Altering evidence? Or preserving pieces of a crime scene? That is the question

A civil court jury in Cook County found it within itself to clear the county sheriff’s police of wrongdoing in the way it handled the body of a 20-year-old woman who was killed five years ago in a car crash in the forest preserves near suburban Oak Forest.


That ruling in Cook County Circuit Court came on Friday, and I’m going to have to respect the judgment because I wasn’t there during the civil trial to hear every bit of evidence for myself.

BUT I HAVE to admit that reading the reports that came from the trial make me wonder about the logic of what was repeatedly called police “protocol” to justify the way the cops handled the scene.

This particular lawsuit wound up getting coverage because the woman killed in the auto accident wound up being stripped partially naked when photographers taking pictures of the scene as possible evidence in future criminal proceedings.

The girl’s mother seems to feel her daughter was violated by such acts, particularly since the fact wound up spurring rumors that the girl was somehow naked and having sex at the time of the car crash.

As it turned out, the driver of the vehicle tried claiming the girl was straddling him at the time – claiming that was what caused him to lose control of the vehicle.

BUT INVESTIGATORS WERE able to show that it was impossible for any such act to have occurred. Meaning the driver, himself, was to blame for losing control of the vehicle. He wound up being found guilty of criminal charges and is now serving a prison sentence. The photographs that were the focus of this lawsuit were supposedly key evidence in gaining his conviction.

Sheriff’s police claimed during the trial that their investigators were merely following the standard procedure for gathering up a crime scene (which is what the accident site near 147^th Street and Oak Park Avenue had become). Since crime scenes are never pretty and often garish, it is only inevitable that the evidence would be less than proper.

I don’t doubt that those crime scene photographers wind up seeing grotesque images that would wind up bothering the sensibilities of the deceased’s relatives.

But I never did read anyone explaining just why some of the photographs of the accident scene wound up showing the girl fully-clothed, and others showed her body moved to a tarp placed on the open ground where she was then stripped partially nude.

MY GUT REACTION is to wonder why this wasn’t construed as tampering with a crime scene – somehow altering the reality of what was there. No clear explanation was ever provided that I am aware of, and now I doubt that one ever will.

Not that it seemed to bother the jury that spent a good chunk of the day on Friday resolving the testimony they heard during all of last week. They seem to want to believe the police behaved professionally. Then again, some people will always argue on behalf of the police, no matter how extreme the evidence against them seems to be.

That is the verdict reached by a jury of peers, and it is what will remain as the outcome of this case – unless someone wants to try taking this to the Illinois appeals court and can come up with a specific bit of evidence that was wrongly excluded during the lawsuit’s trial.

After all, merely not liking a jury’s verdict is insufficient reason to justify granting an appeal.

PERHAPS THE MOTHER realizes that, since I read in newspaper accounts during the weekend that she is pleased she was able to publicly say her daughter wasn’t having sex or being naked or doing anything else that might be considered sordid at the time of her death.

For her sake, I hope she is capable of getting on with her life – which for the past five years and for the remainder of it will be without her daughter.

No amount of money that she might have received from Cook County as a financial reward from her lawsuit would have brought her daughter back.

  -30-

So much for the dream of “Gov. Schock,” which withered away more quickly than ‘Mayor Jackson’

I was as stunned as anyone could be when I learned Tuesday that Aaron Schock had chosen to give up his seat in Congress representing Peoria and other parts of central Illinois.

Of course, I had read the many stories that had cropped up about such offenses as having his Congressional office redecorated in an overly nancy-boy manner and about the trips to New York by he and his staff that were supposedly paid for out of government accounts.

IT ALL STRUCK me as too trivial to think of in a way that would warrant federal investigators to come in and contemplate criminal charges. More like the kind of material that would lead to snickering about Schock behind his back.

But now there is speculation by some people (most of whom are determined to believe the worst) about whether there is some other potential crisis that could crop up – something so severe that he would want to get out now.

Which may be why Schock chose Tuesday to resign his congressional post – likely bringing to an end any political aspirations he (or others) might have had for him.

Those people who figured he’d someday be the Republican nominee for governor of Illinois? It probably ain’t gonna happen now.

SO MUCH FOR the man who, at age 33, already had served six years in the House of Representatives, along with a stretch previously in the Illinois House of Representatives.

That legislative post was something he got elected to at age 23, after also having served on a high school board of education in Peoria prior to that.

The fact that Schock got such an early start in electoral politics (people in their late 30s to early 40s are more typical of first-time office holders) is why some people thought he was destined to be a future governor. By the time he would be ready age-wise to run for such a post, he’d have so much in the way of government experience.

He’d have quite the political resume!

INSTEAD, BY THE time he hits his early 50s (which was about the age Rahm Emanuel was at when he was elected mayor, while new Gov. Bruce Rauner is 58), Schock is likely to be a long-forgotten pol, perhaps remembered like some choose to remember Carol Moseley-Braun!

Maybe we’ll remember that Downton Abbey-inspired congressional office and think it was some sort of political joke?

It may well be that starting out too early in electoral politics can turn out to be a negative – it certainly didn’t turn out to be a plus for Jesse Jackson, Jr.

The civil rights activist’s son got elected to Congress at age 30 and represented that far South Side/suburban district for 17 years. He had all the speculation that he would someday try to become mayor, or perhaps a U.S. senator. Remember the speculation that he tried to “buy” the post from then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich when Barack Obama became president?

NOW I’M NOT claiming Schock did anything that ought to be regarded as illegal. Just pointing out that the political downfall of Jackson (who turned 50 last Wednesday while still serving a federal prison term) is what came to mind when I heard about Schock.

Yet another pol destined for great things whose actual career will wind up falling far short of what was expected. They flamed out before they could achieve the ultimate political goal.

Which makes me wonder if perhaps the ultimate young pol is someone like Tom Dart, the Cook County sheriff. As a reporter-type person, I have known Dart since he was an assistant state’s attorney at the Cook County courthouse in suburban Markham.

He then went to the state Legislature at age 29, where he served for 12 years before coming back home. There was an unsuccessful bid for state treasurer and his contemplation of running for mayor back in 2011 – although he has been sheriff since 2006.

MAYBE SOMEDAY HE’LL shoot for that top political post; probably if Emanuel were to actually be knocked out and he could run in ’19 against a ‘Mayor Garcia.’

Or maybe his personal restraint on political ambition could be what keeps him from doing something in the future that would cause him to whither away and die like Schock and Jackson did?

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: I want to know what becomes of the Aaron Schock congressional office once he steps down March 31 – and how quickly will the future occupant go out of his/her way to redecorate it into some drab, dreary space that truly reflects the government bureaucratic mentality?

Dart the enemy? Or the only one showing sense on concealed carry?

I have no doubt that Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has become the new “enemy,” so to speak, amongst the people who are proponents of more firearms amongst the populace.

DART: Watching out for firearms?

For years, the man that those people tried to demonize was Richard M. Daley. But he’s gone now, so they need a new public official whom they will claim is trying to take away their weapons.

IT PROBABLY WILL be Dart, whose agency, it turns out, is challenging significantly more applications for concealed carry permits than any other law enforcement entity. Permits that likely will actually be issued beginning in March.

Yet when one looks at the numbers realistically, it isn’t so much that Dart is trying to deny people their right-wing judge-given “right” to carry a firearm in public, as that other law enforcement entities are making little effort to deny anyone the state-issued permit that is required for someone to carry a pistol on their person in public for alleged self-defense purposes.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, some 33,631 applications for concealed carry permits are now pending. Of those, only 236 are facing objections by a law enforcement entity on grounds that the applicant has a significant criminal record or a history of mental illness.

Dart will get trashed by some because of those 236 pending objections (which a special panel created by Gov. Pat Quinn will now rule on), 120 of them are from the Cook County Sheriff’s police.

BY COMPARISON, ONLY seven objections were filed by the Chicago Police Department. Twenty five more were filed by suburban police departments in Cook County – with nine coming from the southwestern municipality of Oak Lawn.

Which means the other 84 objections were filed in the other 101 counties across Illinois, although 49 of those were filed in the surrounding counties that make up the outer suburbs.

So yes, the phenomenon of law enforcement being skeptical about who should be allowed a permit that gives them permission to carry a pistol in a shoulder holster or in a purse seems to be an urban one.

DALEY: The old "enemy" for firearms

Although when one considers that some 7,974 permit applications were filed in Cook County, the fact that local law enforcement is only challenging 152 (not quite 2 percent), it really can’t be argued that our law enforcement is running amok over anyone’s alleged constitutional right.

PARTICULARLY, SINCE ONLY about one-quarter of the applications across the state came from Cook County (which accounts for about 45 percent of the state’s population overall).

It just really can’t be argued that Tom Dart is behaving like some sort of tyrant when it comes to wanting to make sure that people who shouldn’t be having firearms don’t somehow get them with the consent of the state.

Of course, when it comes to the type of rhetoric used by the firearms advocates, I have no doubt they will try to blast the sheriff for not kissing up to their attitude when it comes to pistols.

Not that Dart – who isn’t a career law enforcement-type – isn’t all that different from Chicago police-types on this issue.

I HAVE ENCOUNTERED many police officers who were more than supportive of the ordinances the city had in place for three-plus decades that made it a criminal offense for most people to even have a firearm within the city limits.

Nobody is hunting within the city (unless they’re going out in search of other people, which is most definitely something we should discourage). There really isn’t a need for another pistol around 63^rd and Halsted streets.

And for those people who are insecure enough that they can’t venture outside without carrying a weapon, I’d wonder what worse will occur if, by chance, you feel threatened and fire – only to miss your target and hit someone else who just happened to be nearby!

In fact, about the worst thing I can think of to say about Dart these days is that he identifies as a Chicago Cubs fan. Which, in the overall scheme of things, is something that can be forgiven, since it's a self-inflicted form of agony.

  -30-

How many police entities do we need?

It seems to be a new trend; the Cook County sheriff’s police taking over patrol duties in assorted suburban communities.

It is being done because those municipalities in the southern suburbs are financially impoverished – they can’t afford to have police on the streets to maintain the public safety.

ALTHOUGH A PART of me wishes that these municipalities could provide an inspiration to all of the Chicago area. Because I have always wondered why each and every one of the 129 communities in Cook County (with Chicago being merely one), along with the hundreds of suburban communities in the collar counties, needs to have its own police department.

Wouldn’t it make more sense if the county sheriffs had jurisdiction over their entire counties? Perhaps they should be a law enforcement agency whose officers routinely cross over the municipal boundaries that define the various suburban communities?

I’d like it if the experiences of places like Ford Heights, Dolton and Dixmoor could somehow inspire the local communities to think in these terms, rather than maintaining their own departments that all too often are understaffed and ill-equipped to deal with the realities of crime and criminal activity.

In the cases of Ford Heights and Dolton, financial problems are so intense for their local governments that they’re using the county sheriff to save themselves some money.

AS FAR AS Dixmoor is concerned, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that the sheriff took over patrols on the overnight shift this week because of a labor dispute (two officers walked off the job in protest).

But even in communities where finances are more solid, the realities of municipal budgets are that the public safety entities take up a majority of the money spent. A Police Department can easily take up more than a third of a community’s tax dollars.

I can’t help but think that having the sheriff handle suburban patrols as a single entity would be cheaper (and more professional) than having each and every community try to do it themselves.

But I’m realistic enough to know that any suburban government officials who might ever read this commentary are going to be repulsed by the very thought.

BECAUSE ONE OF the biggest decisions (if not THE biggest) that any suburban village president gets to make is picking him(or her)self a police chief. Someone who has to answer to him, and can be dismissed at that official’s desire.

Having a professional lawman under their control is an ego boost that I’m sure they would resist giving up! A fight to the death? It would be pretty close.

Then again, there are times when I wonder if an idea’s unpopularity amongst political people is all the more evidence of how sound it truly is?

Seriously. I realize the current county sheriff budget would be woefully inadequate to ask them to assume such intense patrols of all 129 communities (or 120 or so, if you assume that Chicago and the largest suburban communities would keep their police departments intact).

BUT PERHAPS EACH community should make a contribution to the county sheriff to help cover the cost. I’m sure it would be less than these communities in recent weeks had to set aside for a Police Department of their own.

It also would benefit in that a county sheriff would easily cross over municipal boundaries – which many suburban cops say are the mechanism that the crooks use to their advantage to avoid arrest.

But government egos likely will prevail.

Even though I’d like to think the situation in suburban Dixmoor in coming weeks could help sway people over to realizing that change would be an improvement.

  -30-

Political maneuvering, not real policy

Why is Chicago supposedly the “Windy City?”

When Tom Dart speaks ...

It’s because of all the hot air that our political people bloviate every time they open their mouths and spew forth any types of rhetoric.

ANYBODY WHO THINKS that viewpoint is an exaggeration is missing the point, because I’d say that Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart gave us the latest example of a political person feeling compelled to speak for no real reason.

Dart recently made a point of saying that he’s coming up with a “concealed carry” ordinance that would dictate under what conditions people living in Illinois’ most-populous (by far) county could actually carry a pistol on their person for their protection.

Of course, if the Illinois General Assembly actually succeeds in coming up with something by month’s end (as a federal Court of Appeals has ordered them to), then anything that Dart or the Cook County Board chose to do would be a moot point.

But there are times when Dart is exactly the kind of political person who likes to hear himself talk. And I’m sure that in his own way, the former member of the Illinois Legislature was also interested in trying to influence the thoughts of those people in the General Assembly who are working on this issue.

AS ENVISIONED BY Dart, people interested in having a permit to carry a pistol on them legally would have to pay a $300 fee. But they also would have to provide justification for why they NEED to have a firearm.

The sheriff also pointed out that someone like a business owner who thinks they may be robbed doesn’t necessarily need a firearm – they could hire a security firm and have guards who are trained in firearm use, rather than having to hold the pistol themselves.

Perhaps that is something along the lines of what Dart would like to see the Legislature pass into law. Which means we ought to take Dart’s talk about “concealed carry” as more of an endorsement of a policy – rather than any kind of legitimate attempt at creating county government policy.

... does anyone in Legislature listen?

And I’m also sure that there are those elements of the Legislature who will hear what Dart has to say, then instantly do the exact opposite.

HECK, HE DOESN’T even have strong support within the metropolitan area.

Because the newspaper accounts about Dart’s pronouncement made a point of stating that a county policy would apply to Chicago, since the city would not have a specific policy concerning the “concealed carry” issue.

That is unique, since city officials usually go out of their way to state that county government is JUST the suburban parts of Cook County with no authority over Chicago proper.

Which is why Chicago police had their PR types tell reporter-type people that city officials will enact their own “concealed carry” policy if the state Legislature fails to act. The city doesn’t want the county to think any precedent is being set for who governs what!

WHICH MEANS EVEN city officials aren’t fully behind Tom Dart getting involved with this issue.

In fact, there’s only one reason that we ought to take anything Dart says the least bit seriously. It’s the fact that he’s absolutely correct when he says the General Assembly isn’t all that reliable when it comes to meeting deadlines.

So June 9 being the absolute limit for the Legislature to act on “concealed carry?” As Dart put it, “Deadlines sometimes don’t mean anything. We have to be prepared in the event something does not get done.”

How many years in a row have we had “absolute” deadlines for pension funding reform? How many decades have we seen a Legislature contemplate casinos or new airports? Doing nothing is something our state’s Legislature is good at.

  -30-

Give it a rest, already!

It has been nearly 18 years since the date that I went into the old Stateville Correctional Center to watch a homicide committed in the name of “justice” – as in the execution by lethal injection of John Gacy.

That date was some 16 years after Gacy went from being a respectable citizen who once met first lady Rosalyn Carter (left) and was a clown at children’s parties, to the guy who abducted and killed young men and stuffed their remains in the crawl space of his home.

AND SOME OF those incidents were nearly a decade old by the time police got around to arresting Gacy.

My point? This is an old case, one so old that I question how much of the physical “evidence” remains in a state solid enough to be worth anything to a credible investigation.

So I really have to wonder what the point is in terms of any law enforcement entity thinking that there is more to be found at this late date some two score after the original incidents.

Which is why I was kind of pleased to read the reports on Friday about how the Cook County state’s attorney is refusing to let the county sheriff do some more digging at sites where they think more bodies, more remains or more evidence could be found.

OFFICIALLY, THERE ISN’T enough “probable cause” to believe that anything would be found by such digging.

Although I believe even if they found “something,” it would be so weak that it wouldn’t be worth the effort.

So excuse me for thinking that the idea of continuing to investigate the “crimes” of John Gacy is something amounting to a waste of time. I’d like to think our law enforcement people have more important things to worry about.

Perhaps there are some unsolved cases that could get their attention, rather than delving into a case where the prosecution took place more than three decades ago and where the ultimate punishment has already been served.

DOES ANYONE THINK Gacy will come back to life so he could be put on trial again?

Even if that were physically possible, it’s not like we have a death penalty in this state any longer. And propping up the corpse of John Gacy in a prison cell for eternal incarceration strikes me as being even more incredibly twisted than continued investigation.

Heck, would Gacy corpse tampering qualify for prosecution under the bill being reviewed by the Illinois General Assembly this spring that makes necrophilia a crime? Because it would be corpse tampering!

But let’s get serious.

WE MAY WELL have to accept the fact that we already know all we’re ever going to know about the Gacy crimes. Too much time has passed for us to figure out the remaining unknown details.

Evidence deteriorates with time. Which may well have been the ultimate strategy of William Heirens, the longest-serving Illinois inmate who died earlier this month for a trio of slayings in 1946.

He claimed in recent years that he “didn’t do it” and that he was pressured into making the confession that prosecutors threw in his face every time he sought parole. Perhaps he thought that the fingerprints and lipstick smudges on mirrors didn’t mean as much now that they didn’t physically exist anymore.

If you want the truth, it wouldn’t shock me to learn that someone, someday tries to argue for the innocence of John Gacy himself. Not that I expect anyone of any real sense to buy into it.

BUT I WOULD give such a legal effort about as much credibility as I would any further results found in an investigation into Gacy’s guilt.

DART: Idle time?

Even if the latest effort is being inspired by a now-retired Chicago cop who claims he recalls seeing Gacy once with a shovel digging in a certain area – the area that officials checked in 1998, found nothing of substance, but want to check again.

It all comes off as too much of an effort to get one’s name in the papers (or in the 21^st Century, one’s name all over the Internet search functions).

Does Tom Dart really need any more public attention? Perhaps we should focus our attention on trying to find things for him to do that will keep him busy.

  -30-