09: Circumstantial Conclusions

The fight to clear the Dowalibys rages on, but many still doubt their innocence.

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

Show Notes: https://theshatteredwindow.com/09-circumstantial-conclusions

Episode Transcript

(00:09):
And I can say, of thehundreds of cases I have investigated, I
have never seen a competent police investigation. You give them lease photographs, It's

(00:33):
hard to imagine that they wouldn't haveinflamed the jury or aroused the passion of
the jury that we're going to getsomebody for this hosted by Emily G.

(00:53):
Thompson and Eileen McFarlane, This isthe Shattered Window. Shortly after the decision
not to grant David to Wallaby,Bail, Jenner and Block, a giant
and high powered law firm that wasfounded in nineteen fourteen, took over as

(01:17):
David's attorneys. They intended to getan appeal for David and were having four
of their very best attorneys working thecase pro bono, assisted by five law
clerks. Attorney Bob Biman said thatthey often didn't take on high profile and
high publicity cases, but said thatthey needed legal help and they were more
than willing to do it. Healleged that there were a number of flaws

(01:41):
in the evidence that was presented duringthe trial, and stated that David had
very substantial grounds for appeal. Amongthe flaws was the belief that the prosecution
did not prove that David to Wallabywas guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and
that potentially the legal instructions given earlyon in the case may not have been
given properly. It seemed as thoughthe general consensus was that Cynthia and David

(02:01):
were both innocent of the murder ofJacqueline. In fact, Jorge Richard Devil,
who acquitted Cynthia and sentenced David toforty five years, said that he
had received an abundance of letters sincethe trial took place, commenting that approximately
ninety percent of the letters came fromcitizens who supported the couple. Bob Boyman
spoke to us about meaning Cynthia thefirst time that I met Cynthia, and

(02:28):
this was when they were still decidingwhether or not they were going to ask
us to take on the case.At this point, they had used up
whatever savings they had, They'd usedup all the equity in their home.
It had to be pro bono representation. But the case was such a media
hot potato that there were lots oflawyers that would have been willing to do

(02:49):
it. Certainly Hyman and Maycheck andsome of the other lawyers that were already
working on the case, were willingto continue it on a pro bono basis.
So the issue was not can weget somebody to do it? They
had lots of takers to do it, but who's the best person to do
the appeal? And so it wassort of a mutual interview. I was
interviewing her because I still needed totell my executive committee why we should take

(03:13):
the case, but she was interviewingme to find out if she could believe
in me. And of course Iwasn't going to represent her. I was
going to represent her husband, soshe's really his proxy for them. But
she came into my office with Anne, David's mother and Peggy O'Connor. So
I said, at some point,just as in a lull of the conversation,

(03:38):
so Cindy, what are you doingright now? How are you supporting
your family? What are you doingfor income? And she said, my
neighbors have been kind enough, eventhough they don't really need all that much
babysitting, They've been letting me babysit so that I can earn a little
money. And Peggy nodded and shesaid, yeah, we've actually worked out
sort of like a calling tree.People know when's a good time to ask

(04:01):
Cynthia to do it, and itoccurred to me like a lightning book when
she told me the people that knewthese people the best, who lived next
door, were willing to trust theirkids to Cynthia. Then there's no way
Cynthia could have killed her daughter.And these people knew them. So I
don't know what it did to thecommunity in general, but to that neighborhood

(04:25):
it made them, in one waystronger. They banded together and showed what
a great group of people they are. I'm sure I'm getting a little teary
about this. It's a real testamentto their character that everybody, everybody who
knew them stood by them. Yes. As their first action of charge,

(04:45):
Jenner and Block were granted permission byIllinois Supreme Court Justice John stay Moost have
fought a new motion regarding David's appealbond. The motion asked the High Court
to reconsider the decision that David couldnot be released on bond. In mid
September, the Illinois Supreme Court refusedto reconsider the decision in denying David bond.
All the while, David remained incarceratedat the Joliet Correctional Center. Awaiting

(05:09):
placement in a state prison. Hehad been transferred from the Cook County Jail
to the centralized facility in Joliet,where he would be sent to service sentence.
The evaluation would include a psychological examinationand was routine. However, a
local radio station alluded that David hadbeen suddenly moved for psychological examinations, which

(05:30):
was not true. David and hisfamily had hoped that he would be placed
in a prison where he could workand attend college classes. Ideally, the
prison would be close enough so thatCynthia and the children could routinely visit as
David was undergoing his evaluation to determinewhich prison suited him best. Police Chief
William Fisher, FBI Special Agent StephenKrascherski, and Illinois State Police Captain Daniel

(05:56):
mcdivot were awarded the Peace Officer MeritoriousService Award. The award was bestowed on
law enforcement officers based on exceptional performanceof judy clearly above that normally expected,
which has contributed materially to the successof a major project or field operation.
Long and faithful service is not consideredfor purposes of such an award. Three

(06:16):
were given the award because of theinvestigation into the murder of Jacklin and the
arrest and conviction of David. RobWarden spoke about his experience with police investigations.
Every years, half course of investigatedhundreds of hundreds of cases. I
was on a panel a few yearsago with the state's attorney of Lake Kenty,
that's county north of Chicago, andI said, you know, I've

(06:41):
I've never seen a compliment police investigation. And he said, oh, you
don't really mean. What you reallymean is you haven't seen a perfect police
investigation. And I thought about itfor a second and responded, no.
I realized that my sample may notbe the universe, but I can say

(07:01):
if the hundreds of cases I aminvestigated, I have never seen a CompoNet
police investigation. Shortly after, Davidbe sent to the Statesville Correctional Center near
Juliet. The prison is one ofthe very few that have a panoptican design.
This design consists of a rotunda witha guarded perch in the center.

(07:26):
The purposes for the prison guard tobe able to keep watch of all the
inmates. David realized he had bein prison for some time and reluctantly gave
up his earlier promise that he wouldn'tstep foot outside until he was truly free.
He was permitted twelve hours of contactvisits a month, and in the
beginning Cynthia, Davy and Carle cameto see him weekly. Soon after,

(07:48):
the couple decided children were better offnot visiting the prison. It wasn't the
right environment for them, so Davidbegan writing them bedtime stories instead. While
Bob Baimo was putting together his researchfor the appeal, David protests and his
journalism students began looking for similar casesthroughout the country. Initially, it seemed

(08:09):
inconceivable that a child could be snatchedfrom their bedroom in the middle of the
night when everyone else was asleep,but it was actually more common than people
would like to believe. Protests andast students discovered that there had been dozens
of children around Jacqueline's age abducted bystrangers from their beds. On the thirty
first of October nineteen ninety, David'sattorney's falled a motion seeking to have his

(08:31):
murder conviction thrown out based on newevidence. In August, an inmate in
Cook County Jail named Gerald Bowman allegedthat he overheard a conversation between Perry Hernandez
and a Hispanic gang in Cook Countyjail yard back in February nineteen ninety.
Here's what Bowman said at the time, and new we didn't do it that
David, we didn't do it,alright. Lefty was asking Perie Hernandez if

(08:56):
he had done what they were accusinghim about Cynthia DA Wallaby, and he
had said that he had broken intothe wind, you know, he broke
the window and he was making toomuch noise, so he went around the
house and got him through the opendoor. Bowman also alleged that he had
heard Hernandez mentioned Cynthia by name duringthe conversation. Channel Fires Paul Hogan interviewed

(09:20):
Bowman and uncovered a lot of theinformation in a series of investigative reports.
Orry, if what prisoner Gerald Baumantold reporters and lawyers is true, David
D. Wallaby didn't kill his daughterJacqueline, a convicted child molester did,
But now Bauman won't sign a swornstatement about his story, fearing he'll be

(09:41):
killed if he does. The CookCounty States Attorney refuted the statement as a
ploy for Bowman to get more lenientsentencing. According to Assistant State Attorney George
Felchick, there was no merit inBowman's claims, and he said that there
were inconsistencies in his story after filingthe petition and then refused, out of
fear of personal safety, to signthe affidavid, claiming that since the announcement

(10:05):
of his potential new evidence broke,he had received a number of threats.
He said that he would still bewilling to testify in court, and according
to Biman, he hadn't wavered onthe testimony that he had given. Judge
Nevill ordered a hearing to determine Bouman'scredibility because of the seriousness of the charges,
but only if Benmen would agree totestify. During the hearing, Boumen

(10:31):
testified that he had been in theoutdoor exercise area at Cook County Jail at
some point in the week before histwentieth birthday. On the nineteenth of February.
He said he overheard Hernandez implicating himselfin the murder. After hearing the
testimony, Judge Nevill refused to ordera new trial. He stated that the
Cook County Jail record showed that thesection of the jail where Bouman was housed

(10:52):
didn't exercise outdoors that week. Here'swhat prosecutor Pot O'Brien had to say at
the time, he didn't realize it. The date that he picked February fifteenth
of nineteen ninety where he placed thisparticular conversation unknown to him. There were
records kept by the jail which detailone yard activity is permitted by inmates,

(11:13):
and the jail record showed that onthe fifteenth of February of nineteen ninety yard
was canceled, so obviously it couldnot have occurred. David's defense team had
argued that Biomen wasn't sure of theexact date, and said that the incident
could have very well taken place theweek after his birthday. On the nineteenth
of February, Bowman's division did exerciseoutdoors in a rebottle. They had attempted

(11:37):
to call David to testify, butwere thwarted by prosecutors who protested about the
limits of his testimony. Ultimately,Judge Nevill refused to let David testify,
citing that his testimony would have beenconsidered new evidence. They had called on
Bioman's sister and cousin to take thestand, both of whom said that he
had shared the story with them duringtheir visits. Here's a Bob Bioman's about

(12:00):
the Bowman hearing. Our theory,of course, during the Bowman hearing was
that Perry Hernandez actually was the intruderand may have committed the crime, and
the state made it a great dealof the fact, Well, there was
an undisturbed layer of dust on thiswindow, so that couldn't have been the
way somebody got in, and thereforethat dualities must have been lying about the

(12:24):
whole thing and probably broke the windowthemselves to fabricate evidence at the trial.
It's really up to the judge whetheror not that amounts to credible enough and
not prejudicial enough evidence to come inan appeal. It's a deferential standard.
The standard is not, judge,how would you have ruled if this was

(12:45):
presented to you for the first time, unless the judge was completely wacky and
out of his mind. You haveto sustain that because the judge is given
great discretion. So it's a lowerstandard, and that's what was argued by
the state. Look away, forDavid and me, that wasn't enough on

(13:05):
the same day, Biman filed themotion to overturn the verdict. He also
filed a seventy four page appellate briefto seek the outright exoneration of David based
on insufficient evidence. Money were confidentthat Bob Bymen could secure the verdict,
but Cynthia had been let down toomuch to risk putting her faith in the
justice system again. Attorney Byman saidat the time, this is not a

(13:26):
setback to the appeal. The appealmoves forward and we think when it's heard,
we will be vindicating. While Davidand his attorneys were working around the
clock to secure an appeal, Cynthiawas working around the clock to win back
full custody of their children. Shehad been left destitute by the legal battles,
having sold their home to pay theirlawyers. She was now sleeping on
her mother's couch. They had alreadypaid attorney's Magic and Hymen upwards of fifty

(13:50):
thousand dollars, but Hyman wanted more. Cynthia couldn't pay the money, and
Hyman threatened to sue. Bob Bimandecided he would represent Cynthia in the suit
pro bono, and after a phonecall to Hyman threatening to disclose his unethical
bill. The suit was dropped.I think it was a mixture of breed

(14:11):
and frustrated ambition because he wanted tocontinue to represent them and get the publicity.
But he knew in his hearts ofhearts that it was a stupid lawsuit,
and it ended with me just pickingup the phone and saying, Larry,
if you don't dismiss this lawsuit withintwo days, we're going to countersuit,
and it was dismissed within two days. The Freedom Committee were still dedicated

(14:33):
to securing David's freedom and finding Jacqueline'skiller. When Cynthia spoke after the Bowman
hearing about the Freedom Committee's tipline,Prosecutor Pot O'Brien made the following state into
the media hundred three to eight.Dave, we still believe that someone will

(14:54):
come forward with the information that weneed. My reaction is will she called
herself and only confessed to this crime. Cynthia was disappointed, but not willing
to give up. Here's what shesaid at the time. We have suffered
many great losses in the squad roomover the past two years, but we
still believe strongly in the system andthat David will be vindicated. Someone else

(15:18):
called their tip line to inform themthere was a man who looked just like
David who lived and worked at theIslander apartments where Jacqueline's body was found and
where David was apparently identified by hisnose. David Protests went to investigate along
with Rob Worden. Warden had akeen interest in wrongful convictions, having edited
and published The Chicago Lawyer, apublication that exposed wrongful convictions monthly. He

(15:43):
had been following the case through themedia and wanted to learn more. Here's
what Rob said, Basically read aboutit in the newspapers, and my actually
covered the trial, said students tocover the trial maybe became convinced that it

(16:07):
was that David was innocent as wellas Cynthia and um and David, you
know, reached out to me becauseI've done work on these kinds of cases
before, and I uh, andhe and I had worked together on other
matters in the past, and hepersuaded me that this was it was a

(16:32):
good case that we should look into, and we did. When they got
to the Islander apartments, the callertold them that David's look alike was a
man named Roy Pajackie. Roy livedin the building close to the jumpster where
Jackman's body had been found. Healso drove a light colored, mid size
car. The caller thought it mehad been a Pontiac or a Chevy.

(16:56):
After obtaining Roy's mugshot from a marijuanachurch a month after Jacklin had been murdered,
protests and more than planned to showit to Everett Mann. Christmas was
spent without Jackline again, but thisyear Cynthia didn't have David either, and
Davy was still not in her custody. Not having David home for the holidays
is very hard. With our greatestloss this Christmas is not having Jacqueline with

(17:22):
us. The new year brought apositive new update when Kokandy prosecutors drop charges
pending in juvenile court accusing Cynthia ofabusing Davy. According to Cynthia's attorney,

(17:45):
the state knew that they could improvethe abuse allegations, so decided to dismiss
them as opposed to lose. Thiswas a step in the right direction for
Cynthia and Rickyning custody Judge rob UrtSmeersharks had a custody hearing for early March.
During the hearing, Cynthia's attorney accusedthe state's attorney's office of pursuing a

(18:08):
personal vendetta against Cynthia. Doctor RaySchwartz, a criminal psychologist, testified that
there was absolutely new indication that Davyhad been physically or sexually abused, adding
the abused children are often extremely aggressivelyhostile, angry kids, but he never
saw any of that temperament in Davy, and he had been seeing him once

(18:32):
a week over the past two years. In fact, he said that Davy
had severe problems in the past,but completely changed due to the loving influence
of Cynthia. He described how Davyhad nightmares of being kidnapped, but since
being back with Cynthia, those nightmareshad stopped. Two social workers also testified

(18:52):
that Cynthia should be granted custody.Charlotte Wenzel, who was a social worker
and halfs of Our Children Trans Foundationin Oak Park, said that she had
found absolutely no evidence of child abuse, either physical or sexual when Davy was
admitted to the hospital in November ofnineteen eighty eight. Barbara White, who

(19:14):
was a social worker in Children's MemorialHospital's protective Unit for abused children, testified
that Davy would be safe in Cynthia'scare. She had reached this conclusion based
on evaluations of Cynthia's parentdal abilities isthat that Cynthia was a very warm,
loving mother with a lot of genuineconcern. She went on to describe how

(19:36):
Cynthia's eyes lit up when her childrenwere mentioned, and that her effect was
very genuine and very expressive. Cynthiaherself testified on her own behalf emotion came
over Cynthia's face as she said shewould provide a loving and caring atmosphere for
both of her children. She describedDavy and Carley as her strength. While

(19:57):
Cynthia was living in the same houseas her children, she was barred by
court order from spending any time withthem alone. She testified that while she
fully cooperated with that court edict,she still craved to be able to act
spontaneously with Davy and Carly. Ifeel my children should have the same freedom

(20:18):
as other children have to be withtheir parents at any moment, and if
you feel like picking up and goingsomeplace, you just do it, she
said. On the eleventh of March, Cynthia was described by the judge as
a fit willing and capable parent beforegranting her full custody of Davy and Carly.
Judge Robert S. Meershack rejected theprosecution's claims of abuse and declared that

(20:41):
it was no time for the familyto begin to heal itself in earnest.
He also stated that he believed thatMount Sinai specialists had presumed that there was
an abused child and were looking forevidence to support that assumption when no evidence
was actually there. As the verdictwas annoying, Cynthia begone to weep and

(21:03):
embraced her attorneys. Seizing a rareopportunity, ball Biman asked the judge if
the Dwallabies could be permitted to embrace. The judge applied, motioned to hug
granted. I think the state wastotally vindictive about it. I can't blame

(21:26):
the state or the prosecutors for this, but I can blame the system as
part of it. They took Davyon the day that they arrested David and
Cynthia. They took Davy to RushSaint Luke's Hospital, where there was a
woman named Sharon Ahearn that ran afor profit center in this not for profit

(21:48):
hospital. In other words, shehad to turn a profit in her center
in order for her job and herunit to be sustained. And it was
a child abuse cent that the wholepurpose of this center was to find and
treat cases of child abuse. Andso she's brought in the cops saying,
this is the little boy whose parentskilled his sister. We want you to

(22:14):
examine him. And she filled outa chart in which she detailed and I'll
get the exact number wrong, butit was something between fifteen and twenty five
individual abrasions and signs of TROUMP anddetailed them on a medical chart and said,
here's a bruise, there's a bruise, here's a scrape, there's a
scrape. Here's something that looks likeit could be a healed fracture. Put

(22:38):
them all on a chart, onblack and white on a piece of paper.
Unbeknownst to her, before they haddropped Davy off with her, a
police photographer had taken pictures of Davysitting just in his utroun and showed nothing
but unbroken skin. He had twolittle, tiny marks on him, the
kind that any four year old boywould have just from walking around his own

(23:00):
home, the photographs just totally blewout of the water this woman's so called
finding, and she left the staterather than testifying at the juvenile Tribe.
So the whole idea that there wasproof of abuse was ludicrous. Now,
to give the state it's due,the way the laws are written, the

(23:26):
mere fact that a sibling has beeninjured or in this case, murdered in
the household is a sufficient ground tobring a juvenile proceeding because a presumption arises
that the parents weren't able to protectthe sibling and therefore maybe can't protect the
other children in the household. Sothe fact that a proceeding is brought wasn't

(23:47):
all that unusual, but the vitriolwith which the state brought it was personal.
Outside of court, Cynthia said thatthe family were no one step close,
Sir, in ending the nightmare theyhad been living in for the past
two years. Cyndia had understandably beingconsumed with the stress of the custody battle,

(24:08):
but now it was time for thefamily to start healing and focus on
mounting a vigorous campaign to clear David'sname and get him out of prison.
After tracking down the one star witnessfor the prosecution, Everett Mann, protest
Warden and Hogan showed him Roy Padeky'smugshot. Everett conceded that it was very

(24:30):
possible that this was who he sawon that dark night two years earlier.
He also said that all he sawwas a nose and of Roy or even
the prosecutor part O'Brien had their photographsin the lineup he was shown, he
would not have identified David d Wallaby. At some point, actually, my

(24:52):
coel author, my colleague David Promis, professor journalism at Buthwestern, and I
tracked down on this witness, thisNo's witness, a man named Evert Man.
And when we talked to Evert Manand we showed him, we showed
him other photographs, he actually toldus, hey, g if if they'd
showed me the photograph of the prosecutorand I named pet O'Brien rather prominent,

(25:15):
knows I would have identified him insteadof David Blaby. And we took that
to the Channel five and gotal ontelevision. So basically precluded any chance that
they got to be able to thatthis witness would be an eagle to the
retrial and that David could never bereconvicted based on his testimony after that.

(25:36):
But in fact, when he said, if if I'd seen this photograph,
I would have identified him, ofcourse that he had to seen anything.
We couldn't have seen any thing fromthe distance he described. And the police
knew that from the very beginning,and the prosecutors knew it, and yet
they proceeded with the case and madethat guy their star witness. It's just

(25:59):
an absolutely his grace. Paul Hoganran a story discrediting Everett as a witness,
saying the testimony of Everett Mann wasthe only significant difference that led a
judge to declare Cynthia Dwallaby not guiltyand a lay a jury to find her
husband guilty. Tonight, that crucialpiece of the state's largest circumstantial case is

(26:23):
gone. Among those who watched thereport were the appellate judges who would make
the final decision on David d Wallaby'sappeal, and it confirmed what they had
read in Bob Biman's briefs that Everett'stestimony had never been credible. On during
the tenth nineteen ninety one, threemonths after Cynthia was granted full custody of

(26:45):
the couple's children. Biman asked theIllinois appell at Chord to reverse the guilty
verdict. He expressed the belief thatthe evidence presented failed to show that David
was the killer and accused the judgeof unfairly excluding information of the attempt at
abduction that took place just twenty fourhours before Jacquelin's abduction. Additionally, he

(27:08):
argued that the jury was prejudiced bythe graphic crimesne photographs of Jacquelin, as
well as the shocking autopsy photographs thatwere entered as evidence. A typical USAP
pellet argument is time limit. Ordinarilyeach side will get something like fifteen or
twenty minutes, maybe as much asthirty minutes. But time limits are strictly

(27:33):
enforced in most courts. In ourSupreme Court, for example, when the
light goes on at yellow, youknow you have thirty seconds, and when
it goes on at red, youstop. Maybe you finish your sentence if
you have a very nice chief justice, but some chief justices wouldn't even let
you finish a sentence when the lightgoes read. Most appellet courts are maybe

(27:56):
not quite that strict, but they'reclose. But on this argument. When
we got up, Judge Sirta startedoff when we introduced ourselves and said how
much time do you need? AndI said, well, you're honored,
we think we can handle this argumentin thirty minutes, and serted, you
said we'll take whatever amount of timeyou want, which I had never heard

(28:18):
before or since from an appellate court. It's also the only time in the
Illinois appelate Court I think ever.I know it was the first time ever
then, but I don't think it'shappened since. The television cameras were allowed
in the court and the argument endedup lasting about two and a half hours,
and luckily for me, I don'tthink I had to talk much more

(28:41):
than thirty or forty minutes. Ofthat, most of it was the state's
attorney ending off the various assaults fromthe justices asking why such and such a
thing was allowed, such as whywere these pictures of it? There was
such interest in the appellate arguments thatit had to be moved to a larger
courtroom. I'm broadcast on television forthe first time ever. Here are some

(29:06):
of the proceedings from Bob Bieman's argument. Your Honors David Duallaby did not kill
his daughter. He does not knowwho did. Neither David Duallaby nor Cynthia
Duallaby had a hand in the deathof their daughter. And what is most
important, this morning, the statedid not prove that they did. David

(29:26):
Duallaby's only crime was that he sleptwhile whatever events unfolded which took his daughter
out of his home the evening ofSeptember nine, nineteen eighty eight, or
the early morning hours of Saturday,September tenth, nineteen eighty eight. Very
simply, on September nine, JacquelineDuallaby was alive. She was a living,

(29:47):
lovely little girl. On September ten, sometime in the morning, she
was discovered missing at exactly ten fortysix. Because their phone records to show
it, David Duallaby phoned the MidlothianPolice Department to tell them that he had
discovered a broken window and his daughterwas missing. The first officer arrived on
the scene twenty or twenty five minuteslater conducted the first investigation. Within hours,

(30:11):
dozens of police officers joined the investigation. The investigation searching for some leads
into what had happened to Jacqueline Duallabycontinued until September fourteenth. On September fourteenth,
that approximately five thirty a body wasdiscovered in a wooded area near the
apartment complex known as The Island orApartments in Blue Island. That body was

(30:33):
identified as Jacqueline's body. At thatpoint, far from the home was the
body. Body was found in thesuburb of Blue Island. The Duallabies lived
in Midlothian. It's approximately three milesaway. You're honor the body having been
found. The police effort had alreadyfocused on the Duallabies as early as September

(30:53):
thirteenth, the full day before Jacquelinehad been discovered. Debt mister Duallaby was
read his Miranda rights. He hadgiven blood during and fingerprint samples. He
was investigated as a suspect from Septemberfourteenth on. The only viable suspect that
the police had was the Duallabies.Two months later, the day before Thanksgiving

(31:14):
I believe it was November twenty second, nineteen eighty eight, the Duallabies were
arrested and charged with the murder oftheir daughter. The indictment was returned eight
days later from the grand jury.In November thirtieth. The Duallabies eventually stood
trial in May and June of lastyear. At the conclusion of the evidence,
Cynthia Duallaby received a directed verdict fromJudge Neville. David Duallaby's case was

(31:38):
sent to the jury, where hewas convicted both of murder and of concealment,
receiving forty years for murder and fiveyears for concealment. If I could
get back to that interval of time, that mysterious period of time in which
we don't know what happened and whyJacquelin Duallaby was missing from the home.

(31:59):
Of those four facts, the firstwas the fairly innocuous dogs parking. The
second was the testimony of Everett Mann, who at two o'clock in the morning
was pulling into his parking place atthe island Or apartments where Jacqueline's body was
eventually found, and at two o'clockin the morning, from a distance of
seventy five yards away, mister Mannsaw a car which he described as a

(32:20):
dark, late model midsized car.He also saw a person in the car
whom he was only able to describeas a person with a large, prominent
nose structure. The third fact wasthat at precisely the same moment that mister
Mann saw a car and a noseholly deck, the Duallabies neighbors saw the
duallabees car, Cynthia Duallabies car parkedin front of her house. She noticed

(32:44):
the car because it was overlapping thedriveway somewhat unusually. There had been a
party earlier that evening at Tupperware party, and there were other cars parked in
the neighborhood, and Cindy was unableto park where she usually did. And
the fourth fact, the only otherfact that we know about the intervening period
of time was that someone broke awindow in the Duallabies home. Was there

(33:07):
was some testimony about the cobwebs andsome dust. There was testimony about cobwebs
and dust. The testimony about cobwebswas, well, first, let me
deal with the dust, because that'sby two officers. Officer would the first
officer on the scene says that hesaw a thin layer of undisturbed dust on
the silk. Officer Baldwin says thesame thing. Interestingly, Officer Wooder,

(33:28):
when he does his initial investigation report, five places in his report says method
of entry, broken window, andnowhere mentions undisturbed layer of dust. Officer
Baldwin, who is a state policeevidence technician who has an electrostatic dust lifter
and evidence tape and photographic equipment,never photographs the dust or the cobwebs,
putting all of that aside in thisrecord because of a supplemental proceeding we had

(33:52):
in the trial court. We havethe statement of somebody who heard Perry Hernandez
admitt to breaking this window and thenwalking around and going in through a door
because he was making too much noise. So whether or not somebody came through
the window is not the issue.The issue is that the window was broken.
There would have been evidence if thejudge had granted our motion for a

(34:12):
new trial or if we now hadthat evidence story new trial on remand that
the very Perry Hernandez that we thinkas the perpetrator has made an admission that
he was the perpetrator, and thathe broke the window but didn't use it
for egress or entry assistance to itsattorney, David Cuomo argued that the kiss
against David was built on evidence thathe claimed excluded anybody else as the possible

(34:37):
killer. Of Jacqueline. However,he did acknowledge that there was no smoking
gun in the case, but stillstood by the eyewitness testimony despite the fact
it had been severely discredited during thetrial. He questioned the issue in all
of these cases is who had controlof the child. According to Attorney Cuomo,

(34:58):
one of the strongest pieces of evidencewas the David had contradicted himself about
the lasting counter he had with Jacquelineon the night she vanished. Initially,
David said he had talked her intobed the Leader. He testified that he
hadn't entered Jacqueline's bedroom that night becauseJacqueline had been preparing a present for him.
He also said the David had apparentlytold a nearer that it was getting

(35:22):
easier to cope just stays. AfterJacqueline went missing, we spoke with Bob
Biman and he broked on the prosecution'scase for us. Well, I mean
the same tried and thlud arguments thatprosecutors always used, which is the jury
has acted, the jury is entitleda great discretion that the record is sufficient,

(35:46):
and I don't remember them having anystartlingly good arguments. They basically just
said no, there was sufficient evidencebecause man's testimony, I mean there may
hooks where there was man's testimony.There were statements David made that supposedly were
admissions of guilt, and the outrageousnessof that is that these statements were things

(36:10):
like a neighbor would come up tohim and say, how's it going,
David, and he said, well, it was hard at first, but
it's getting better every day, Andthat supposedly was an admission of guilt because
things were getting better already, andthey shouldn't be getting better when your daughter
has only been gone for a weekor two or there was supposedly the statement

(36:32):
David made when he was being interrogatedby the police for hours on end,
when he supposedly said you mean theaccident, referring to Jacqueline's death, saying
aha, he's admitting that there wassome sort of accident he was culpable in
her murder. David denies that heeven used the word accident. He said
he used the word incident. Butwhatever he said, how you can twist

(36:58):
that into an admission of guilt,And yet that's what prosecutors do. So
on the appeal they argued there werethese admissions of guilt. There were these
unexplained gaps in their story or inconsistenciesin their story. There was Everett Mann
saying that he saw it the nosethat looked like him. Supposedly, the

(37:22):
broken window was an admission of guiltbecause somebody must have broken it, and
yet it couldn't have been an intruderbecause there was dust on the sill well
that was disputed evidence. It wasannoyanced that the First District Illinois Appellate Court
would be expected to decide the fitof David after hearing the arguments of both

(37:44):
the State on the defense. Justiceis closely questioned both sides in a hearing
under appellet court rules, both theState on the defense or given twenty minutes
to present their arguments on the keys, and then another ten minutes to reboot
the position. David's attorneys argued atleast ten issues before the court, and

(38:05):
the four major points that they raisedwere the jury had used insufficient evidence to
convict David. Judge Neville had issuedillegally inconsistent instructions to the jury after finding
Cynthia not guilty. The Stiet's starwitness, ever at Mahnn, had been
diagnosed with monic depression, and hissymptoms included exaggeration and even seeing things that

(38:28):
did not exist. The Stiet's useof gruesome photographs to inflame the jury,
but there was not a single reasonwhy they had to come in. Doctor
Stein testified to every single fact thathe had in his armament of information,
and then he went back, notbecause he needed the photographs to illustrate a
point, but merely because the photographsamplified and inflamed the very points he made.

(38:53):
Justice is Griman and Rizzie asked Cuomoto justify showing the jury seventeen atographs
of Jack lindsday composing body. Hereis that exchange? Well, let's ask
you, does it do these proofto identify the victim? Is there any
question of the identity as victim?Is there any proof of corpus delecta that
you need these pictures for? Ibelieve there was an issue as to that,

(39:15):
Yes, and I'll tell you whatit is. I believe that it
was, and the defendants disputed thecause of that the trial they cross examine
doctor. Don't show you the causeof yet, do they? They just
grew some pictures they in that theyexclude certain elements that alternative causes of death.
Yes, they do. They tendto show, let me ask,

(39:35):
they show the extent of the injuryor the condition of the body. They
don't show you that, do theyThey show the extent of the decomposition.
I'll understand, But that has nothingto do any If you put anybody,
someone who who died of any causeout in a field, they're going to
decompose and they're probably going to behave infestation by by some kind of animals.
Right, Yes, nothing to dowith with with the crime that is

(39:58):
alleged. Right, yes, itdoes. Because the defendant's disputed the timing
of her death. They created thispicture that she could have been taken from
the house Biden Truter seventeen pictures.Seventeen pictures. None of that has anything
to do with what you're saying.None of this is this pictures they made
do with that doesn't Yes, itdoes. I believe that every sense tells

(40:20):
you whether she was tar was yourbound and gad I inferentially at the time
of death. Right it does.Does it illustrate the character the weapon that
might have been used, or themeans of the man are used. They
don't show that do they. Yes, it does. It does in the
sense that it excludes, for instance, a gunshot moon. It does in
the sense it excludes, for instance, a knife as best as we don't.
No, no, wait, youcan look at these pictures all day

(40:43):
long and you can't tell whether whetherthere's a gunshot wound. Does this barely
this pict these pictures barely show ahuman being, counsel. You cannot tell
whether I can. I've looked atthese pictures. You cannot tell whether they're
whether this was a hatchet murder ornot. Frankly, by looking at these
pictures, now, will I think, does it show up? Does it

(41:05):
shed light on motive? No,the shed light on intent. Yes,
it does in the sense that herbody was sort of concealed behind some bushes
and trees and undergrowth or what haveyou. The fact that she was hidden
there would relate that the murderer didnot want it to be known that he
had done this, Which that mightbe true. That might be true as

(41:28):
far as the one picture where she'swrapped in a blanket and put there.
But these other things, physical nature, some of them take it him more.
That wouldn't show where where it waswhat. No, But again,
it would show. Do they determinethe atrociousness of the act? No,
that does not. So the factis that they have no probitive value.
I mean you can The fact isthey simply don't have any probitive value.

(41:52):
I don't believe that. I believethat Judge Neville found that they have probitive
value on the issues I've been discussingon. That's what we're fining to determine
and whether or not his ruling wascorrect. And I'm just suggestive to I
just don't see what probateive value theycould possibly have had they have probitive value
in the time of her death,which the defendants disputed they have probate Doctor

(42:12):
Stein testified to all of this.Let me ask you another question, assuming
that they do have probdive value.I can't imagine that they do. But
suppose that they do, and whenwe deliberate on the case, I'm not
making a commitment now is there makingany ruling one way? But let's assume
they did have probriate value. Whydid they go to the jury room.

(42:36):
Even if they are admissible into evidence, that doesn't mean they go to the
jury room. It was up toJudge Deville to way the probitive value against
the prejudicial effect, and I thinkin this case that's for the admissibility of
the photographs. But let me askyou something. Those having seen him in
evidence, having heard doctor Stein testify, they also saw a slide in evidence,

(43:00):
a slide of some of this stuff. Yes, they did. Now
why does that have to go tothe jury room? And when the jury
deliberates, don't you think that that'sinflaming the jury? The slides to Neco
know that they saw the slides duringthe trial of this type of photography.
Weren't they slides of this? Doyou have these photographs or similar type photographs

(43:21):
some of them some of them arealso So they saw all of that during
the trial. Now, just whenthe jury goes back and deliberates, you
give them these photographs. It's hardto imagine that they wouldn't have inflamed the
jury or aroused the passion of thejury that we're going to get somebody for
this. Once both sides had madetheir arguments, it would take the appellate

(43:43):
court anywhere from a week to sixmonths to decide David's fit. One of
David's attorneys, working with Jenner andblock. Terry Trucks said that it was
difficult to ascertain when the three GeorgePannell would haunt jin their decision. However,
he said that he was confident theJustice's dam Rizzy, Alan Greeman and
David Serda were interested in the caseand what they had presented. They had

(44:07):
three options to affirm the conviction,to grant a new trial, or to
reverse the conviction outright. The decisionwould take months to be made public,
and so David spent another summer inprison. David turned seven, he offered
his birthday money to his dad,who had his belonging stolen during a prison

(44:28):
riot. Most of the Dwallaby supportersbelieved that the decision would be to grant
a new trial, and so protestsand Warden undertook the task of dismantling the
prosecution's case piece by peace in thepublic eye. If there was a retrial,
the circumstantial evidence would not hold theweight it originally had. Joe Cosmon

(44:49):
spoke about how he felt the mediaflipped from targeting the Dwallabies to targeting the
police. You know, at first, yeah, I think they were they
really were going after the parents,and then after the convictions now all of
a sudden, they switched where theywere going after law enforcement. But you
know, the media is going todo what the media is going to do
in law enforcement. You just haveto ignore it and just do what's right

(45:12):
and do your job. I'm notsure I buy into there was media bias.
We had pretty good media those days. We had pretty good people covering
this thing, one of the best. And be sure and ask Dave Protests
about this. But there was aguy named Paul Hogan, the main investigative

(45:35):
reporter for the probably the premier televisionstation. He didn't have any bias.
His bias was, let's find thestory. There was a guy named Phil
Rodgers who was the main radio guy. He didn't have any media bias.
He was just trying to cover thestory. Most of these, most of
the people that I met, andI ended up dealing with almost all of

(45:58):
the press Chicago press during the courseof this. I didn't see anybody that
started with a bias one way orthe other other than for the truth.
But they were lied to by theprosecutors or they were starved one of the
two. They certainly weren't told anythingexculpatory, and so they reported what they
had, and the press started toturn when the press realized at the trial

(46:22):
there's no substance here, and afew of the reporters actually said that the
statement dav It supposedly made avoid thingsgetting easier was that he said, it
was really hard at first, butit gets easier day by day. Colin
Jones Goodwin claimed that day of Ithad said this to her before Jacqueline's body

(46:45):
had been fined, while he andnext door neighbor Bob Toolbert were boarding up
the Brooken basement window. As itturned out, however, this conversation Hobbin
hobbened until after Jacqueline had been fined. While Toolbert had been ready to refute
the prosecution's witness claim a trial,the defans had failed to call him as

(47:06):
a witness. When he was arrestedfor Jacqueline's death and was sent to the
county jail. People wanted to killhim. They were reaching through bars,
they were screaming baby killer at him. They were calling him the most horrible
names. Because the prisoners in thecounty jail had only seen the media coverage

(47:29):
from the law enforcement point of viewat the time of David's arrest, but
the trial happens, and all theevidence that was supposedly out there and implicated
the Wilby turns out to be false. Suddenly, David becomes a hero to
prisoners because he's now a wrongfully convictedman. Basically, the same group of

(47:51):
prisoners completely changed their mind based onthe flipping of the media coverage from guilty
to the innocent. In another dramaticturn to what had become one of the
most paradoxical an unusual murder sagas inChicago's modern day history, David's murder conviction
received an outright reversal. On thethirtieth of October nineteen ninety one, the

(48:15):
Illinois Appellate Corps panel unanimously overturned themurder and concealment verdict on the grounds that
there was insufficient evidence against David.This was the first time in six years
that the appellate court would declare aconvicted murderer not guilty. The appellate Court
had ruled the key witness testimony wasvague and unreliable. Additionally, it was

(48:39):
ruled the prosecutors did not prove withouta doubt that David was the only person
who had the opportunity to murder Jacqueline. They also noted that all of the
basement windows were unlocked on the nightof her disappearance, giving a plethora of
entry points for an intruder if thebroken window was not dam a viable entry

(49:00):
point, like the prosecution had argued. They also questioned the validity of the
circumstantial evidence that had been used toconvict David and ruled that the facts presented
by the prosecution had failed to provethat David could have committed the murder.
They additionally agreed that an intruder verywell could have entered the home and committed

(49:22):
the crime, either a stranger ora different family member. The appellate Court
panel held the Judge Nevill should havehanded down a verdict to David of not
guilty, while Justice David Cerda saidthat in his professional opinion, the trial
evidence could not have proven beyond areasonable doubt that David had murdered Jacqueline.

(49:44):
In a twenty one page opinion,the court ruled that Judge Neville should have
acquitted David before the case went tothe jury. They stated that opportunity alone
is not sufficient to sustain a convictionunless the state can prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that no other person had theopportunity to commit the crime. They concluded

(50:05):
their opinion by staring, although thereare many unanswered questions, we concluded that
the totality of the evidence is notsufficient to prove David guilty. David's attorneys
were seeking immediate release, but O'Malleysaid that he would be opposing the immediate
release. This meant that the prosecutionhad twenty one days to seek an appeal

(50:28):
or David would be granted freedom toreturn home to his family. As expected,
O'Malley filed an appeal opposing the releaseof David. He stated that the
twelve jurors who served on the trialwere best suited to determine who murdered Jacqueline,
and argued that the three justices onthe appellate court panel looked only at

(50:49):
the cold record, while the juryheard witnesses and saw the evidence firsthand.
The state attorney O'Malley announced that hismain argument was at the wrong style had
been used to reverse the murder conviction. He stated that the three justice panel
had been required to hold that norational person could have reached a conclusion of

(51:09):
guilt after seeing prosecution evidence in itsbest light. He stated that a very
exact standard should be used and hefelt as though it hadn't been applied in
the decision to reverse the conviction.When Biman was informed that O'Malley had filed
the appeal, he said that itwas a long shot and suggested that he

(51:29):
may have received some bad advice onthe appeal. He rebutted that the appellate
court had used the correct standard andinstead put forward the suggestion that it was
O'Malley who had applied the wrong standard. After O'Malley's decision to appeal was made
public, David spoke with w LSTVand said, technically, I'm innocent.

(51:52):
How can they keep an innocent manin jail while they argue about this while
the ovid still behind bars. Thedecision was a monumental one. Cynthia praised
the decision and was ecstatic to knowthat they could soon be a family once
again. She placed a sign inthe front window which read It's unanimous David

(52:14):
is coming home. The phone atthe Duallaby household was constantly buzzing and an
aura of excitement emanated in the air. Cynthia and the other members of the
family wore t shirts with Dayvid's faceand blazoned on the front with the words
stopping justice, Free David Duallaby.Masses of reporters crammed into David's sister Rose's

(52:36):
home for a news conference. Orin Cynthia said that their prayers had been
answered and that they were ready toget on with being a family. David
spoke to radio presenters from prison andsaid my reaction. I couldn't be happier.
Maybe when I walked out of theprison, but I'm very happy.

(53:00):
Ever be able to rest until Iknow who killed daughter. I'll never be
able to rest if I'm out ofhere. Maybe I could pursue it.
For the locals, the decision raisedthe specter that a child killer could still
be lurking within their community. Thedwallabies neighbor Mary Tolburn, said that she
knew that somebody else had always beenout there, and she was living in

(53:22):
fear that they would come back andtarget another child. Reversals buy an appellate
court are extremely rare. Out ofmore than one thousand, two hundred Cook
County cases that year alone, thecourt had overturned cases only eleven times.
Revereing courts can often be reluctant tosecond guest key decisions, and appellate panels

(53:45):
more often cite a legal error andthen order a new trial. After a
number of conferences, the Appellate Courtinformed the Cook County States Attorney's office that
they would not be ruling on themotion filed by State Attorney O'Malley. This
meant that David would be kept behindbars for one more weekend. State Attorney

(54:06):
O'Malley subsequently announced that if the AppellateCourt decided to release David on Monday,
and he would be taking his motionopposing his release to the Illinois Supreme Court.
He once again reiterated that the twelvejurors knew best steering. We have
twelve jurors and a trial judge whoheard the witnesses and testimony and came to

(54:28):
a different conclusion that David D.Wallaby was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable
doubt. I don't believe murderer shouldbe out in the streets of Cook County.
If the Supreme Court decided not tohear O'Malley's appeal, then David would
be released a freeman and could notbe retried. If the Supreme Court decided
to hear O'Malley's appeal, then itcould uphold the reversal, reinstate the murder

(54:52):
conviction, or send it back toa lower court for a second trial if
O'Malley was successful in blocking David's release, and David could stay behind bars through
the entire process. On the fifthof November, bond was set for David's
release at four hundred thousand dollars bythe Illinois Appellate Court. However, after

(55:13):
bond was set, Assistant cook ACounty States Attorney Renee Goldfarb took the case
to the Illinois Supreme Court and arguedthat day of its release should be blocked
until the full court could hear thematter. Supreme Court Justice Michael Bellandick temporarily
stayed the order just as David's familyand supporters were preparing to post ten percent

(55:36):
of the bond. They initially hadten thousand dollars short of the bond,
but Rob Warden and David Protests putforward the remainder out of their own pockets.
This meant that David would be stayingbehind bars until the full court could
hear both arguments. Attorney Biman arguedthat the prosecutors had failed to prove that
David would be a flight risk ora danger to society if released, which

(56:00):
or two guidelines to keep somebody incarceratedwhilst he had. Attorney Gouldfarb argued that
David had been convicted of murdering achild and therefore did pose a danger.
Ultimately, the Illinois Supreme Court turneddawned the motion to keep David behind bars.

(56:21):
Pretty unusual, but this case wasreversed outright. In the vast majority
of cases, the appelate court merelyfinds that there was some error at the
trial or something prejudicial happened, andtherefore the verdict was unjust, and so
they remained the case for a newtrial. In this case, the appelate

(56:45):
Court found the evidence so lacking thatit reversed the case outright, freeing David
without any chance of a retrial.At nine thirty am on the twelfth of
November nineteen ninety one, after servingeighteen months, one week, and three
days in custody, a tired buttriumphant David walked out of state filled prison

(57:07):
a freeman. He and Cynthia hada private reunion inside the guards station before
stepping outside to a congregation of reportersthat had gathered, David joked that he
was looking forward to having a juicysteak and couldn't wait to spend some time
with his two children, Davy andCarly, who had never seen her father
as a freeman until now. Hesaid, at one point, I calculated

(57:30):
how old my kids would be ifI spent fourty years in prison. Who
was depressing. David additionally vowed tosearch for Jacklin's killer and said that Jacklin
was always in the back of hismind and he wanted to visit her grave
and bring her some flowers. Whenasked what he would say to those who
still believed that he was guilty,he said, it's very hard. It's

(57:50):
probably impassible to prove your innocently andall doubt. I don't know if I
can convince everyone, then that probablynot. It was thanks to Bob Biman
that David was free. Bob remembersthat day was one of the highlights of
his career. I went to anearly fundraiser for the family, and I

(58:13):
did something that no lawyer would everdo without committing complete malpractice. But I
promised that group that I was notonly going to get the conviction overturned.
That I was going to walk Davidout and get him exonerated. And I
don't know why I made that stupidpromise, but it came true and it
was one of the great moments ofmy life. I got to call David,

(58:37):
but Cynthia had already called him.And then about a week later,
there were still some hoops we hadto jump through because the state took an
immediate appeal to the Supreme Court andthere was an emergency order to keep him
incarcerated. But I finally got tobe the one that processed the paperwork and
walked him out of State Fille.And of course he was immediately mobbed by

(58:57):
the press and I just receded.But a short walk out of the door
into the press squand was one ofthe best trips I've ever taken. From
the prison, Cynthia and David wentback home, where around fifty friends and
family had gathered to celebrate. Davidcut the red and white bracelets from the

(59:17):
Freedom Committee members Risks. Life forthe Dwallaby family had changed exponentially, but
for the sake of David and Carley, David and Cynthia needed to adopt.
David went back to work at Racksdirecting services. Their free time focused on
the children and trying to get themurder case reopened. In an unrelated news

(59:38):
conference, State Attorney O'Malley said thatit was unlikely that the case would be
reinvestigated, stating, he cannot betried again for this case. That's the
bottom line. In February of nineteenninety two, the Illinois Supreme Court refused
to review the State of Pelate Court'sdecision to throw out David's murder conviction.

(59:58):
The decision was a momentous for theDwallaby family and their supporters. From their
home, Cynthia said that now,instead of focusing on the judicial system,
their main focus could be on Jacklineand what had happened to her. When
the decision was made, David hadbeen on his lunch break at Rack's erecting
services. He said that when hefirst heard it on the radio, it

(01:00:19):
didn't sink in. He grabbed fortycents from his pocket and called Cynthia,
but she was out at school anddidn't pick up. Afterwards, he called
a friend, stating that he wantedsomebody he knew to tell him that what
he heard on the radio was realthat he was not going back to prison.
In that instant, the sensational casebecame both an unsolved murder and a

(01:00:40):
wrongful conviction. Linda was new Ski, the juror who recanted and said that
she wished she had prevented the jury'sunanimous guilty verdict, was told the news
by David protests. Here's where heremembers, do you know something? After
the appalled court verdict came down overturningthe jury's verdict and setting David free.

(01:01:07):
The first call I made after Ileft the courthouse was to Linda Wiznuski to
let her know that what she haddone was not in vain in speaking out,
and that David was going to gofree, and who was a very
happy voice on the other end ofthe throne. Later that month, the
Freedom Committee held a party for thedawallabies and their supporters when David was released

(01:01:30):
from prison. The previous November protestshad applauded the collective efforts of those involved.
He said, it's remarkable that lawyers, journalists, and everyday people came
together to make this day possible.You represent the best of America. You
stood up to be counted when somebodyneeded you. That collection of people came

(01:01:52):
together to celebrate David being a freeman. Paul Hogan had been given the title
of Best Reporter by the Associated Pressfor his coverage of the Duwallaby case.
Daniel Franks, the young attorney whoworked alongside Metrick and Himan as David and
Cynthia's legal representation in the original trial, was told by David that he believed
he never would have been convicted ifhe had left Frank's takeover from Metric in

(01:02:15):
the beginning. This is what protestssaid about the people who came together.
The success we had here, Davidbeing free, the family being reunited then
moving home with their lives was andwas really a group effort. It was
a team collaboration that involved not onlyme, but Rob Warden, who was

(01:02:37):
my mentor and editor at Chicago LawyerMagazine, by a couple of my students
at Northwestern University. This ended upbeing a model for my continuing to use
students, an investigative stories, fordoing a lot of the background research,
and most importantly, a guy whodoesn't get nearly enough. Bob Biman,

(01:03:00):
the lawyer who wrote this extraordinary briefthat persuaded the Illinois polic court to do
something that politics almost never do,to outright reverse a case and exonerate the
prisoner. And most of the time, if there's a wrongful conviction, they'll
they'll do what's called remand the caseto the trial court for a hearing to

(01:03:24):
determine actual innocence. They basically saidthat this case is ridiculous and David should
be freed. And you know thattook some courage too. I think the
three Apolot justices are part of ultimatelythe team, but it was Biman who

(01:03:44):
persuaded them. And then there werethe people in the neighborhood, in the
dualities community who stood up to becounted when somebody needed them. They didn't
have to, they were putting themselvesat risk with the police, but they
but they spoke out on David andCynthia's behalf. So I mean, I'm

(01:04:08):
not denying I played a role inthe case, but I really think that
we're credit as though it's it's tothis odd sort of conglomeration of people who
are to make a difference in thelives of two Winnison people. Bob Boyman
wasn't in attendance, but said thatthe day David walked out of prison,

(01:04:31):
his own three sons had jumped intohis arms and told him how proud they
were. That was worth more thanany fee. It was thanks to win
of Bob's sons that we have alot of the audio from the appellate trial
he had recorded his dad. TheIllinois Supreme Court decision led to a heated
debate between O'Malley and the Appellate CourtJustice dom Rizzy, who had sat on

(01:04:53):
the Tree judge panel that had reversedthe conviction. Appellate Court Justice dom Rizzy
said the the case should have neverbeen prosecuted in the first place, and
that it had been a complete wasteof taxpayers money. While the Duallaby supporters
were relations to the news of David'srelease, the members of the task force
who had secured their arrests were disappointed. Joe Costman spoke about this. Yeah,

(01:05:19):
we were disappointed. Some guys gotangry. You know. My view
has always been if you believe inthe system, you have to believe in
it even when it goes against you. You can't just take the good stuff
and say this is it and everythingelse is wrong. You know, there

(01:05:39):
was some that argued that had gottenit had gotten political when it was reversed,
But the court did what they did, and you know, that's what
can you do. You know,a lot of us were not happy when
Judge Neville dismissed the case against Cynthia. You know, we thought that should

(01:06:00):
have been allowed to go to thejury. We think we thought we probably
would have got it guilty on that. But she was a very pretty lady.
She cried a lot. You know, this is her child, and
you know she had some sympathy,and I think that's why he caught her
loose. The decision meant that Davidcould never be tried for Jacqueline's murder again,

(01:06:24):
but Jacqueline's killer had still not beenfound. Yes, thank you for
listening to today's episode of The ShatteredWindow. The Shattered Window is a completely
independent podcast, paid for out ofour own pockets. If you'd like to

(01:06:47):
support the show in return for loadsof bonus content, behind the scenes,
merch, and more than please checkout The Shattered Window on Patreon. The
link is in the show notes.Also, make sure you visit us at
the Shattered Window dot com for moreinformation about this episode. And follow us

(01:07:08):
on social media to keep up todate with the case and any developments.
If you enjoy The Shattered Window,it would mean the world if you left
us rating or review on Apple Podcastsor wherever else you're listening. Ratings and
reviews are an easy way to supporta show that you enjoy and can help
us reach new listeners. Once again, thank you for listening, and until

(01:07:30):
next time, take care of yourselves, stay safe, and have an amazing week.