He joined the military, and then changed his name. The police back then didn't have the resources they had back then to find people.

blueunicorn, you're missing the point I'm trying to make. He may be guilty, but after 55 years, any eyewitness testimony they may have had is totally unreliable - they will have to rely on written statements and physical evidence. I doubt very much that they have enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. I could be wrong - I hope very much they got DNA off the girl's body, but I doubt it.

If they have the unused train ticket from 1957, then statements he gave in 1957 do not corroborate. The evidence is circumstantial but still evidence but probably enough to get an indictment. Additionally there could be other physical evidence (we don't know what else was found as many killers keep momentoes of their victims) there may be enough to convict. Or he could have confessed the crime to someone in the pool of people at the time that are still around who might have come forward.

There is no statute of limitations on murder I am sure what ever it is it will come out in court.

So, because the case is 55 years old, he should continue to live a free life? He already got away with it for a very long time.

But here's a question. If the guy said he traveled to Chicago for a medical exam, why didn't the cop check out his story by asking him who he met in Chicago and if he did indeed appear for the medical exam? If an unused ticket was found and that triggered his arrest, why wasn't his claim that he was in Chicago on that day checked out by cops? Shouldn't that have been done as the first thing to see if he's lying?

So the cops suspected him but he said that he was in Chicago and that was it? Didn't the cops verify is alibi? Surely a medical exam would be documented and dated... where is it? An unused train ticket is scant evidence. By itself that only impeaches his alibi... it doesn't prove him guilty. I don't want to see a murderer go unpunished... and I don't want to see an innocent man unfairly convicted.

Ycaintuseait5-3858621, he has been convicted the time for indictment is passed and anything that came out in court is in the past-tense. The only thing left now is sentencing. MSNBC, I do not want to share every single thing I read with facebook, nor do I announce every bodily function or plate of food I eat. STOP ASKING!

Martha

If the guy said he traveled to Chicago for a medical exam, why didn't the cop check out his story by asking him who he met in Chicago and if he did indeed appear for the medical exam?

I was wondering the same thing, I guess they did things differently 55 years ago. I read something when he was first arrested, and I think the girlfriend knew about the ticket for 50 something years (if my memory is correct) but only told police about it a few years ago, and that is why he was arrested.

Ex girlfriends can be a problem...lol

Un used Train ticket means he do not go where he said he was. blew his alibi and he kept the ticket

Then WHY would this guy Lie about "taking a purported train ride to have a physical"? This guy used an alias as his name is: Tesseir. Why would this guy lie about a a trainride and then change his name and then skip town and join up??? A friend showed his UNUSED Train Ticket....Why would he say He Took the train and was absent the day of the kidnapping/murder???????????? If he had nothing to hide he would tell THE TRUTH from the Start.

Umm, the evidence was presented to the court, and he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not sure where your confusion lies.

All, there's a great article on The Daily Beast from August of last year explaining all of the evidence against this sicko: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/06/maria-ridulph-alleged-killer-arrested-how-cops-finally-found-jack-mccullough.html

So glad they got him.

Very compelling article, ThatRocks -glad you were able to post some details that MSNBC couldn't.

ThatRocks: Good work, there is more evidence as well. They had so much information in court it was great. The cold case group did a great job.

This murder got special treatment because he's a cop. The Code of Silence. The Fraternal Order of the Thugs in Blue. The authority waited until he's old enough and retired from police force before prosecution. That has been the recipe for many years.

Informationalization wrote: A case from 55 years ago? That's an AWFUL long time to wait to prosecute somebody. Unless they have DNA or other conclusive physical evidence, I don't see how he can be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Did you not read the article? He was already prosecuted and found guilty of the crime. An eye-witness and an old unused train ticket to Chicago,which he said is where he was that day. His ex-girlfriend busted him, she found the unused ticket. He should have been in jail for the last 55 years!

I'm with you WallStFatCat, makes me wonder how many other pigs out there are "evil sons of bitches". Based on what my eyes see every day, it's a WHOLE bloody lot of em.. maybe even the majority these days.

But here's a question. If the guy said he traveled to Chicago for a medical exam, why didn't the cop check out his story by asking him who he met in Chicago and if he did indeed appear for the medical exam?

The investigating police officer most likely did ask, and the answer would have been that he went to a Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in Chicago.

However...

Actually verifying anything could have been a real trick.

The first thing to keep in mind is that 1957 was during the height of the Cold War and the draft was very much in effect at the time. A MEPS, especially one in the Chicago area, or any major metropolitan area, would have thousands of young men pass through every month, and each man would see maybe a dozen different physicians throughout the course of the examination at different stations they pass through.

Trying to call anyone in the Federal Government beyond the local post office or your elected representative's offices is hard enough today, but back then, anyone looking to contact a facility such as a MEPS had an uphill battle ahead of them. If you could find a number that someone would actually answer, good luck in trying to get an answer. Most likely, no one you could speak to would know and trying to find the paper records needed to provide the answer would be anything but an instant process. If any time had passed, those records would likely have left the building and been on their way to another Defense Department facility located God-only-knows where. I doubt the records from the examination were on site very much longer than the prospective inductee himself, likely a few days at most.

Back in those days, the DoD took pretty much everyone it could draft or who was willing to voluntarily enlist. This included a fairly significant number of juvenile delinquents who just reached age 18 and were advised by a judge that they could enlist as an alternative to a fine or jail time they were otherwise facing. There were probably quite a few men passing through the MEPS on any given day who the police would like to ask about. For this reason, it could be that the MEPS staff took the attitude that they just don't discuss anything, or anyone, who passed through there.

The police officer could have tried to contact the MEPS to check out the alibi but to no avail, or it is also very likely if he'd been around awhile (like most investigators have been; they're not rookie patrol officers) he may have had enough experience to know that effort was futile. It's tough to know.

I am very curious about this man's military service. I would not at all be surprised to learn that he never enlisted in the Air Force, given that he missed the induction physical. They don't take kindly to people doing that! But, given the time, they may have accepted an excuse and rescheduled the examination, or, But here's a question. If the guy said he traveled to Chicago for a medical exam, why didn't the cop check out his story by asking him who he met in Chicago and if he did indeed appear for the medical exam, or very likely, he just got drafted a short time later and sent to wherever Uncle Sam felt he was needed. I know quite a few who were rejected for enlistment in the 50's and 60's (especially the later 60's!) who discovered about six months later that they 'suddenly' were fit to be drafted - right into the Army infantry.

sounds like the family knew or suspected ....

the mother on her death bed, clearing her concious and soul:

"His half-sister, Janet Tessier, said she was elated he was found guilty."

“He’s an evil son of a bitch, and he’s right where he’s supposed to be,” Tessier told the Chicago Sun-Times, who testified that McCullough’s guilt-ridden mother admitted on her deathbed that she knew her son was involved.

whats up with keeping the train ticket for sooooo looong?

was the girl friend snooping ?

why would she even wonder about the ticket ?

any lie would have answered, as easaily as I forgot, I couldnt get a cab, I missed the bus, damn it was 55 years ago...

The family must have told the girlfriend something and what to look for.....

Hmmm. Still diehard "cops are angels and should be treated above the law" fans who refuse to accept a conviction of guilt.

There are good cops, just as there are bad cops, but no one should be above the law.

"Thatrocks - Thank you for providing the link to a real peice of journalism on the case. Not only does it answer all of the questions posted by others here, it highlights just how woefully inept NBC is.

NBC: "Later, Chapman said she went inside her home to get mittens and when she returned, Ridulph and "Johnny" were gone."

Reality: "Then he asked if they had any dolls. Maria said she did, and ran back to her house to find one. While she was gone, Johnny touched Cathy on the arm and thigh and told her she was pretty, the 8-year-old later told police. Maria came back with the doll, and Cathy went home to get her mittens. But when she returned, Maria and Johnny were gone."

NBC: "A massive search to find Ridulph was launched by the FBI and in April 1958, investigators found the girl's skeletal remains in a forest some 120 miles away from her home. "

Reality: "The girl's skeleton turned up four months later, found by mushroom hunters, but her killer was never caught."

NBC : "Investigators reopened the case a few years ago after McCullough's former girlfriend told them she found his unused train ticket from Rockford to Chicago on the day Ridulph vanished."

Reality: " they re-interviewed Tessier's former girlfriend, the one who said she hadn't seen him the night Maria disappeared. Detectives asked if she had any photographs of her with him at the time. Even 50 years later, she did. When she went to pull the photo out of the picture frame it had sat in all that time, a train ticket fell out. It had a government stamp on it. Tessier had given the framed photograph to her all those years ago, she said. The date on the ticket: December 3, 1957. The same night Maria Ridulph disappeared. The train ticket was unused."

What is mind-boggling it that the original "detectives" never showed Cathy the suspect until 50 years later... even though she had given them a mathcing description for the guy right after the crime:

"Last September, detectives photocopied the pictures of five white males from an old high-school yearbook, all of about the same description. They took the copies to Cathy Sigman, Maria's playmate from that day in 1957, and asked her to take a look.

"She immediately pointed to the photo of Tessier,.....

How difficult would that have been to do 50 years ago? Hey we think this is the guy and he looks exactly like you described... is this the guy who fondled you and took your friend?"

Pjam, do you actually think nbc.com had a reporter in that courtroom? This is an AP story, taken from the wire service, as written by a reporter who was in the courtroom all day taking notes, rushing out to the hallway, writing what he can on his laptop (and going with his because I know the Trib and the SunTimes court reporters pretty well), and hoping the wi-fi signal is strong enough to get send (Dan Rozak, the SunTimes reporter, and I have sat in a McDonalds a couple of times, cause it was the closest open wifi network.) The Daily Beast story from last year is written by a reporter given the time by his or her editors to craft a good story with time to do it.

I should have said "with the resources to do it." Dan is covering four or five suburban county courthouses.

Janelle - Do you think you needed to be in the courtroom to get the facts about the case? As you stated yourself the DailyBeast article was published a year ago, and this article is 99% about the case not the verdict.

"by a reporter who was in the courtroom all day taking notes" - Are you implying that some court official came into the courtroom today and recounted the whole investigation for the media and the reporter built this article from those notes? They only think done in the courtroom today was the announcement of the verdict, the only "note" to be taken was "guilty". The article could have been composed at any time since he was arrested in July 2011 and then updated with the verdict today.

You don't think the reality being that at no time in the over one year long trial did NBC decide to write a worthwhile account of the story... but rather by your own accounts gave someone a few hours to slap something together on the day of the verdict doesn't showcase their lack of journalistic ability?

Can't trust the police anymore! X_X Sad indeed..

I remember seeing this on dateline, 20/20 or 48 hours. I'm remember the unused train ticket was in a photo frame that the ex-girlfriend had.

The guy was 17 when this murder occurred so he was NOT a police officer at the time for those calling this a police cover up. Having said that, it does sometimes happen that cops get away with alot. Csse in point, Drew Peterson.

Even though it's been 55 years justice has finally been done. This little girl and her friends and family finally know that this sick SOB is getting exactly what he deserves. He must of been one piece of work to have people so afraid that they didn't come forward against him back then.

1957 = Apples 2012 = Oranges

One thing that hasn't changed - the quality of men the military gets. I had a co-worker, short ugly bald guy, major Bible waver - who talked about dropping out of High School in the 1950's and joining the military - and how he bought Hookers all the time. He acted like that was the norm (which it was).

Fast forward to 2012; look at all the reports of women in the military today being raped and abused (I'd be in prison today if they did that to my daughter...if I had a daughter). Even today our Bases have signs at the exits that say things like "STD's are forever", a warning about buying hookers.

Take off your blinders people...criminals are still escaping prosecution by enlisting. Did it ever occur to you that all the ex military personal pride could be a counter balance for how they really were while in the military.

Go ahead; collapse my post - that will make the problem go away. If you are not part of the solution - you are part of the problem.

J_P_PatchesPal_1: Many ex-military and now joining the civilian police departments, which is why we are seeing such an increase in law enforcement violence, with no restraint and very little accountability.

Debi -- Do you really think it's increased? Or is it just known due to dash cams, video cams, the Internet, the 24-hour news cycle, and a general reduced reluctance to confront police brutality and complain about it? Fifty years ago, it was nothing for the police to take a drunk, or a black guy that they thought might have done something, or some poor cracker from out in the country down into the basement of the police station and "tune him up a little". Also, an amazing number of people being transported to jail in that era somehow "fell down the stairs" on the way over. Think that the idea that lots of cops are ex-military (hardly a new phenomenon either) has little to do with what you are talking about, and I also dispute the entire premise that police violence is skyrocketing and suggest that, as with crime in general, the same is true here: less actual crime, far more reporting.

Yes Rlquall, the information age has had an affect on what we are made aware of, but we are also in a time where the use of weapons such as tasers and firearms are being used by law enforcement with near impunity. The government is using the local police force as their muscle to quell peaceful protesters from exercising their rights. Federal Border Patrol agents are getting physically violent with citizens going through border checks (within the borders of the U.S.) just because they wish to exercise their right not to be stopped or questioned without reasonable cause. Just google Steven Anderson.

Unarmed drones will be available for use in this country by local law enforcement by 2013. The only logical next step is to arm them.

PJAM you don't know how journalism works at all, do you?

This story was the verdict, following the trial, from covering the trial. The SunTimes and the Trib have had several stories on this case in the past. THIS story was the verdict. The prosecution rested, the defense rested, and the judge gave his verdict. This is nearly the same story the Trib wrote. This is how trial stories work.

The reporter sat through the trial. He took notes. He then left the courtroom and wrote the story, based on the actions in the courtroom.

And NO, NBC did NOT send any reporters to the trial. They run AP stories, just like every other underfunded newsroom. this is not about journalistic ability. It is about newsrooms running very thin because you get your news for free, not from your paid newspaper subscription.

Debi, nice to see you again! While I do respect your opinion, I think it is influenced more by media coverage or a bad personal experience (which can definitely taint one's thinking) than the overall reality. I used to believe a lot of the same things as you about police in general, but have since realized I was wrong. My ex-husband (who I told you about the other day) and my current husband are like night and day. My husband now is a police sergeant, and is a wonderful man. Most of the other officers I have met are also wonderful people. There are a couple of bad apples in every bunch (I can think of two in his department, who are no longer there because contrary to popular belief, they do NOT tolerate such things), but it does not speak for the majority. I can tell you that my husband has only used his taser six times in the last five years; it's something they don't like to do unless they feel they have no choice. Reality is they have to deal with an awful lot of society's worst people, in situations I would not want to be a part of, and have a lot of difficult decisions to make at all times. Most of the time those people are far more violent with officers than the officers should ever have to tolerate, without brutal retaliation. The police get head-butted, spit on, hit, kicked, etc etc. And most often they just wrestle them to the ground and hold them down until they are calm. No officer can do the right thing 100% of the time, but they do try; they're people too. I have done ride-alongs with my husband, which really opened my eyes as to the way things really are for those in law enforcement, and how false peoples' perceptions of them can truly be. I suggest maybe you do the same; it may help you see things in a different light.

Nice to see you again, COmommy.

I hear what you are saying. There are good cops and then there are bad cops. The problem I am witnessing over and over again is when the line is crossed by law enforcement, they are not being held accountable.

Politicians will take no action because their main goal is to get re-elected and they need the law enforcement unions to make that happen. They also don't want to appear "soft on crime".

Heads of the departments many times look away, "protecting their boys and girls" and keeping their troops happy, similar to the protections of the military. They continually make excuses for bad behavior, like an enabling parent.

Decent officers will not speak up for fear of retaliation and loss of support from their fellow officers.

I'm well aware of the routine. I worked for the District Attorney in a California county.

Although I've not had any personal bad experiences, I've seen more than I care to.

The government is slowly weaponizing and militarizing our civil law enforcement agencies similar to being at war. We are in a time of crony capitalism with 1% of the population holding 92% of the country's wealth. So what is the government afraid of, unrest among the people and civil war?

The people are not supposed to be the enemy. We're supposed to be a government by the people, of the people and for the people.

but we are also in a time where the use of weapons such as tasers and firearms are being used by law enforcement with near impunity.

That's about as far from the truth as one can get.

ANY shooting by a law enforcement officer in my state is going to be investigated by the state's Department of Criminal Investigation, and this is true in most states. Only the very large metropolitan centers in the US have their own Internal Affairs Bureau looking at things like this. Everywhere else, another department or agency handles it to prevent any conflict of interests. When it's the state doing the looking, they carry a very big stick and can do some fairly radical things to a department somewhere that is found to be doing things it shouldn't be. At the very least, the officer involved can easily lose their state certification from the Law Enforcement Academy. An officer who has lost that isn't going to be working as an officer anywhere else in this state ever again!

And then, there are the lawsuits which seem to inevitably arise after any case of 'excessive use of force'...

The government is using the local police force as their muscle to quell peaceful protesters from exercising their rights.

The key word there is 'peaceful', and therein lies the problem.

Anymore, a lot of protests seem to attract the troublemakers who couldn't care less about what is being protested but would rather exploit the protest as a venue to 'express themselves'. Sometimes these folks are anarchists and sometimes they're just miscreants,. Their modus operandi is to crash the party and give it their own unique flavor; if they can convert a protest into a riot, they'd be ecstatic about that achievement. The reason the city has the police department is primarily to protect the city from being destroyed by things like this.

the tiGor:

ANY shooting by a law enforcement officer in my state is going to be investigated by the state's Department of Criminal Investigation, and this is true in most states.

They're mostly all in bed together. The obligatory "investigation" is done, but it's usually determined the officer had clean hands.

Anymore, a lot of protests seem to attract the troublemakers who couldn't care less about what is being protested...

How do we know they're not government sponsored shills sent in to stir up trouble so the police have an excuse to shut down the protest?

Please, don't be so naive.

Here's one example of one government agency taking care of another:

http://www.ivpressonline.com/news/ivp-dismissal-of-dotsons-case-frustrates-locals-20120526,0,619730.story

Federal law gives immunity from state prosecution to federal law enforcement
officers accused of crimes committed in the course of their duties.

Federal law enforcement has just been given a free ticket to ride and a get out of jail "free" card to bad behavior.

They're mostly all in bed together. The obligatory "investigation" is done, but it's usually determined the officer had clean hands.

Maybe that's 'usual' where you live, but in my neck of the woods one officer who was dismissed has been involved in a very messy, and embarrassing, trial in her attempts to be reinstated after being fired for disobeying direct orders, insubordination, and being found unfit for duty. A couple of officers not far away were fired, decertified, tried, convicted, and sued along with their department for excessive use of force and civil rights violations. An officer in the next county seat town is on trial for theft and arson, and was actually shot by the state police investigator who had been interrogating him after he started doing something he should have definitely known better than to do. Another county seat town in the adjacent county just saw its police chief fired after he made some threats to his estranged wife. All of this in just a part of a small state 'where nothing ever really happens'.

How do we know they're not government sponsored shills sent in to stir up trouble so the police have an excuse to shut down the protest?

It's not impossible, but rather unlikely, all things considered. Unless an elected official or some other bureaucrat who takes their job a little too seriously (generally not an issue with most government employees, who are perfectly content to just bide their time until retirement in a safe, stable position) has a relative or an close personal friend who is prone to doing that kind of thing and could be counted on to keep the secret, it probably isn't going to happen. Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead, and 'outsiders' trying to get into the criminal underworld usually don't get too far. It's all about who you know, and there's usually going to be some kind of a payoff involved that would be extremely difficult to cover up. If it involves the Pentagon and a defense contract, no problem. If it's anything else, and especially if it's anything out of the ordinary and a sizeable amount of CASH is being transferred, especially to an individual or any organization that's not a well established corporation, things start to get very tricky.

Any 'sponsored' provocateurs are much more likely to be operating under the auspices of a shady advocacy group of some sort with a radical agenda and an ax to grind or else an organized crime ring that's trying to exploit the event for a diversion for another crime or an opportunity to strike a blow back at the city for something that happened in the past (such as a police raid). These scenarios aren't too likely, either. Most trouble can be traced to locals who have a history of inciting mayhem in public, while either under the influence or sober. No one needs to hold a protest for them to cause trouble, but holding a protest while they're around will draw them in like a magnet and trouble will follow.

I can't recall any protests in my area that were 'shut down'. They've been watched to ensure that they don't get out of hand and that they stay were they said they'd be holding the protest and that they'd go home when they promised it would be over. As long as nothing is set on fire, broken apart, and no one is seriously injured or killed, all is good.

Here's one example of one government agency taking care of another:

Nothing new there. The man was in the employ of the federal government, on duty, and operating a government owned vehicle in the course of his official duties when the accident occurred. It's the federal government's problem to deal with. If he'd been off duty and in his own vehicle and the same thing happened, it would be a different ball game altogether. For one thing, he'd probably be losing his job in short order if that had happened on his own time.

This is a jurisdictional issue. The US government always trumps state and local governments in matters that fall under the authority of the US and haven't been delegated to the states. If someone is in custody for a common crime and charged by the state, the FBI or US Marshal's Service can show up and take them into federal custody for a crime being prosecuted by a US Attorney (usually drug or firearm related).

Federal law enforcement has just been given a free ticket to ride and a get out of jail "free" card to bad behavior.

They've got a very valid claim against the US government, and from the article, a federal court has already rendered a judgement against the government. The agent who caused the wreck has cost the US Treasury Department a fair heap of change and that will be something that hangs around his neck for the rest of his career. It could very well cost him any promotions unless his superiors do conclude that the accident was unavoidable and that what he was doing was completely appropriate under the circumstances. I sure wouldn't want to be in his position right now. The times I've worked for Uncle Sam, I've seen people fired for far lesser things.

Please, don't be so naive.

Please, don't be so PARANOID. All that stuff you've been seeing on prime time television through the years doesn't happen anywhere near as often as you seem to think it does!

...and could be counted on to keep the secret, it probably isn't going to happen.

There's no need for keeping anything secret. Our government lied to cause our entrance into a 10 year war and what were the consequences? None. We've lost thousands of Americans lives and we're 4 trillion dollars in debt. Over and over again, hardly anyone from government to large corporations are being held accountable for their bad and sometimes illegal behavior.

The agent who caused the wreck has cost the US Treasury Department a fair heap of change and that will be something that hangs around his neck for the rest of his career.

And you find it acceptable he's not made to be legally liable for his negligent actions? Just because he's working, he's above the law? Wow! That's not the America I pledged my allegiance to.

That agent didn't cost the US Treasury Department a fair heap of change, he cost US, the taxpayers, a fair heap of change.

Please, don't be so PARANOID.

Even if I am hyper aware, or as you would refer to it as "paranoid", it's much better than burying my head in the sand.

Now I'm confused.

There's no need for keeping anything secret.

Then why do criminals and law breakers make such a big deal out of keeping their affairs hidden from plain view? Politicians keep all kinds of their affairs secret, lest they be discovered and they get arrested and/or forced out of office. Things like Representative Jefferson and his $90,000 in cash discovered in his freezer...led to 13 years in the federal pen after he was convicted of bribery. Robert Torricelli is a great example, too. I don't recall that he was convicted of anything, but he sure left office a lot sooner than he'd planned after some embarrassing revelations were made implicating him. A lot of people are watching, and anyone in politics has enough enemies that if anything useful by one's opposition sees the light of day, they're going to ride it for all they can get.

Our government lied to cause our entrance into a 10 year war and what were the consequences? None.

Now this is what puzzles me:

We've lost thousands of Americans lives and we're 4 trillion dollars in debt.

What happened to the consequences being

None.

?

And you find it acceptable he's not made to be legally liable for his negligent actions?

Did I ever say that? I think not.

Just because he's working, he's above the law?

And I definitely never said that. The issue is that since he was under the control of the US Government, it is the US Department of Justice that will prosecute him, if such is deemed to be warranted. He was on federal time, using federal property, so anything he did wrong would be a federal crime. No one living as a 'guest' of the US Bureau of Prisons is ever paroled, and there IS a federal death penalty for anyone subject to federal jurisdiction who commits premeditated murder, such as shooting up a post office, blowing up a federal office building such as the one in Oklahoma City in 1995, or murdering someone in on a government installation of any sort or even while committing a federal felony. My state has no death penalty, but a couple of folks from my neighborhood are currently on death row for a crime committed here because they murdered witnesses in a federal criminal proceeding. Federal law trumps state law; the fact my state has no death penalty doesn't spare these two in this instance.

If you feel the US Department of Justice hasn't appropriately handled the case cited in the article you linked to above, might I suggest you petition your government by writing to your elected representative to express your outrage and demand that further action be taken against the agent that caused the wreck?

That agent didn't cost the US Treasury Department a fair heap of change, he cost US, the taxpayers, a fair heap of change.

Nice of you to point that out, although it is something that is so obvious as to go without saying. However, you and I aren't going to notice any change in the amount of taxes we pay that is attributable to that incident. 'Our share' would likely be a tiny fraction of a cent. It is US Treasury that has to pay out on this, and they do not have infinite resources. They will have to figure out just where to 'grab' those millions of unbudgeted dollars from and exactly how they will be made up for in the future. Someone has their work ahead of them.

Even if I am hyper aware, or as you would refer to it as "paranoid", it's much better than burying my head in the sand.

There is a big difference between burying one's head in the sand and having been around long enough to know better when one hears things that are untrue or only partly true.

I can't recall any protests in my area that were 'shut down'. They've been watched to ensure that they don't get out of hand and that they stay were they said they'd be holding the protest and that they'd go home when they promised it would be over.

Although you come from a state "where not much happens", it's a big country we all live in, and it's not all Mayberry.

It could very well cost him any promotions unless his superiors do conclude that the accident was unavoidable and that what he was doing was completely appropriate under the circumstances.

It appears you are sympathetic to a "penalty" of possible career restrictions for an act of killing 3 people. Where is the justice? It has been almost 3 years and there are no federal plans to prosecute.

However, you and I aren't going to notice any change in the amount of taxes we pay that is attributable to that incident. 'Our share' would likely be a tiny fraction of a cent.

Yes, a fraction of a cent is what makes the taxpayers being held responsible for law enforcement/governmental bad behavior so pallatable and forgettable.

As far as "having been around long enough to know better...", when you see one cockroach, there's usually hundreds you don't see, and I've been around the block enough times to know about the unseen cockroaches.

Although you come from a state "where not much happens"

That's the commonly held perception of the 310 million Americans who don't live here, anyway. You should have seen from some passages in my earlier posts about the area law enforcement officers recently caught on the wrong side of the law, especially the one who was shot by the state investigator during the course of his interrogation, that perception isn't the reality...

and it's not all Mayberry.

... and I doubt anyone who knows my home town would concur that it's a 'Mayberry' by any stretch of the imagination. We have an amazing number of unsolved homicides and disappearances, had a population consisting of immigrants of something like 34 different nationalities in the early 1900's when the bulk of those unsolved killings took place, and the skeleton in my biology classroom in school was that of a man who'd been killed and sealed up in a wall somewhere downtown decades before, no clues as to who he might be. After some years, the police department gave it to the school district for educational purposes. We had national exposure in Time magazine in the mid 1970's that reinforced the reputation this place has with those 'in the know'. It isn't exactly the same 'rep' that the state it's located in has. There's always been a lot of filth and a very dark underside here. It's been that way for well over 100 years. It goes with the territory. We've never been 'lilly white' here, in stark contrast to Andy Griffith's Mayberry.

It appears you are sympathetic to a "penalty" of possible career restrictions for an act of killing 3 people.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that you'd assume that to be my point of view, as it's entirely congruent with everything else you've said so far. The reality is, unless criminal intent can be demonstrated, it was still an accident. Determining the culpability is up to the courts in matters like this, and they'll look at different aspects of this such as whether the agent had ever been known to make jokes scoring 'points' for running over or into pedestrians, vehicles, or fixtures; if he had an escalating history of reckless driving or other acts that endanger other people, whether he was or had been showing a pattern of violating agency directives and policies; and they'd examine if the pursuit the agent was engaged in at the time of the accident was warranted or not. If it's ruled to have been a crucial part of apprehending a suspect that would be reasonably expected to endanger the public if allowed to escape, then it would be declared an unintentional accident in the course of executing his duties instead of the result of some kind of negligence and most certainly not a criminal act on the agent's part.

It has been almost 3 years and there are no federal plans to prosecute.

And this is probably because of what I just described. They could not find any indications that he intentionally set out to commit a vehicular homicide with the government owned vehicle he was operating on official business and he was acting within the scope of his employment. Law enforcement officers are expected to do whatever reasonable things it takes within their means to apprehend lawbreakers. Unless higher authority feels that he crossed a line he shouldn't have, he was performing his job as expected.

Where is the justice?

The way you've stated things throughout this entire thread, one could readily infer that the real crime he was guilty of is entering a law enforcement career and that he should hang from the highest tree for it.

Yes, a fraction of a cent is what makes the taxpayers being held responsible for law enforcement/governmental bad behavior so pallatable and forgettable.

And you would prefer the bill to be sent where? Once again, by writing 'law enforcement/governmental bad behavior', you come across as though you feel that anyone who has ever been sworn in and had a badge pinned on their shirt is guilty of a horrific crime then and there.

As far as "having been around long enough to know better...", when you see one cockroach, there's usually hundreds you don't see,

I've done some extermination and pest control work in my time, including a great many 'cockroach' calls that turned out to be anything but, most often merely Boisea Trivittata, or the common boxelder bug. No one is scared of the boxelder bug, but everyone is terrified of the thought that they have cockroaches in their home. So cockroaches is what they think they see. Usually, they've never seen one in their entire life, or else they'd not mistake the boxelder bug for one. A lot of chemicals are promoted that claim, 'KILLS ROACHES'! I've never seen any that expressly claim to eliminate boxelder bugs. There are a lot of grade B movie and television show plots that depict dirty cops and government conspiracies of all types, and people who watch a lot of television can hardly be blamed for being led to believe that all this stuff actually happens on a daily basis. In reality, most 'government conspiracies' end up being more like Watergate. They don't end well. Someone unfairly gains, someone else gets shafted big time, and that inequity is what people scream bloody murder about. That's also why there are a whole lot fewer of them than popular entertainment portrays.

and I've been around the block enough times to know about the unseen cockroaches.

So, you're doing what about them?

...unless criminal intent can be demonstrated, it was still an accident.

When someone drives intoxicated and kills somebody, they don't intentionally drink so they can kill someone, but they're still held criminally liable. The BP agent negligently ran that stop sign.

Just to be fair, BP agents are well known and abhorred in those communities for disregarding the safety of the residents who live there. They continually break the laws the "regular folk" have to abide by while behaving and believing they are above the law, as this case in particular, merits. It is very difficult for communities who have little wealth and a lack of education to find their voice and very easy for those given power to take advantage.

And you would prefer the bill to be sent where? Once again, by writing 'law enforcement/governmental bad behavior', you come across as though you feel that anyone who has ever been sworn in and had a badge pinned on their shirt is guilty of a horrific crime then and there.

Of course, we the taxpayers are on the financial hook, as it should be. The problem is, so often law enforcement/government is not held accountable for bad behavior in CRIMINAL COURT, while in civil court, it's the taxpayer who winds up paying for the sins prosecutors would rather look the other way on. And again, putting it in a perspective of only costing us a fraction of a cent makes it very simple to disregard the facts. It's like the old find the marble under one of three nut game; the hand is quicker than the eye.

So, you're doing what about them?

Cockroaches are fairly silent and stealthy little insects and the only way to catch them is to act like they do and surprise them. Lol

And btw the TiGor, I just love surprises. Don't you?

And btw the TiGor, I just love surprises. Don't you?

If they're good ones! Too bad those are only about 1% of the surprises most of us encounter on a routine basis. I've always done a lot of things that are potentially dangerous if something goes wrong, so the fewer surprises for me, the better.

When someone drives intoxicated and kills somebody, they don't intentionally drink so they can kill someone, but they're still held criminally liable.

That's a good example, but there's something about that. The first thing is that the dangers of drinking and driving are so well known and publicized that anyone who holds a drivers' license is well aware of the risks and that they're not to be doing it. I can't think of anyone who is permitted to be under the influence while on official government business where operating a motor vehicle is part of the job description, let alone anyone who is expected to be consuming alcohol as part of the job. I can tell you that in any of the federal government positions I've held, anyone who showed up for work intoxicated wouldn't be showing up for work again! There are some things that Uncle Sam just does not tolerate. In the 1990's, I worked under three different supervisors who were fired for various improprieties ranging from padding an expense account to sexual harassment and stalking. Now, when it comes to drinking and driving, it is universally outlawed and the only possible way I can see that not being prosecuted or resulting in a conviction would be if a drinking establishment was in a location where something happened requiring everyone in the area to evacuate immediately, such as an accident causing a massive HAZMAT release. In that case, I'm sure anyone who got in their car and left would probably be granted an exception under the circumstances provided they stopped as soon as they were clear of the danger area. I glanced at the article you linked to yesterday, but I don't recall that the agent was intoxicated. I doubt he'd still be an agent if he had been. Being drunk on the job is strictly verboten pretty much everywhere, but especially in any kind of law enforcement position!

The BP agent negligently ran that stop sign.

Again, I just glanced over the article to get the gist of it and I have not, nor do I plan to, explore the incident in depth. Whether running the stop sign was negligent under the circumstances of his situation that seemed to involve a high speed pursuit of some sort is presumably one of the first things that was looked at and it would seem that they ruled it as acceptable under the circumstances if he has not been prosecuted by the Justice Department for it. Quite a few accidents happen in law enforcement pursuits and responses. Usually, high speed is a factor. Most of these accidents happen at intersections. Generally, department policies mandate that some appropriate combination of lights and sirens are used when posted speed limits are to be exceeded or traffic control devices may be not complied with. If he wasn't using them but should have been, he could certainly be in trouble for that. He certainly could not get away driving like that in his personally owned vehicle when he was off duty, nor can any law enforcement officer. Last year there was a big flap about a hundred miles away from me when the county sheriff was pulled over for OWI by a state trooper and ultimately lost his drivers' license. But on duty, in an emergency, the law has regarded official vehicles breaking traffic laws as necessary in order to accomplish the mission at hand. It would be hard to stop a speeder if the officer couldn't catch up to him because he couldn't exceed the speed limit himself. Bad guys fleeing the police run lights and stop signs all the time, and officers are expected to do what it takes, within reason, to not let them get away. If necessary, the officer's notion of 'within reason' will be second guessed later by either the department management or else a court of law.

Now, the government that hired the agent and assigned him to the job has been found at fault in court, or at the least responsible for the damages. Earlier, you posted:

It appears you are sympathetic to a "penalty" of possible career restrictions

Let's say he got an official letter of reprimand in his personnel file for this, provided his superiors concluded that he had exercised bad judgement. ICE agents who are in the field and driving around tend to be younger folks, generally under 40 years of age, and could be as young as their mid-20's from what I've seen. A letter of reprimand just kills performance reviews for the foreseeable future. It's a black stain that just doesn't come out of what might otherwise be a pristine white dress or suit. It pretty much scuttles any chance at promotion. Less than excellent performance reviews curtail pay raises pretty well. You need to get promoted to really see any increase in pay. In most highly physical careers, including and especially the military and law enforcement, it's 'up or out'. They need a lot of young people to do the physical work. They don't need too many supervisors, which is what experienced members who can no longer do the rough-and-tumble are good for. You are expected to get promoted if you want to keep your job; they won't let you stay at the bottom and get old there. So...the lost income from missed pay raises and promotions, over the course of what could be several decades (depending on the agent's age) could be a very substantial dollar amount, in the many thousands of dollars. The odds are very good it'll be a short career, and he will not be retiring from this. Like I'd said, it's up or out, and he'll be forced out after failing to be promoted for too long, and his place will be taken by a younger, more physically capable agent. That lost government pension is a big deal, and I doubt he'll have much luck moving to other government employment if there's a letter of reprimand in his file. That has the net effect of putting him on a blacklist; the only federal service that would likely touch him would be the US Postal Service, and they're not really hiring anymore.

I wouldn't be surprised, in this instance, if he was also sent a bill for the car he wrecked, too. Title 18 of the Code of the United States, section thirteen-hundred-and-something spells out Destruction of Government Property. It's not something anyone working for the government wants to mess around with. If it's determined that he could have likely prevented the loss of the car and still successfully completed his task at hand, he'll probably be on the hook for it.

Just to be fair, BP agents are well known and abhorred in those communities

Just to be fair, huh?

There are a great many communities where blacks, Mexicans, Jews, Gypsies, motorcyclists, skateboarders, Treasury Agents, and others are 'well known and abhorred' for the things that everyone just knows they ALL do.

It's probably for the better that it has no legal standing in court and the specific actions of the person on trial are all that can be considered in the proceedings. There is a reason why bills of attainder are prohibited by the US Constitution.

putting it in a perspective of only costing us a fraction of a cent makes it very simple to disregard the facts

Debi, I'm just telling you how it is, that's all. Love it or loath it, that's the way it works.

Cockroaches are fairly silent and stealthy little insects and the only way to catch them is to act like they do and surprise them. Lol

Where I come from, that would be what people call 'stooping to their level'. I had been hoping you'd give consideration to my suggestion of writing, or even organizing a letter writing campaign, to your representative and senator to let them know you find this situation unacceptable and demand that the agent be prosecuted.

The first thing is that the dangers of drinking and driving are so well known and publicized that anyone who holds a drivers' license is well aware of the risks and that they're not to be doing it.

The dangers of running a stop sign are also well known and publicized. He had not activated his siren nor red light while engaged in speeding and running a stop sign.

Generally, department policies mandate that some appropriate combination of lights and sirens are used when posted speed limits are to be exceeded or traffic control devices may be not complied with. If he wasn't using them but should have been, he could certainly be in trouble for that.

As stated in the article, no lights or sirens were used. If the "trouble" you are referring to as a result of his negligence was bad performance reviews, please, cry me a river.

A letter of reprimand just kills performance reviews for the foreseeable future.

Probably doesn't carry near the pain of those 3 people killed. Bad performance reviews are punishment enough for taking 3 lives? He's taken away any opportunity for those women to even have a performance review. Do you think their families really care about his performance reviews and pension?

...and others are 'well known and abhorred' for the things that everyone just knows they ALL do

"...knows they ALL do?" Your words, not mine.

I had been hoping you'd give consideration to my suggestion of writing, or even organizing a letter writing campaign, to your representative and senator to let them know you find this situation unacceptable and demand that the agent be prosecuted.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, some more successfully than others; but thanks for the suggestion anyway.

slking, based upon what I have read about this case they pretty muck have the goods on the guy especially when his old girlfriend found the unused train ticket. There were a few other things the authorities managed to come up with that boxed him in to having committed the crime. Then there was all this business about changing his name and moving to the other side of the country which were nothing more than him trying to put some distance between himself and the crime. Fortunately this was all for not because they were still able to track this piece of scum down and now he is going to pay for what he did and rightly so.

Andres, you are what's wrong with this world and the reason people are stoned to death for no reason in backwards countries. They have an unused train ticket, and what else? The fact that he joined the military and changed his name? And that alone proves he abducted and murdered a 7-year-old back in 1957? You can't convict on that. That's not NEARLY enough evidence and if you think it is I PRAY you never decide to change your name or you'll be a suspect for every murder in your county. Maybe he was trying to get away from his family? Perhaps he got tired of the small town he lived in and all the kids who treated him like crap and wanted to start over. There are plenty of reasons to completely start your life over after you graduate from high school (he was 17!) and MURDER isn't the only one.

The "evidence" they have and I quote it for a reason, is the story of an ex-girlfriend (already suspect, my ex's would tell you all sorts of lies about me) who probably doesn't even have the ticket anymore. Show me more or this guy needs to be set free right now.

They don't have to announce to you what other evidence was involved. He has been convicted, if there is something strange about the conviction there are groups that look over the evidence to see whether or not it was enough. What is wrong with the world are people who convict people before the trial is over and before they have been convicted legally, not after. Not all matters are public knowledge. Some of it is still considered private and only can be viewed by the courts without the victim's family's permission.

Thank you FWalsh - so far you are the only one making any sense of this situation. I am sure they didnt convict this guy solely on the unused bus ticket or whatever it was. Even though things were far more different with the laws 55 years ago I am sure they collected whatever else they could and together with the unused ticket they made a case. I think the mistake this guy made was turning down a jury trial. If the evidence was weak he might very well have gotten off the charges. It only takes one juror to hold out. But the point is - we dont have all the information that they did to try him and if it was wrong he can appeal the conviction I do believe.

No evidence in this article. Hopefully there was a wee bit more than the wisp that they laid out here.

Too bad they were unable to pursue sooner. We are spoiled these days with instant information gratification.

Usually I'm not one to jump the gun on someone's guilt, ESPECIALLY in this insane, everyone's a guilty monster unless they can prove to the world they're as innocent as a saint, draconian system we have now. However, this statement is hardly a ringing endorsement of his possible innocence:

His half-sister, Janet Tessier, said she was elated he was found guilty.

"He's an evil son of a bitch, and he's right where he's supposed to be," Tessier told the Chicago Sun-Times, who testified that McCullough's guilt-ridden mother admitted on her deathbed that she knew her son was involved.

When even your mother and half sister aren't staying silent and one of your closest relations is obviously greatly relieved you're put away for life, I've got a sneaking suspicion this guy did a whole lot of damage to others for a long, long time besides this one cold case.

Why don't you read PJam's post right above yours? It is quite evident there is evidence, and even his own sister said he is evil. You should crawl back into your hole!

Slking, they just wanted to close the cold case file. Jack McCullough was a convenient way of doing it. Now the prosecutor will become an instant celebrity and write a book. Never mind that an innocent man was convicted on hearsay evidence and the testimony of jail house snitches, who would rat on their own mothers to get 1 day off their sentences.

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/06/maria-ridulph-alleged-killer-arrested-how-cops-finally-found-jack-mccullough.html

Read the above article and then make the same comments..

Exactly Dave!!!! IF you base your opinion on this site alone you fall very, very, very, short from having all the facts!!!!! You posters claiming there's no evidence etc.. have absolutely no vested interest in this guy or this case yet you think your airmchair, lawyers, judges and juries. How many of you even bothered to look at the links posted by others or did any other research into this case???? I think most of you would be guilty of speaking way out of turn!!!! What's the matter with people who care more about the killer than they do the victims??????

An inmate testified Wednesday that he overheard the man accused in the 1957 slaying of 7-year-old Maria Ridulph tell another cellmate that he choked the Illinois girl to death with a wire.

(CBS/AP) SYCAMORE, Ill. -

http://www.suntimes.com/news/15143191-418/former-neighbor-found-guilty-of-1957-murder-of-7-year-old-girl.html

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/jack-daniel-mccullough-ma_0_n_904982.html

here we go. this is what this is really about.

he has been convicted, if you ask me, because of crimes it is very likely he has done now.

and a preponderance of evidence

There's no reason to think that just because it's not in a short article that more details don't exist.

The results? Other than he was convicted in a bench trial?

The SunTimes reporter has good stories on each day of the trial. As does the Trib. As does every small newspaper in the county.

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/06/maria-ridulph-alleged-killer-arrested-how-cops-finally-found-jack-mccullough.html

Read that... The article is a year old from when he was convicted..

And maybe the writer of this article could have actually took five minutes to do some research and presented more of the facts of this case!!!!!! Journalists these days are extremely lazy and don't give a crap about the basics such as who? what? When? why? where? and How????? Hell we learned this stuff back in grade school in the sixties!!!!

Journalists are given half the time with reduced salaries by bosses that expect them to do the work that five reporters used to do. This is what happens when you read your stories on the net and quit buying newspapers.

So why are you on the internet Janelle? What happened to your subscription to your local paper?

@ WomenOnGuard... the article never mentions when she found the unused ticket or how long she had it before notifying authorites.

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/06/maria-ridulph-alleged-killer-arrested-how-cops-finally-found-jack-mccullough.html

get informed

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/06/maria-ridulph-alleged-killer-arrested-how-cops-finally-found-jack-mccullough.html

I freelance for the Sun-Times and drove out to Sycamore the day the arrest was announced and knocked on some doors. I had to dig around a little to find the info, but (from the HuffPo, I can't find my notes)

"The police affidavit (for the arrest warrant) also alleged that McCullough has a history of molesting girls. One young witness told agents in 1957 that he had sexually abused her on numerous occasions, and in the early 1980s he lost his job with the Milton police department in Washington state after he was accused of sexually abusing a runaway in her early teens. He pleaded guilty in 1983 to unlawfully communicating with a minor."

Also, once the body was found, the FBI and all of the attention this case was getting walked away. It was passed on to the State Police. Sycamore didn't even have a file on the investigation until the 1980s, when an officer rebuilt it. The fact that there is any conviction is just short of a miracle.

Wow-sounds like this guy should have been caught a long time ago! Thanks posters for all the additional info and background you gave on this story, you've helped fill in the gaps.

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/06/maria-ridulph-alleged-killer-arrested-how-cops-finally-found-jack-mccullough.html

Julie, circumstantial evidence is normally allowed. The Drew Peterson-related law permitted *hearsay* evidence in certain situations.

Direct evidence would be a dead body, an admission of guilt or eyewitness testimony (yes, that's direct). Circumstantial evidence is evidence that's not direct but can lead to a conclusion that's relevant to the matter at hand. An example would be if your boss walked into your office carrying an umbrella that's wet; seeing that, you could rationally conclude that it's raining out. The wet umbrella would be circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence would be if YOU then went outside and confirmed that it's raining out, and testified that it rained on you. Circumstantial evidence is used ALL THE TIME in court, as it should be. Juries are charged with weighing all of the evidence, taking into account any weaknesses with the evidence, and drawing a conclusion as to what happened.

Hearsay, on the other hand, would be if your boss simply told you it was raining and you didn't confirm that yourself (or see his wet umbrella), and then you testified that he told you it was raining (and the purpose of your testimony was to prove it was raining). That's not good enough. HE should testify that it was raining, because in this case you have no idea whether he was correct or not, and he would make a better witness than you on that particular point. This is why hearsay is typically not allowed.

The Drew Peterson law, I believe, made it admissible if the person who made the hearsay statement (in that case, Stacy Peterson) is not available (and I think it also requires a reasonable suspicion that their unavailability was caused by the person they would have been testifying against).

WHY?.......are you people arguing?.....WHITE MALE MOLESTS YET AGAIN....what's new?

Climb back under your bridge

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/06/maria-ridulph-alleged-killer-arrested-how-cops-finally-found-jack-mccullough.html

@Douglas and black guys don't molest kids?

Douglas why are you trying to make this a race issue????? PLenty of freaks from all races commit these crimes!!!! What's your race and why are you so intent on starting crap with whites??? You ask yourself those questions and if you have any kind of valid answer then post whatever the hell you want!!!

@douglas-Wayne williams,Atlanta child murders,

It is an AP story, taken from the SunTimes. That paper has all of the stories from throughout the trial.

Christina-819922, you should go back up near the top of the page, it is the 22nd post. It gives a lot of information that can be found at a website someone else posted (by That Rocks, the 13th post). Trust me, I think you will find there is enough evidence if you check out those facts.

I'm guessing (and hoping!) that their entire case is not presented in this article. We'll see, I suppose.

J... if you go back up to the 13th post near the top of the page, you will see that, "That Rocks" gave you a website to check out, which gives valid evidence to convict. Kudos to you, "That Rocks" for having good information to pass along!

People would rather make snap judgements than do some actual research into what the facts are!!!

Possibly bought it and changed his mind, or decided to do a misdeed and hop on the train but missed the train, just plain forgot it and girlfriend snooped about and came across it.

I would be willing to bet that he was convicted on only a small percentage of unspeakable deeds that he was author to.

Ryan, I see from the Daily Beast story I cited in a post above (#1.12) that SHE actually had the train ticket all along - but she didn't realize it. When investigators reopened the case and came to question her, she took a picture of him out of its frame to give to them, and the ticket came out as well. Now, that's a Matlock moment!

Truth is stranger than fiction!!!!

His own sister calling him an "evil son of a bitch" and saying "he's where he deserves to be" certainly didn't help my opinion of him.

Sorry for the confusion, I answered my own question. Long day... )-:

17. ANd read some of the links this wasn't the only case of him doing harm to others!!!

I agree,the individual had a history of sexual deviant behavior,the troubling question is as a pedophile & a murderer how many victims are hidden in the past and throughout the vast area he lived? I am sure the police are reviewing other coldcase files,it's divine justice that unused ticket (with the exact date stamped on it)was hidden behind his picture,that he gave away and the person who had that picture had kept it all these years...Rest in peace Maria

IMHO, with Sycamore being such a small town out in the boondocks of the Chicago suburbs (and back then, not even a suburb, a town WAY out in the country), the investigators were probably thinking more along the lines of drifter, not a kid about to go into the military.

Janelle- That is incredibly reasonable given the dynamics of small towns even today, well said.

Good point. There are many more facts in this case that came out in court. Lots of evidence. Don't know why people want to "retry it" in the press. He is where he belongs. There are many cold cases that are just now going to court.

He had his day in court and I think the plethora of evidence will keep him where he is. He has a LONG history of sick behavior. Too bad they didn't get him sooner.

Just goes to show you, doesn't matter who they are or what they do for a living, gotta catch the bad guys. Thanks for doing the job you do.