Overview. I cannot sign this Personal Narrative sent to me because it contains some information that is inaccurate; there is no information on the deeply flawed finger and palm prints, which require much deeper examination; and William (Bill) Heirens' confessions are replete with denials, two versions of the same happening, and his hard-to believe made-up stories.
It is not sufficient to state I excelled as a teacher without giving some context to that assessment. The same can be said about, first, SANE/FREEZE, and then Peace Action. And I participated in a great number of activities in University Park, Illinois.
In the second paragraph of the Personal Narrative mailed me, I am identified as a committee member of the Illinois Parole Board (it is actually named the Prisoner Review Board). I was never a member of that board. When I read Dolores Kennedy's book entitled: "William Heirens: His Day in Court" -- Kennedy was Heirens biographer and friend -- I was stunned by reading Bill Heirens' confessions in the back of Kennedy's book. I contacted Dolores, and she told me that she was putting together a committee that would try to find out if Heirens committed any of the three murders to which he confessed. She told me that I would be named the confession analyst on the committee.
I. Second Paragraph of the Personal Narrative
I cannot confirm that Bill Heirens suffered "further punishment at the hands of police officers." He issued a statement reading: "I had been grilled incessantly by police and prosecuting officials in an effort to make me confess to murder; I was forced to undergo interrogation under sodium pentothal and under two lie detectors." Neither of the two lie detector tests found Heirens to have a guilty conscience.
Bill Heirens told me that the reason for confessing was the daily fear that while in custody that serious harm could come to him if he continued to deny charges.
The last sentence in the second paragraph should be deleted, as law enforcement in Illinois was pretty much united in opposition to Heirens getting out of prison, or getting a new trial. I don't think I moved the needle on this strong opposition. I can't even confirm that my book garnered "significant support in Mr. Heirens innocence."
II. The Story of the Migrating Print(s)
Before getting into the stories of the migrating print(s) in the Degnan case, and the "bloody" print in the Frances Brown case, I will give a thumbnail sketch of the three murders.
Suzanne Degnan was a six-year-old, who was taken from her north side Chicago bedroom on the early morning of January 7, 1946. She was strangled and then carried to an unlocked apartment basement, where her body was cut up, and the parts distributed to either four or five sewer openings. A torn piece of paper demanding $20,000 was found on Suzanne's bedroom floor.
Frances Brown, a former member of the Women's Reserve of the United Naval Reserves (WAVE) was killed on December 10, 1945. Written with red lipstick on an apartment wall was a message reading: "For heaven's sake catch me Before I kill more. I cannot control myself."
Josephine Ross was stabbed and beaten to death on June 5, 1945. There was no evidence tying Bill Heirens to the Ross killing, and the only evidence tying Heirens to the Brown killing was a
'bloody" fingerprint on Brown's bathroom door jamb.
The story of the migrating print(s) on the Degnan ransom note started when Chicago police found an oily piece of paper demanding $20,000 as ransom. After the discovery of the Degnan note, Commissioner Prendergast of the Chicago Police Department informed the press that the top CPD fingerprint examiner, Sergeant Thomas Laffey, 'had been unable to get prints because the note was covered with an oil solution.' The FBI informed the CPD that its experts found two "fairly large and classifiable fingerprints" on the note. Significantly important for future claims of print findings, the FBI did not annotate the presence of any palm print.
On June 26, 1946, Bill Heirens was arrested for the burglary of the north side apartment of Joanne Pera. Someone suggested that his fingerprints be compared to the prints on the ransom note, and the single print found in the Brown apartment. On June 28th, Laffey announced that Heiren's prints matched a partial fingerprint located on the front of the note. The CPD told the press that Heiren's prints did not match the Brown print and he was no longer a suspect in the Brown murder.
On July 12, 1946, the CPD reversed itself and said that Heiren's prints matched the Brown print. On July 13, the CPD announced that Laffey had found a second Heirens' print. The finding on the Heirens' print was probably done on July 12, the day that the CPD did its reversal on the Brown print. The long interval between the findings of the Heirens' prints raised a serious question that Laffey or someone else in the CPD had transposed a print taken after Heirens was arrested.
The Friends of Bill Heirens retained Steven Schachte to perform an analysis of the fingerprint evidence used to convict Bill Heirens in 1946. Schachte had been a latent print examiner for the Indianapolis Police Department for 17 years, and attended two latent print schools conducted by the FRI. Following is his examination: "I examined the police photographs of the Degnan ransom note for evidence of latent fingerprints Unlike the police reports of two of Bill Heiren's fingerprints on the front of the ransom note, the evidence is clear that the prints on the front of the note are unidentified and not Bill Heiren's. I did locate an identifiable print on the back of the note, but this print is unmentioned in police or court documents."
In this letter to the Prisoner Review Board sent on February 22, 1995, Schachte closes it by saying that: "Of course, a fingerprint may be transferred from one object to another object, making it appear that the second object was touched."
Transposing fingerprints is relatively simple. A cellophane strip is placed over a suspect's prints obtained by the police, and then pressed on an incriminating object.
The extent to which the CPD was willing to go to find incriminating prints of Bill Heirens is illustrated by the Estelle Carey case. A high official in the CPD assured the press that a palm print of a 13-year-old Bill Heirens had been found in the residence of the murdered prostitute, Estelle Carey. The CPD had to pull back its claim when it was discovered that Heirens was in an Indiana school for boys at the time.
Although Bill Heirens never had a trial in which evidence against him could be tested, prosecutors are required to present the evidence they would have used if there was a criminal trial. When States Attorney William Tuohy made his closing remarks at the sentencing hearing on September 5, 1946, he said: "All the prosecutors had in the Degnan case was a partial fingerprint and that on the ransom note." Touhy made no mention of a palm print, which Sergeant Laffey had claimed to have found.
III. The "Bloody" Brown Print
CPD Chief of Detectives Storms was noted for describing the print on Frances Brown's bathroom door jamb as "bloody." Newspapers in Chicago used words such as "smeared," "obscured,' and "blurred." In the same letter in which Schachte commented on the Degnan ransom note, he headed his comments on the Brown print as II. Bloody Print. Schachte continued: "The print on the doorjamb that is identified as a latent print of Bill Heirens is problematic.
First, it does not appear to be bloody or set in blood. But more importantly, the print is unlike latent prints commonly found at crime scenes. Rather than being an impression on the jamb casually left by an exiting offender, this print appears to have been 'rolled on its side.' That is to say that I can observe a great many ridges on the left side that would not be normal in a plain impression."
On June 28 the CPD found that Bill Heirens' prints did not match the Brown print, and changed its mind about two weeks later.
IV. Serious Flaws in the Murder Confessions
I have previously mentioned the many denials/omissions, two versions of the same happening, and what were obvious "made-up" stories by Bill Heirens. It is difficult to be precise when dealing with several categories in which one tries to fit parts of the confession in.
In the category of Denials/Omissions, in the Suzanne Degnan case, there were 23 times that Heirens said "no," "I don't know," or "I don't remember." In the Frances Brown case there were 17 such replies in this category. In the Josephine Ross case there were 10 such replies. Many of the Degnan Denials/Omissions came in regard to the cutting up and carrying to sewer openings, parts of Suzanne Degnan's body. Heirens denied everything about these activities.
Among the three murder confessions there were 12 instances in which two versions of a happening were given.
In Account Inaccurate claims being made, and denial was not an issue, there were 7 in the Degnan case, 10 in the Brown case, and 3 in the Ross case.
In August after the Heirens' confession was published, Heirens had to physically re-enact his confessed crimes, there were 12 more questions asked about the murder of Frances Brown. These 12 questions added three key inconsistencies with the much longer initial interrogation.
V. The Handwriting Comparisons
Regarding the comparison of the red lipstick writing and the writing on the ransom note, Elizabeth Biesteh, the handwriting and documents examiner on our committee, went to a symposium in which she and three other examiners found no similarities in the two writings. Counting David Grimes, the examiner hired by the 'Primetime Live' TN program, a total of ten examiners found no similarities in the two writings. The 11th examiner, Herbert J. Walter, paid $100 a day by the state, concluded in July 1946 that Bill Heirens may have written both messages. Walter was seriously compromised, however, as he had told the 'Herald American' that the two writings had a "few superficial similarities," and a "great many dissimilarities."
VI. Excelled as a School Teacher
The Professional Narrative I received said I "excelled" as a school teacher. That characterization without any context doesn't mean very much. I will allude first to the extra-curricular work I did when teaching at Lathrop High School in Fairbanks, Alaska. Fairbanks had a juvenile jury program, and since I taught American Government, some of my junior and senior students were on the juvenile jury. I became a member of the jury in my first year there. In the next year, I became the director of the program.
We would meet in an unused courtroom after school hours, with a judge present to monitor sentences handed out. The students would debate and propose sentences to teenagers who had been convicted of misdemeanors. As an example of the kinds of sentences handed out, a high schooler who had illegally passed a stopped school bus was sentenced to ride an early-morning bus for a month, and get out at every stop to ensue that safety conditions were being met.
Since Lathrop was to host the competition for high school wrestlers in Alaska, the sports director and varsity basketball coach, named "Joe," called me in and asked me: "Lauri, how would you like to run the high school wrestling competition?" I said I had some limited knowledge of high school wrestling. Joe said: "Lauri, you'll learn." I had interviewed with Joe to coach the junior varsity, and he either was impressed with me, or he didn't want to get stuck with the job.
Subsequently, I secured a TV time slot, and I took two wrestlers with me to illustrate wrestling moves, and explain how points were scored. I also helped a local radio station with their coverage of the early bouts.
While teaching eight grade at Wallace, Michigan, 15 miles from the Wisconsin border, I ordered all of the school's sports equipment, coached the junior high basketball team, added some instruction in the arts and geography, which were not required subject areas by the Wallace school board.
No comments:
Post a Comment