making sure that, whilst
mistakes will always be made, that we minimize those mistakes,
and that people who don't do their jobs. And that
extends to the defense bar as well. If you have
(24:56):
a defender public or private who shows up drunk or
doesn't mount any defense re client, or is corrupt in
any way, they should be disbarred, just like an other
profession's and it almost never happens on the other side.
On the prosecution side, we know that police and prosecutors
lie with impunity, as do Unfortunately many forensic examiners. They
(25:19):
either lie or they just don't know what they're talking about.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
And while there are many cases worthy of Jason's help,
he agreed to explore whether Vaughn's was worthy of re examination.
Speaker 8 (25:31):
That's unbelievable. Yeah, Kafka meets Victor Hugo in the worst
possible ways, and I feel, as you do, compelled to
want to help him.
Speaker 1 (25:46):
Next, I LinkedIn with Bill Clutter to discuss more details
about the case.
Speaker 7 (25:50):
Sergeant Gary Lawson had already formed an opinion from day
one that Chris Vaughn committed the murder of his wife
and three kids. Sergeant Lawson's theory just conflicted with the
ballistic evidence. We conducted our own examination of the Ford expedition,
(26:10):
and Tom Bevell, our bloodstained expert, notices that in the
back of the Ford Expedition, behind where the children were seated,
there's a third seat and there was a bullet lodged,
and so he asked to get a doll rod. He
put it through the back of the seat where Cassandra
(26:31):
was seated in the middle of the two other children,
and pushed it through the third seat where the bullet
was lodged. It showed that the shot that killed Cassandra
was fired from the passengers seat, and then Luke Caid,
who was a ballistic expert, inspected the vehicle again with
laser and so clearly that shot came from where Kim
(26:56):
was seated. And the irony about this whole case the
state doesn't they acknowledge that the crime scene evidence suggests
a murder suicide, but that Chris Vaughn was this mastermind,
that he was so smart that he read this article
in PI magazine, which you know they fingerprinted. His fingerprints
(27:17):
weren't on it, and the article was the cover story
about it was a detective from New York City. It
dealt with staging a murder to look like a suicide. Well,
the example that he was writing about was some case
where a woman had been strangled to death by the
killer and then the killer stages it to look like
(27:38):
she had hung herself and committed suicide, totally separate, and
so they tried to infer and to argue with the
jury that somehow, but it's all confirmatory biased. The police
see that article, they say, ah, he must have staged
it to look like a suicide. But that was their case.
Speaker 8 (27:57):
Yeah, bail and I want to say that this is sadly,
tragically not an uncommon narrative right where law enforcement decides
that the person who they claim to be the perpetrator
is both a deranged psychopath and a criminal mastermind.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
Right.
Speaker 8 (28:19):
I believe when it's caught up along with the media
shit storm and the heightened emotions around a case like this,
it's like the thing just grows and everyone is able
to put on the same set of blinders and go, yep,
that must be what happened. To any trainee investigator or
(28:40):
first year law student, or someone who even watches TV
crime shows. You could look at us and go, no,
just no, that's not how this could have happened. The prosecutor,
I'm sure, would have had the jurors in the palm
of his hand as he or she presented this narrative
because they don't want to believe that mom killed the
(29:03):
kids and there's nobody alive to blame.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
But to challenge Bond's conviction, both the state scenario and
the one recently conveyed in Chris's letter would need to
be scientifically tested to know which one aligned with ballistic
and blood evidence. In regards to the crime scene.
Speaker 7 (29:22):
The state's theory that Paul Kish testified to that Kim
was her seat belt was buckled when she was shot
and killed, but that Chris unbuckled it to somehow stage
the crime scene. I always felt all along that would
have been virtually impossible. The way her body was positioned.
He would actually have to move her body to try
(29:43):
to unbuckle her seat belt it was buckled. And then
the second thing is her blood would be somewhere on
that seat belt as that seat belt's retracting. So that's
one scenario that we'll test. But the other one is
whether Chris the act of trying to buckle her in
which he describes in his statement.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
Bill Clutter believes by demonstrating how each scene unfolded and
by testing which scenario is supported by the actual crime
scene evidence, he can call Vaughn's guilt into question. Jason
Plomm agreed that there was enough reasonable doubt to question
Vaughan's conviction and to warrant mounting a crime scene reconstruction.
Speaker 8 (30:23):
Because there's this freaking thing in the Constitution where it
says innocent until proven guilty, and there's that other thing
about reasonable doubt. I don't know how and when that
went out the window. But we need to restore those principles.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
But crime scene reconstructions cost money. Bill Clutter had applied
for a fund that could potentially cover the costs of
one for Vaughn and was waiting for news on that grunt.
Speaker 8 (30:52):
If there's anything that I can do, if there's a
financial support, if there's a need for a task that
you can't get the money for it, I mean, I
will just call it.
Speaker 7 (31:00):
Here's what I want to do, and I'll send you
the grant. But we're going for the grant too, fun
the crime scene reconstruction. I'd like to get this crime
scene reconstruction done by August.
Speaker 8 (31:11):
Well, you know, let me know. I'm I'm happy to
write a check if that's what's needed. You know, I've
been lucky enough to make some money and this is
what I decided choose to spend it.
Speaker 1 (31:20):
And suddenly, with that act of unexpected generosity, Christopher Vaughan's
conviction was that much closer to getting a very real
and very significant chance for reevaluation. It was about this
(31:52):
time that we uncovered a potentially troubling timeline concerning Christopher
Vaughn's indictment in July of two thousand and seven, Bill
was going back through the discovery from the Vaughnd case
and happened upon a phone record memo regarding a conversation
between the state and its DNA testing lab.
Speaker 7 (32:11):
The decision to arrest Christopher Vaughan was made on Friday,
June twenty second. He was arrested the next day, right
before the funerals for his family were to begin, and
that decision really focused on two issues. One was Chris's
inability to remember how his wife's blood was transferred to
(32:33):
the back right side of his jacket and the belief
that he had staged the crime scene by unbuckling his
wife's seat belt, and that was based on Bob Deal's
observations that there was a large saturation stain on his
wife's passenger seat belt that appeared consistent with her bleeding
(32:58):
onto the seat belt. That assumption turned out to be
wrong and it was disproved by DNA testing. All of
the blood turned out to be Chris's blood, and that
wasn't discovered until about a week after they arrested Chris
when the DNA results came back.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
So what day did the DNA results come back and
what did they show and who was aware? Pay close
attention to the timeline and details you're about to hear.
Speaker 7 (33:28):
We obtain a phone conversation log that was kept by
the crime lab. The general practice of the forensic scientists
or to keep telephone logs of contacts with investigators and
even private investigators like myself. On June twenty seventh of
two thousand and seven, at around ten am, Kelly Crachnach
(33:51):
from the Joliette Crime Lab contacted Sergeant Gary Lawson and
she gave him a verbal report of the DNA results,
which included one of the stains on the passenger seat belt,
and that stain turned out to be Chris's blood, not
Kimberly's blood as they first believed.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
So I'm reading it now and it says reason for call.
Ten am, June twenty seventh, two thousand and seven, I
called to speak to Gary Lawson. I gave him verbal
DNA results on the latest batch of exhibits. He asked
me to inform the State's Attorney's office. I'll give them
a call period and then what happens. She had left
a message and that would have been according to the memo.
(34:33):
At ten thirty five am, and then what happened.
Speaker 7 (34:36):
And then she got a call back by both Jim Glascal,
the state's attorney, and his assistant, John Connor, And that
was at two o'clock. And there was a later call
at four just to confirm whether they wanted the statistical
analysis of the DNA and this is the probability of
the DNA, and that occurred around four pm.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
So it is your understanding that they should have known
whose blood was on the retracted belt at that point.
Speaker 7 (35:04):
At that point, yes, based on the DNA results that
were given to them.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Christopher Vaughan was indicted the following month. An indictment requires
the state prosecutor to go in front of a grand
jury and present evidence of the alleged crime and ask
the grand jury to bring charges against the defendant. All
capital crimes and those for which the death penalty as
a punishment must be presented by indictment. You're about to
(35:32):
hear the exact transcript from the closed grand jury testimony
that was presented on July twenty fifth, two thousand and seven,
nearly a month after it was known that the DNA
results on the retracted belt belonged to Christopher, not Kimberly Vaughan.
Speaker 7 (35:49):
This is where Sergeant Lawson testified before the grand jury
which ultimately indicted Chris and there was a series of questions.
He was asked about the seat belt.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
I will read the part of the female prosecutor and.
Speaker 7 (36:04):
This is one of the other prosecutors, Leah Norbitt, and
she's talking about the crime scene investors.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
They looked at the seat belt right, yes, and on
that seat belt as if the seat belt were pulled
to be seat belted. Someone in correct, there was blood
on that seat belt, was there not?
Speaker 7 (36:25):
Yes, it was.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
And when Kimberly Vaughan was found by the paramedics and
by the police, she was not wearing a seat belt.
That's correct, and that is significant because she was wearing
that seat belt when she was shot.
Speaker 7 (36:41):
That's correct.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
What's problematic from your viewpoint about that testimony in front
of a grand jury, which means, if I'm not mistaken,
that he could not have been cross examined. It was closed, right.
Speaker 7 (36:56):
The problem is is that they've got DNA testing that
contradicts their initial assumption that this was Kim's blood, and
the DNA testing contradicts that initial assumption. So you can't say,
based on the DNA testing that she was seatbelted when
she was shot, because her blood wasn't on the seat belt.
(37:19):
That's the problem with that testimony.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Well, they would have had verbal confirmation of the DNA
results a month earlier, on the twenty seventh of June,
but when would they have had written confirmation?
Speaker 7 (37:33):
And this is where it becomes problematic because after Sergeant
Lawson gives that testimony, there's a DNA report that stated
the day after, which is July twenty six, two thousand
and seven. But the problem is we found in discovery
that same report had been actually dated July third, two
(37:56):
thousand and seven, three weeks before he gave that testimony.
And on that report there was dated July third, There
was in handwritten notes draft at the top and on
each page. So it appears that it gives sergeant loss
and plausible deniability about the results of the DNA having
it dated the day after he testified at the grand jury,
(38:19):
and the report was actually dated July third, about three
weeks before he testified, and so it really raises all
kinds of questions as to who directed the DNA analyst
Kelly Craajenek to mark draft. If that's her handwriting, what
was the purpose of marking a draft.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
Was there any difference between the version that's marked draft
on the third of July and the final version, which
is dated the day after the closed grand jury testimony.
Speaker 7 (38:52):
The only difference is the day. The reports are identical.
The conclusions of the DNA results are identical. The only
thing that's different is that changing of the date on
the report.
Speaker 1 (39:05):
How do you characterize that.
Speaker 7 (39:07):
It smells of fraud. That's what it smells to me.
It really deserves further investigation and to get to the
bottom of why that report was manipulated. I've never seen
it in my thirty five years of investigating for police
reports and forensic labs. I've never seen this ever in
my career, and so it really begs the question why
(39:29):
was it done and who directed.
Speaker 8 (39:31):
It to be done.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Why would the date have been changed to the day
after loss and testified when it was known that he
had this information a month before that time. If this
was done intentionally, it does give the appearance that, in
order to secure Christopher Vaughn's indictment, the prosecution was trying
to hide the fact that this information was known at
the time of loss and testimony. I reached out to
(39:56):
the office of the Will County States Attorney to request
four clarification. After sending two emails, I followed up by
phone and was informed by James Glasgow's director of public
Affairs that mister Glasgow was not interested in providing a
statement or response. With that in mind, I wanted to
(40:17):
speak to a legal expert and get their thoughts. Richard
Kling is a clinical professor of law in Chicago at
the Kent College of Law and a practicing defense lawyer.
What are your thoughts just on the fact of Will
County State's attorney seeking a grand jury indictment as opposed
to a preliminary hearing.
Speaker 9 (40:36):
In most of the murder cases, the state's attorney generally
takes it to the grand jury. It's not unusual in
my experience. The vast majority of murder cases and sex
cases are taken directly to the grand jury.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
Although the DNA testing had disproven the initial theory that
Kimberly Vaughn was wearing her safety belt when she was
shot allegedly, Sergeant Gary Lawson appeared before the grand jury
and testimony was elicited that suggested that Kimberly Vaughn was
wearing the seat belt at the time of her death.
(41:09):
Having read over that transcript, how would you characterize that
testimony in light of the fact that he knew the
results a month before.
Speaker 9 (41:19):
It certainly erroneous, Whether it was mistakenly erroneous or intentionally erroneus.
Obviously I can't get into somebody else's mind, but it
was certainly a mistake to bring that in front of
the grand jury the way it was.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
Would you categorize it as misleading?
Speaker 9 (41:32):
Well, it is misleading to the grand jury. Realistically, they
didn't have the full story.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
And I know that in Illinois police are were and
are allowed to lie to a suspect during interrogations to
coerce our confession or secure a confession. I should say,
is there any scenario in which an officer of the
law would be allowed to lie on the witness stand?
Speaker 9 (41:54):
Absolutely? Not that the law is abundant. Police officers are not
allowed to lie to grand juris.
Speaker 1 (42:00):
Kling was already very familiar with the Christopher Vaughn case
and investigating Innocent's efforts on his behalf. For him, it
called to mind another famous Illinois case which we referenced
in a previous episode that led to the abolishment of
the death penalty in Illinois and involved the vilification of
another investigator, much along the lines of Bob Dial's experience.
Speaker 9 (42:22):
The parallels are spookily similar to the extent that Mike Callahan,
who was the state police officer when forty eight Hours,
was going to do a piece about Randy's tidel he
was asked by the state Police to investigate, essentially to
make sure that they were covered. And what happened with
Callahan is that he ended up finding out that the
state police had screwed around with a lot of stuff,
(42:43):
as well as the local police, and he eventually went
from being a decorated lieutenant in charge of the whole
district to writing traffic tickets. In I fifty five, the
parallels are very similar to the extent of the state
police was asked to do an investigation to make sure
that the Witleck title came went well, and when Palahan
came to the conclusion it didn't go well, he ended
(43:04):
up getting xed. And it's similar here.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Ultimately, former Illinois State Police investigator Michael Callahan would vile
a civil lawsuit which determined his constitutional rights had been
violated by his superiors. He wrote a book detailing his
experience called Too Politically Sensitive. As mentioned previously, the two
men convicted for murders they did not commit, HERB Whitlock
and Randy Stidle, were ultimately released as a result of
(43:29):
the corruption a misconduct Callahan uncovered. Stitle had been imprisoned
for seventeen years, Whitlock for twenty one. Back to Richard Klang.
Speaker 9 (43:39):
Yeah, I think the bottom line is, I would hope
is that the state police, as well as the rest
of the world, is not interested in having somebody who
was innocent convicted, and hopefully they would want to reopen
it and hopefully the result for mister Vaughan will be
the same that it was for Whitlock.
Speaker 1 (43:54):
Ands title, Richard Kling is very clear on where he
stands in regards to Christopher.
Speaker 9 (44:00):
I was a public defender in Cook County for ten years.
In November, I will have been practicing fifty years. I've
tried over five hundred murder jury cases, including DNA, so
I'm not just speaking from the standpoint of academia. I'm
speaking from the standpoint of being in the trenches, and
I think it's a case that needs to be reevaluated.
Speaker 4 (44:21):
Cay you he the.
Speaker 5 (44:25):
Gry out O feel the ground holding load?
Speaker 4 (44:35):
Are you.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
On the next Murder in Illinois? I finally meet Christopher
Vaughn in person. Right as we get closer to the
prison is absolutely pouring quorks of lightning before Bill Clutter
takes on meticulously mounting an ambitious crime scene reconstruction. We're
all going to get the visual of every scenario, and
(45:11):
that's important that we'll put Bond's version of events to
the test.
Speaker 8 (45:15):
As you pull back these layers, it becomes so painfully obvious.
Speaker 1 (45:24):
Murder in Illinois is a production of iHeartRadio. Executive producers
are Lauren Bright Pacheco and Taylor Chackoine. Written by Lauren
Brett Pacheco and Matthew Riddle, Story editing by Matthew Riddle,
editing and sound design by Van Tyre and Taylor Chaqoine.
Featuring music by Cicada Rhythm with new compositions engineered and
(45:45):
mixed by Van Tyre and Taylor Chackoine.
Speaker 6 (45:49):
You see the Ground.
Speaker 1 (46:16):
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.