06: The Silhouette

After being persecuted in the media, the Dowalibys now had to try and clear their name in court.

Join us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theshatteredwindow

Show Notes: https://theshatteredwindow.com/06-the-silhouette

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Yes, eyewitness testimony is totally unreliablein many cases, but that's not what
man was. He was never aneyewitness. He was an Now they have

(00:25):
to have a unanimous verdict. Theydon't all have to be unanimous in their
degree of belief. Hosted by EmilyG. Thompson and Eileen McFarlane. This

(00:46):
is the shattered window. In Octobernineteen eighty nine, do you have and
Cynthia's lawyers told the judge that aman had tried to kidnap a young girl
from an apartment half a mile fromthe Dawallabies home the night before Jacqueline was

(01:08):
taken. The man was identified bythe homeowner, Zabet Seki, as being
Perry Hernandez, the same man whoa year later was accused of being involved
in two similar incidents, including theabduction and sexual assault of the six year
old girl in Blue Island and abotched abduction attempt that same night where he

(01:30):
had failed to break in whileth Itcertainly seemed like more than a coincidence.
In November, Judge Richard Neville saidthat he did not regard this piece of
evidence that could potentially link the crimesas clear and convincing and told the defense
attorneys for Cynthia and David that itcould not be entered at trial. The
jury selection began on the fifth ofApril nineteen ninety and was held in the

(01:55):
Criminal Courts Building on South California Avenue. The jury selection was attended by both
Cynthia and David, who sat together. Cynthia was often spotted sobbing and crying
as her husband comforted her by wrappinghis arm around her shoulder and stroking her
hand. The last year and ahalf had been undoubtedly tough on the couple,

(02:16):
who were already to fight for theirlives and fight to clear their names.
Judge Richard Neville would be presiding overthe case. Judge Neville had a
good reputation in the Cook County CircuitCourt and was known for his honesty,
intelligence, and pension for being blunt. The son of a Chicago police lieutenant,

(02:36):
he graduated from De Paul College ofLaw in nineteen sixty five earl.
In the week Judge Neville had ruledon several pre trial motions. He had
ruled the proposed defense witness Linda Betrain, would not be allowed to testify in
regards to psychic impressions. However,she was allowed to testify in regards to

(02:57):
other aspects. Spoke to Linda Betrainaboid this. Linda also told us aboid
the atmosphere outside the courtroom each afternoon. My life became in a way a
nightmare from that case. When Ileft the courtroom on um we got him

(03:20):
the out, we saw all thecourt emptying out because it was still with
nothing but reporters, whether it wasradio, television, newspaper magazines. It
was like only because the stupid Tatwhatever his name was, and he's he's
such a he was such a jerk, and everything was being so tabloidy.

(03:43):
At that point, anything that happenedon the case was so huge that it
made the news. It was headline. It was in every newspaper we had,
It was on every radio channel,it was every It was the fact
that there was going to be psychicbrought in to even be possibly going into

(04:03):
the case, which is unheard ofbecause we're not a proven science. Somehow
this stuff was being leaked out andI really didn't want to go, and
I wound up talking to the attorney. It was very upset nervous because I
went down. I really don't wantto do this because the press is going

(04:26):
to be all over it, andI know it's going to cause chaos in
my life because I liked my privacyand it was more of and because of
my children. And they turned onThey said, well, there's nothing that
can be done because if I didn'twillingly choose to go in and meet with
the judge first, which was notthe day of court, it was prior
to that. It would be adecision on the judge if he felt that

(04:48):
I could take a stand in theactual court case. And the prosecuting attorney
thought it was a joke and wantedme not they have any part of it.
And I was told that if Irefused to go, I mean I
would be subpoenaed in and if Ididn't choose to go in, then in

(05:12):
our country it's a law you canwind up going to jail. So um,
what I agreed to do was thatif they could keep my name out
of the press, I would greatlyappreciate it. See, my boyfriend had
gone with me to drive me.He called home to find out that all

(05:34):
the cameras were here ready in thetrucks along our block. The kids were
in the house, so they're freakingout, and he told not to answer
the door, not to be scared, that we would handle it. So
he came from he said, wehave to make a decisions. So if
you go home, they're going tohound you. There's reporters everywhere by your

(05:56):
house. They've got the big trucks, they've got all the out there.
So and we got the delegator andthey were all running with their microphones,
and so I stopped as we pressedthe button. Nice, look, I
will be glad to do an interviewdownstairs for a few minutes. You can
ask me a few questions, andI want this to be the end of

(06:18):
it. So if you call thetrucks and get them away from my kids
are afraid. There's a lot goingon. You got the neighborhood up for
grabs. So can you get allthose trucks out of there? And will
this be enough if I give youwhat you want now? And that's why
I made the decision to do theinterview. At that point, when I
went down, there was every stationyou can imagine, and beyond I couldn't

(06:44):
imagine. They were two and threepeople deep around me in a circle.
That's how many press were there andI knew two five, seven, nine
thirty two. What made it worsewas by asking the judge not to release
my name to the press brought mea more up as a mystery. I

(07:05):
thought it would help get me throughwhere the attention wouldn't be on me at
all, and I would give mytestimony and take the questions and answer back
and that would be the end ofit. Because I really didn't want my
fame being made through a seven yearold stuff. I felt like it was

(07:26):
just this was like a three ringcircus already sent motion, unfortunately for the
family, and I didn't want toadd to the unstandity of it. And
all I was trying to do ishelp. There was still a number of
other pretrial motions Judge Neville had notyet ruled on, and it was speculated
that those would come over the nextfew days. It still not ruled on

(07:50):
whether the defense would be allowed topresent videotapes as evidence or call on a
California psychologist to testify. Had alsonot decided whether the jury would be able
to visit the Dwallaby home as wellas the crime scene where Jacqueline's body was
discovered. Judge Neville had ruled theDavy had to be subpoenaed to determine whether

(08:13):
he was competent to testify during trial. If he were find competent, he
was going to be called as aprosecution witness in the murder trial of his
parents. Assistant Public Guardian and JeanetteFoolpe had argued with Judge Neville the testifying
could potentially be undulie traumatic for Davyand said that because of his young age,

(08:33):
he could not fully understand the consequencesof testifying against his parents. During
jury's election and perspective, jurors wereasked if they had heard of the kiss.
Virtually all of them said that theyhad. The kiss had dominated local
media, with the investigators making statementslike I rulling out that a relative or

(08:56):
friend would be involved. When askedthey had formed an opinion on the case
based on what they had seen orread in the media, those who said
yes were questioned further by Judge Nevilleand a number were excused. On the
third day of jury selection, lawyerswere given an opportunity to question the potential
jurors that still remained. As isroutine during jury selection, each side attempted

(09:22):
to take an advantage by eliminating jurorsthat seemed likely to favor the opposing side.
Based on the Illinois Criminal Code,each side were allowed twelve peremptory challenges
to give them the right to excusea juror without giving a reason. This
allows each side to shape a jurymore to their liking. These peremptory challenges

(09:46):
need to be considered closely because thereis a risk that they may excuse a
juror who could then be replaced withsomebody else who has stronger reliefs or opinions
that do not align with the defendantor do align with the defendant. There
are numerous motivations behind excusing a juror. For example, the prosecution may want

(10:07):
to excuse somebody who has a liberalmindset or somebody who doesn't have strong ties
to the community, while the defensemay want to excuse somebody who identifies with
law enforcement or somebody with an authoritarianpersonality. To establish the characteristics of potential
jurors, each side would ask appropriatequestions. We spoke with lawyer Bob Biman

(10:33):
about the dynamics of juries, andthis is what he told us. The
dynamics of juries have always perplexed jurylawyers, because if you get somebody strong,
they can really influence the sheep ona jury, and so that happens
all the time. There's nothing particularlyunusual about that. They have to have

(10:54):
a unanimous verdict. They all haveto be unanimous in their degree of belief.
When it was to Fan's attorney,Ralph Metchick's turned to ask questions.
He asked one potential juror whether heowned a car, to which the potential
juror replied yes. Pressing further,he asked whether he had made the decision

(11:15):
to purchase the car or whether hiswife had made the decision to purchase the
car. There was an objection tothe question by the prosecution, who said
that the question was relevant. Metchickthen asked whether the potential durr had ever
been recognized with an award for superiorperformance. Judge Nevill interrupted and stated that

(11:37):
the question was not a good question. Metchick said that he would rephrase the
question and then ask the potential jurorif he had ever received any personal awards.
Judge Nevill ordered Matchick and the othersinto his chambers for what would be
the first and a number of interruptionsduring the trial, merely to Matchick's questions

(11:58):
and cross examinations away from the jury. Judge Neville told Magic that his questions
were stupid and that he was wastingtime. According to Magic, however,
the questions were essential in trying todetermine whether or not somebody had an authoritarian
personality. Put off by the judge'scomments, Magic relented and did not ask

(12:20):
any further preemptive questions. Ultimately,the jury would consist of six men and
six women, all of whom werewhite. April tenth, nineteen nineteen,
marked the start of the murder trial. As you enter the court room and

(12:41):
walked down the aisle, there areseven rows of seats on either side.
On the left of the room satsupporters of the Dwallabies. The front rows
on both sides were filled reporters.The opinion on the guilt of the Dwallabies
divided the entire state, and manycurious onlookers flocked to the Cook Kenty courtroom
to witness one of the tensest murdertrials in Chicago's history. The jury box

(13:05):
took over the top right side ofthe room, facing the defendant's table.
Next to the jury box facing thejudge's table and witness stand was the prosecutor's
table. Before the trial began,Davy was extensively questioned by Judge Neville to
determine whether the young boy was competentto testify against his parents. He was

(13:26):
ushered into the court with his auntand uncle Rose and John, as well
as his assistant public guardian. Davylooked out a place on the witness stand.
Dressed in a gray suit, helooked tiny as he sat perched on
the edge of the chair. Onlythe top of his head could be seen
from the spectator's area. When hespotted his pair and sitting at the defendant's

(13:48):
table, he looked over and waved. Judge Neville quickly got into the questions.
He asked whether Davy understood the differencebetween truth and a lie. He
replied, it means like if youdidn't really do the thing and you'd just
tell them, it wouldn't be right. It would be a lie. Because
if you didn't do the thing andhe just made something up, that would

(14:11):
be a lie. He first ofall asked Davy some simple questions such as
his name, his age, andwho he lived with. He then wanted
to establish whether Davy had a properunderstanding of the time period that was relative
to the crime. He asked Davyif he could remember his fourth birthday,
to which Davy said he could not. In fact, Davy remembered very little

(14:33):
about this time frame. He wasonly four years old, after all.
Davy recollected that they lived in atambrick house, and when he was asked
to remember his bedroom, he recollectedthere was a bed and four chairs.
I think spider's crawling around lots ofthem. He also reminisced about frequently going

(14:54):
to a nearby play park with hisparents in Jackline. Ultimately, Judge Nevill
would determine the Davy could not becalled to testify. He found that Davy
was articulate and bright, and thathe could tell the difference between right and
wrong, but he couldn't quite rememberspecific details from the time Jacklin vanished.
The opening statements of a murder trialare arguably one of the most important aspects

(15:16):
and can leave the lasting impression onthe jury. While an opening statement is
not technically part of the evidence presentedat a trial, it can be highly
influential in the decision of the jury. An experienced attorney will keep the opening
statement relatively brief and use the languagethat each member of the jury will understand,
as well as keeping it compelling enoughthat they pay attention and make it

(15:37):
leave a strong emotional impact. Sometimesan attorney will forfeit their opening statement.
The danger in presenting an opening statementis that an attorney could later potentially contradict
something they said when later presenting evidence. This can be damning to their case
and could aless it doubt in juror'sminds. On the prosecution team was assistant

(16:02):
State Attorney Pat O'Brien and George Falchick. O'Brien was born and raised in Chicago.
He received a BA from the Universityof Notre Dame before attending to Paul
University College of Law. He becamea licensed attorney in nineteen seventy five and
practiced in both the public and privatesector. Beltick was a graduate of the
University of Notre Dame and Iola UniversitySchool of Law. He had worked on

(16:26):
a number of family murder cases andwanted to win the case, as he
said for Jacqueline. During their openingstatements, State Attorney O'Brien glanced towards Cynthia
and David, who sat with theirfingers interlocked. He stated, I believe
what the evidence will show you isthat there are some things in this courtroom
that bind us tighter together than handholding. I believe the evidence will show

(16:49):
you that the defendants, David andCynthia D. Wallaby, are bound together
by a chilling secret, that secretbeing that they are responsible for the murder
of Jacqueline. To Wallaby, hetook the jury through the morning of Jacqueline's
disappearance. He became more animated ashe stated, the defendants presented the police
with a mystery. It was amystery the defendants created themselves. He went

(17:14):
on to claim that Cynthia and Davidhad created the mystery by fabricating stories about
the abduction and murder of Jacqueline.He briefly spoke about the discovery of Jacqueline's
body, and not saving any gruesomedetails. He explained that her face was
indistinguishable, having been essentially devoured bymaggots. He informed the jury that much
of the case hinged on circumstantial evidence, but said that they could still prove

(17:36):
guilt with that alone. He hintedthat they had a state witness who could
identify David as the man seen onthe night of Jacklin's disappearance at the scene
where her body was found. Originally, they had said that the witness had
picked David out from a group ofphotographs, but now he seemingly shied away
from these prior assertions and instead toldthe jury that he had viewed the man

(17:56):
he believed was David from seventy fiveyards away, and Reckon ignized one prominent
feature the man's nose. On thedefending team was David's attorney Ralph Mechic and
Cynthia's attorney, Lawrence Hyman. DanielFranks was also on the defense team,
assisting Metric and Hyman. Franks wasa former prosecutor who had worked on the
opposing side of Metic during several trials. If the prosecution thought this was going

(18:21):
to be an easy conviction, thenthey were going to be sorely disappointed.
The witness testimony that they relied onso heavily was going to be under tense
scrutiny by the defense team. Sobizarre, so strange, so hellish that
the mother and father who loved thatchild are charged with her murder, said
Attorney Magic. He contended that Cynthiaand David were the victims of a police

(18:45):
investigation gone dreadfully wrong, saying thereal crime or other crime in this case,
was that the prosecutor's charged Cindy andDavid d Wallaby with the murder of
their child. This every parent's nightmare, the death of their daughter. Refuting
the eyewitness testimony that Assistant State AttorneyO'Brien had spoken about during his opening statements,

(19:11):
Metrick said to the jury that fromthe vantage point this witness was at,
there was no possible way he couldhave seen any part of a man's
body, nor been able to distinguishany form of facial features. The opening
statements from the prosecution were compelling ina motive. The defense, however,
fell short of the mark. Metricpresented an opening statement tarnished with fumbling,

(19:33):
contradictions and blatant inaccuracies that would seriouslydamage the case. He had described David's
demeanor as cam before, saying thathe was panicky and at one point even
with heard to Jackline as Cindy.He also seemingly got confused when taking the
jury to the moment David had discoveredthe front door open, stating they watched
TV for an hour or so,and David was getting anxious. Let me

(19:56):
back up the minute. I'm sorry, As Judge Neville would later say,
you couldn't pick up what the fuckhe was doing. When Attorney Hyman presented

(20:19):
his opening argument, he suggested thatthe jury that a convicted burglar had broken
into the Dwallaby home that night,abducted Jacqueline and murdered her. This person,
he said, was the same personwho broke into a Blue Island home
the following year, kidnapped a sixyear old girl while her parents and brother
slept, took her to the canalnear where Jacqueline's body had been found.

(20:42):
It's actually assaulted her and then lether go. Facing the jury, Hyman
said what the police said could nothave happened. That anybody could crawl through
a window and take a child outwas disproved by this Hey and as predator
Perry Hernandez. Some of the firstwitness testimony came from Jacqueline's young friends.

(21:04):
The purpose was to humanize Jacqueline.Far too often in murder cases, the
identity of the victim is lost amongthe headlines. Bringing such a young child
to the witness stand were certainly poignantand brought home the true tragedy of the
murder case and Wallaby Day of Its. Mother also took to the witness stand

(21:25):
early on in the trial. Here, she contradicted an earlier statement that she
had made. She previously told investigatorsthat the rope found wrapped her on Jacqueline's
neck looked similar to the one thatshe had seen Davy playing with in the
past. Upon the strand, however, she recanted this statement and said that
she had been mistaken and that itmore than likely wasn't the same rope.

(21:49):
She described how when she was shownthe rope by investigators, it was coiled
inside a small plastic evidence back.She testified that the rope she had seen
Davy playing with was only a roundten to twelve feet long. When the
rope that was found around Jacqueline's neckwas on wind and presented during trial,

(22:10):
it's stretched to twenty five or twentysix feet. Is that the rope that
David played with, questioned defense attorneyFranks. No, that's a little longer,
much longer than the one he playedwith. Anne responded, the rope
that was used to strangle Jacqueline wouldbe a focal point throughout the trial,

(22:30):
with former neighbor of Cynthia and David, Jeffrey Gleccheck, testifying that he had
seen Davy playing with the same typeof rope that was found wrapped around Jacqueline's
neck. Jeoffrey had lived three doorsdaring from the Duallabies at the time of
the murder, and claimed the followingthe murder he never saw Davy playing with
the rope again. The defense maintainedthat if an intruder had broken into the

(22:53):
home and kidnapped Jacqueline, he verywell had the means to grab the rope
if it was indeed the same rope. Everettman who prosecutors had said had seen
David at the crime scene on thenight of the murder, took the stand
to testify what he had seen.The prosecution team had anticipated that this witness

(23:14):
testimony was going to be the mostdarming evidence against David. O'Brien had disclosed
to the jury that Everett had beenapproximately seventy five yards away from the man
that he believed to be David,and that he told investigators that the man
he saw had a very distinctive andprominent news Upon the witness stand Everett told

(23:34):
the jury that David's no structure resembledthe man who he had seen at the
crime scene on the night Jacqueline vanished. Blue Island Police officer Joe Cosmon was
one of the first officers to speakwith Everett. Here's what he had to
say. Yeah, the guy toldthe truth. I meant he was admitting

(23:55):
that he was cheating, that itwas getting back to his wife. But
he told what he saw. Wedidn't we didn't make it anymore. We
didn't say he made a positive ID. It was presented as he had a
roman like nose, and I identifieda picture as David Dawallaby as someone who's
similar. But his big thing wason the car. But everyone else just

(24:19):
blew that way out of proportion,that we were trying to push this,
this fake, a false identification.He just told the truth. You know,
he had he had you know,yeah, he had. He had
nothing to gain either way. Hecould have said I didn't see anything,
you know, instead of admitting,well, you know, I was coming

(24:41):
home from a date. What wasyour wife with? You know it was
a date, and uh, hehad nothing to say. We also spoke
with lawyer baub Biman about whether ornot he believed that Everett ever really claimed
to be an eyewitness. Ever,never professed to be an eye witness.

(25:03):
All he mean, he was prettycredible about what he said and pretty consistent.
All he said was from way faraway, I saw the dark outline
of a nose structure. That's allI saw. And when he was asked
whose nose looks most like it,and given a limited number of choices,
he said is When he testified,all he did was reconfirmed that he had

(25:27):
picked David Duallaby's nose out of anarray of five noses. The state never
asked him, and I don't thinkNatcheck ever asked him, and probably should
have on cross examination, do yousee a nose in this courtroom today that
looks like the one you did?He never actually pointed a finger at David

(25:47):
Duallaby and said that's the nose Isaw. All he said was his nose
was the most like the one Isaw. So Yes, eyewitness testimony is
totally unreliable in many cast but that'snot what man was. He was never
an eye witness. He was anose. Once under direct examination by the

(26:07):
prosecution, ever, it admitted thathe wasn't sure if the nose he saw
that night belonged to a man ora woman. He additionally admitted that he
couldn't be sure whether the nose belongedto a black or white individual. He
conceded that all he saw that nightwas a silhouette that seemed like a mon.

(26:29):
He admitted that the lighting in thecar park that night wasn't the best.
Additionally, Everett said that the manhe had seen that night was in
a dark colored late model miss sizecar, later describing it as a late
seventies model Malabu Classic, But theDwallabies owned a nineteen eighty peel blue Chevy
Malibu that differed significantly in appearance backwhenever it first came forward as a witness,

(26:55):
police had shown him photographs of onecar, one pickup truck, and
two v The jury were informed thatall of the vehicles shown to Everett were
vehicles driven by the Duallabies. Thecar with Cynthia's Chevy Malibu, the van
was d of its Ford pickup truck, and the two vans were day of
its employer's vans. Of course,ever picked out the Chevy Malibu as the

(27:19):
car he had seen that night.He claimed that he recognized the car because
his Air Force sergeant in the nineteenseventies, Ralph Steyer, had owned a
similar car. The Defense had trackedthe sergeant down and he had sent them
a photograph of his car at thetime. It was a bright red two
door nineteen seventy six Malibu with asloped back in silhouette. It bore absolutely

(27:45):
no similarities to the Duwallabies car.Yet the defense had an audio recording of
Everett claiming that the cars were exactlythe same. While Everett had said that
the car in the parking lot thatnight with dark in color, the photograph
of the car he had picked outwas of course light in color, since

(28:06):
it was Cynthia's pale blue Chevy Malibu. When questioned aboid the discrepancy, Everett
once again reiterated that the lighting inthe car park wasn't the best, so
he speculated that a light colored carcould pass as a dark colored car under
the circumstances. Cross examination by metricwould follow. He had requested a short

(28:29):
break, but Judge Neville denied itand ordered him to begin his cross examination.
First of all, he questioned Everettaboid his background in the military.
He fumbled across his words several times, leading to confusion among those in attendance.
At one point, Metchick conferred atthe defense table and received a piece
of paper filled with questions that Frankshad scribbled down in a bid to assist

(28:55):
Metric. Before the trial, ithad been uncovered by the investigator for the
defense, John Waters, that Everetthad undergone psychological testing, but the findings
had not been allowed to be enteredas evidence as it was deemed irrelevant.
Despite this, Magic tried several timesto bring up the psychological testing, and

(29:17):
each time the prosecution audibly rejected undetered. Magic then turned his attention to Everett's
desire to join the police force.Everett's biggest ambition in life was to become
a Chicago police officer, but hewas rejected three times to have which were
for psychological reasons. Under cross examination, Everett admitted that he had lied about

(29:41):
his address on voting records, aswell as a number of applications he had
made to police. The purpose ofthis was to highlight that Everett was not
a reliable witness. I don't thinkhe ever ever claimed to be an eyewitness.
I think his story where he didn'treally change over time. He simply

(30:02):
said, I saw a car thatI can't really identify except by basic shape.
I saw a person in the car. He couldn't tell if the person
was black, white, male,or female. So he never was an
eyewitness that I saw David Duallaby.He said, I saw a prominent nose.
And then they put together a verycrude photo array of five or six

(30:26):
people and said, which of thesefive people have the nose most like the
one you saw? The picture theyused of David was twenty percent bigger.
The headshot that they used of Davidwas twenty percent bigger than the headshots of
the other four guys, and soby definition, it was the biggest nose
on the photo array. And whenMan was shown it, he said,

(30:48):
yeah, this guy here, whowas David Duallaby, has the nose most
like the nose I had seen.And then as an aside, he said
to Pat O'Brien, the prosecutors it, but your nose looks even more like
it. So Man, who's nevera credible eyewitness, It was just leaked
to the press that they had aneyewitness when they actually had to put him

(31:11):
under oath and have him testify.They couldn't now spin it as if they
were doing to the press. Theyhad to let him say what he was
going to say, and all hecould say was I saw a nose.
Actually he saw the outline or theshape of it. While Everet's eyewitness testimony
had been severely discredited, Magick hadperformed his cross examination inadequately, and David

(31:37):
made sure to let him know thathe was upset. This should have been
the moment the prosecution's kiss was blownto shreds, but it was a lockluster
performance. Magic apologized to David andbloomed his nerves. When you're fighting for
someone else's life, there is notime to be nervous. On the third
day of the trial, O'Brien andBelchick led that you and Judge Neville by

(32:01):
bus to the apartment complex where Jacqueline'sbody had been discovered. They pointed out
the location where her body was disposedof, around three feet behind the dumpster
and into the weeds. They wereadditionally shown at the vantage point where Everett
had seen the man with the prominentnose in his car. While Everett had

(32:22):
witnessed the car and the man ata round two fifteen am. The jury
embarked on the scene at noon.The jury additionally took a tour of the
Duallabies home. By this point itwas sold and the new owners were living
in it. The jury all gatheredaround the twenty inch long fourteen inch high

(32:44):
basement window on the east side ofthe house to get a better idea of
the size of the window. Theywere then taken inside the home, where
they were shown the basement, eachbedroom, the kitchen, the living room,
and the bathroom. Cynthia and Daviddid not attend the viewing, as
Attorney Hyman said, they felt theyjust went through so much it would be

(33:04):
too much to go through. Backin court the following day, Holly Deck
testified as a defense witness. Hollydescribed herself as a nosy neighbor, and
this often vexatious treat would prove tobe in favor of the defense. Holly
lived at three six four four Westone hundred and forty eighth Place in Midlothian,
next door to the Duallabies. Whileshe knew Cynthia and David, they

(33:29):
weren't too specially close, As Hollysaid she had no children and they didn't
necessarily have much in common. Theywere still jovial to one another, and
Cynthia would sometimes buy avon products fromHolly. She first of all told the
jury that on the afternoon before Jackline'sdisappearance, she had seen laundry on the
washing line in the Duwallaby's backyard,including Jacqueline sheets. She described her Later

(33:51):
that night, she and her husbandwent to the local video store to print
some movies. She recollected how itwas a Friday night because the video store
offers a deal on Friday nights werewho can rent three movies for six dollars.
It was around ten thirty when shegot back home. Holly recalled that
there were cars parked up and downboth sides of the street, which was
extremely uncommon in the quiet residential area. While Holly didn't know it at the

(34:15):
time, one of her neighbors hadbeen having a tubberware party, and the
abundance of cars had belonged to guestsof said party. After commenting on the
flurry of activity in the neighborhood,Holly and her husband sat down to watch
the movie. She said that atsome point between eleven PM and twelve am,
her four dogs began to bark andgrill at their side door, which

(34:37):
was the door facing to all ofits residents. Their hackles were up,
which indicated that they had become alertedto something or somebody. She described how
the four dogs began pacing back andforth, and recounted that the dogs had
only ever behaved this way when therewas a stranger present. She also confirmed
that the dogs had met both Cynthiaand David on numerous occasions and had liked

(34:58):
them. In fact, their Chiuoua, which Holly described as the meanness of
the dogs, had been especially fondof Jackline. Holly's husband went out onto
the porch to try and ascertain whatthe dogs are barking at. He turned
the porch light on, but hadbeen unable to see anything suspicious. According
to Holly, the barking had goneon and off for approximate an hour before

(35:19):
they finally settled. The couple watchedmovies before going to bed. At round
one thirty a m. Forty minuteslater, Holly woke up. She went
to the bathroom and then went toget a glass of water from the kitchen.
While here, she looked out thewindow to see whether the cars in
the neighborhood had left. She noticedthat they had except for one, the
Duallaby Chevy. The car stood outto her because it had been parked awkwardly

(35:40):
at an angle overhanging their driveway.Holly's eyewitness account contradicted Everett Man's eyewitness account
because it was around this time thatEverett said that he had seen the Duallaby
Chevy at the crime scene in BlueIsland. In further testimony, Holly described
her the following morning after she discoveredthat Jacklin was missing. She'd been looking
out her window when she saw Cynthiabeside the shattered basement window. She told

(36:04):
the court, I saw her standingat the broken window. I was talking
on the phone to my girlfriend andI said, I'm nosy. I was
looking out the window and there wasCindy and she was pointing at the window,
jumping up and down. I meanshe was very upset about it.
Another witness to contradict Everett's claim ofseeing the Dwallaby's car at the crime scene
was another neighbor of Cynthia and DavidBrian Anderson. Brian took to the witness

(36:28):
stand to describe how he had seenthe Dwallaby's car parked in the same position
on the night the Jacklin disappeared andthe following day. Brian told the jury
that the neighborhood been crowded with carsfrom his wife's tupperware party when Cynthia pulled
up at some time after seven pm. He had watched out the window as
Cynthia squeezed her car into one ofthe very few small spaces that were left
outside. She parked her car inan awkward position, overhanging her driveway by

(36:52):
around one foot between two other cars. Brian told the jury that he watched
Cynthia parking because he was worried thatshe may hit one of the other car.
At around eight am the following morning, Brian went outside to wash his
car. He told the jury thathe backed the car out of the garage
and about halfway down his driveway.From here, he said he noticed that

(37:12):
Cynthia's Chevy was still overhanging her drivewayin the same awkward position as the night
before. This was the second witnessto indicate that the car had not been
driven during the crucial time period fromwhen Jacklin was lasting alive to when she
was discovered to be missing. Brian'swife, Eileen Anderson, was also called
as a defense witness. She toldthe jury that her mother in law arrived
at the party a little after sevenpm. Shortly after she arrived, another

(37:37):
guest knocked on the front door.Eileen told the jury that when she let
the guest in, she noticed Cynthiapulling up in the Chevy. She says
she stopped for a moment to watchCynthia park because her mother in law had
taken Cynthia's usual spot in from theDawallabe home. According to Eileen, there
was very little room for Cynthia topark. She said, so I saw
her backing in and I kept anironer just to watch that. She didn't

(37:59):
tap my They're in lost car atall. Much like her husband. Eileen
said that the nose of Cynthia's carwas overhanging her driveway due to lack of
space. A portion of the trialfocused on David. When David was told
that Jacklin was found dead after he'dbeen interrogated for hours, he asked,
was it in a field? Theprosecutors alleged that this meant that David knew

(38:20):
where Jackklylin was the entire time.However, when David was told about Jacqueline's
body being discovered, he suspected thatthe police were trying to get him to
confess. According to FBI agent AlfredHarman, David allegedly said, you think
you've gotten me broken down. Youthink I'm going to confess, but I'm
not. Furthermore, David had beenreferencing the prediction made by the psychic Linda

(38:43):
Patrine. Under cross examination, agentHarbin admitted that he did not take any
notes during the four hour interview atDavid, wherein he was informed that Jacklin's
body had been found. Linda hadalso been called to testify at the trial.
Yeah, the idea is that umwith David, it was like my

(39:05):
testimony. It was to help thenrealize that everything that he said, that
they said only the murderer would know, I had given them given him.
When they called to tell him thatthey had found her body, he started
telling them about my reading and saidwhat she found in this field. You

(39:25):
know, I drawn the trees andfull foliage and everything, and that it
would be like therefore summer, whetherthe grass would be I I saw the
garbage cans, I saw the buildingthat was off the to the right,
and that's of course where she wasn'tmurdered, where her body was placed and
m it was upon that. Iremember Cynthia and John Waters talking to me

(39:51):
when they came to the house herethat unfortunately, they used that to say
that only the killer could have knownthese details, and that to me was
so wrong because I had offered thattoo. The officer, I please let

(40:12):
your personnel that I made it.I know you're not able to talk to
me, and I'm leaving, butI did make extra copies of the tape.
I have a drawing of the murderscene and stuff, so if they
want that, because he was toldhe couldn't take it. I mean,
he was told not to to eventalk to me or address me by the
chief. And it was just itwas sad because in court that's one of

(40:40):
the things that came out was didI think it was right by this?
Ped O'Brien was yelling at me atthat point because it was toward the at
the very end, and he said, I, if I had this gift,
why were there in solve cases inthe Chicagoland area around it? If
I had the visions and could bethis accurate, and I saw how many

(41:06):
cases do you think a person canhandle? I still have to work.
I have a family, you know, I mean, but I never lost
my composure, and I think thathe did. But his was absolutely beat
red. He's flung himself at thedesk. That was like, you know,
we're between me and the stand wherehe was at. He's hitting the
desk and he's going off and goingon about this and why then then his

(41:31):
next comeback, because he's so flustered, was that, why wouldn't I have
given this to the police department andand if I had this, and I
said, but I did offer itmore than once. It was it was
brought up to them when I wascoming and I brought it up to an
officer, and an officer called inand was told no, they weren't interested

(41:53):
in it. So I said,okay, I have it. If they
wanted it, let me know.I can probably glad to send it.
But I was never contacted by Hewanted to rattle me because he was yelling
at the judge the day before sayingit's she can't take a stamp in this

(42:15):
court. And he goes and thejudge says, well, why do you
say that, because she's not aproven science. And the judge says,
well, that's why I'm here interviewingher to find out what she's done.
This is not she's not on trialor anything. This is just getting her
background, me firing questions and puttingher in situations. And he did.

(42:39):
The judge asked me a zillion thingsabout how did I get started? How
did I pulled into doing murder casework? It was, I said,
not willingly. I loved being ableto help people, so it was just
phenomenal that I had all these gifts. So and that's why I think all

(43:02):
the press put such a focus onme, because anything happening in the case
that was unique to make it bigger. And the fact here is a clairvoyant
psychic taking stand, not as aproven science, and we're not recognized to
usually take a stand at that timein a murder case because we aren't a

(43:22):
proven science. All of a sudden, you got to judge ruling in my
favor. From the meeting to daybefore that, he felt I was qualified
and felt that I had no reasonto not discuss whatever they were going to
bring up to me. I wason the stand and we didn't know what

(43:44):
they were going to do, theprosecutors. I was just told to answer
the questions, and I meditated beforeI went in, hoping that when I
meditated that I could stay clear andnot yet nervous, because it's crazy when
you sit in an apart room andyou see all these reporters in there,
filling bench after bench, and you'rerecognizing people when you watch the news,

(44:09):
it's nerve wracking. And then you'reyou're dealing with a child's case and somebody's
being going to jail. So itwas a major responsibility. She took the
courtroom to the evening she met withCynthia and David on the twelfth of September.
She described her she was welcomed intothe home and taken to the basement

(44:30):
and to Jackline's room. Linda toldthe court that she had asked Cynthia and
David to invite the police down tothe reading. However, the police had
turned in the offer. She statedthey weren't interested in sending anybody inside Jacklin's
bedroom. Linda had told David thatJacklin would be found strangled in a field

(44:51):
with high weeds. She said thatbefore leaving their home that evening, she
asked Cynthia for something of Jacklin's,preferably something that she had written. Cynthia
handled Linda a picture of Mickey Mousethe jack and had colored in on the
night she vanished. Following Jacklin's funeral, Linda spoke with Cynthia once again and
she inquired as to whether she couldbe given an item of clothing of Jacklins

(45:13):
as well as something that Jacklan hadwritten. An informed her that these items
could potentially lead to a better reading. Cynthia was arrested before Linda received any
of these items. Cynthia was forit. Gave me her underpants and then
drawing, and it was I thinkshe had already been They thought it was

(45:36):
at because they found that in herpurse. Who what mother would carry her
daughter's underpants and something she drew unAs she was guilty, sadly and trying
to help them and kind of hurtthem, which I felt really bad about.
And that was why I had togo to court, was to under

(45:57):
you know, swearing in and everythingthat I had this and what made it
bed was that the stuff I hadgiven to David, that he gave the
lawyer got lost. In further testimony, State Police Captain Daniel McDevitt admitted that
a high percentage of the leads thatthey had investigated into the case targeted Cynthia
and David. When he was crossexamined, the defense tried to show the

(46:21):
jury that as soon as Jacqueline's bodywas discovered, police gave up on trying
to find other suspects or investigate otherleads because they suspected that David and Cynthia
were involved. The prosecution implied theJacqueline had been killed in her bed and
that was why she had no bedsheets. Cynthia had washed jacqueline sheets and

(46:45):
intended to make the bed, butshe was called into work and never got
the chance. Before Jackline went tosleep that night, the sheet was on
the line. A neighbor confirmed thatshe saw it there that day. I
Mean said that an intruder broke intothe home of Jacqueline through a basement window.
Hyman said that an intruder broke intothe home through a basement window and

(47:07):
abducted Jacqueline while her parents slept.They compared it to a similar incident that
occurred almost exactly a year later,when Perry Hernandez broke into a Blue Island
home and took a little girl fromher bed while her parents slept. The
prosecution denied this. They did notbelieve that anyone came through the window.

(47:28):
On a moonless Wednesday night, threeweeks into the trial, jury clambered into
a bus where they were driven outto the same parking lot that Everett claimed
he saw David. Police officers circledaround the jury to protect them from the
plethora of spectators, reporters, andphotographers that had embarked on the scene.
The jury stood at the same vantagepoint under similar conditions from which Everett claimed

(47:53):
to have seen the car. Itwas two am, and the jury stood
seventy five yards away from where Everettallegedly made it out David's no structure and
car. Well, what could thejury see when glancing seventy five yards away
next to nothing? They reported,as a matter of fact, they couldn't

(48:15):
even see the dumpster which stood besidewhere Everett claims the car was positioned.
As one observer said, you couldn'teven see Jimmy Durante's nose from that distance.
Before the trial, the defense hadconducted their own experiment at the apartments.
At ten pm on the twenty ninthof September nineteen eighty nine, David

(48:38):
Wallaby sat in the driver's seat ofthe Chevy Malibu at the same spot where
Everett claimed he saw the car.They hired a photographer, Donna Yarborough,
who stood at the spot where Everetthad said he parked. That night,
every single exterior light in that sectionof the apartment complex was turned on,
as well as photographic flood lights thatwere aimed at the position of David and

(49:01):
the car. She turned the videotape on with a lens twenty times the
resolution par of a human eye andrecorded David as they slowly backed out of
the parking space. When they reviewedthe footage, it captured the shape of
the car as well as the color. However, they were unable to discern
a no structure or even the genderof the driver. When they repeated the

(49:25):
experiment using the conditions Everett claimed tosee David under, nothing could be seen
at all. By all accounts,Everett's eyewitness testimony had been severely damaged,
but not in court because that tapehad not been admitted into evidence, and
the tape of Bob Tolberd proving someonecould enter the basement was lost before the

(49:46):
trial had even begun. Thank youfor listening to today's episode of The Shattered
Window. The Shattered Window is acompletely independent podcast, paid for out of
our own pockets. If you'd liketo support the show in return for loads

(50:08):
of bonus content, behind the scenes, merch, and more, then please
check out The Shattered Window on Patreon. The link is in the show notes.
Also, make sure you visit usat the Shattered Window dot com for
more information about this episode, andfollow us on social media to keep up

(50:28):
to date with the case and anydevelopments. If you enjoy The Shattered Window,
it would mean the world if you'dleft us rating or review on Apple
Podcasts or wherever else you're listening.Ratings and reviews are an easy way to
support a show that you enjoy andcan help us reach new listeners. Once
again, thank you for listening,and until next time, take care of

(50:51):
yourselves, stay safe, and havean amazing week.