I used to collect ticket stubs from trips, rock concerts, a couple classical music performances … over the years they got tossed out. If that is the absolutely only lonely ticket of any possible sort he has saved, that would mean something was highly important about that date and ‘trip’, hence the suspicion.
I guess, but it seems just as likely he saved it to prove his alibi as a memento of his crime. More so, IMHO, since as a crime momento its kind of a crappy souvenir, since it doesn’t really have much to do with the actual crime and nothing to do with the victim.
Plus the putative train trip was to see about enlisting in the military, which he ended up doing, so he may have saved it simply as a memento of the start of his military career.
Plus plus, he didn’t really save it for a long period of time. He lost it, which is presumably how his then girlfriend ended up with it.
Reading the other linked articles, I’m not surprised he got off the first time. The only evidence against him was the girls testimony, which changed several times (not surprising for an 8 year-old, but still). According to the surviving girl, the abductor claimed to be 24 and married, while the suspect was 17 and unmarried (granted he may have lied to the girls, but why lie about his age but give his real first name?).
So long story short, I think the state is going to need some better evidence to convict.
Maybe the state is hoping that he’ll confess. You know, ‘finally get off his chest’. It may not be such a long shot.
It’s also possible that he missed the train and got to Chicago some other way, such as by buying a ticket for the next train (was the ticket just for one time, date, and departure, or was it usable at any time?), or maybe he took a bus or hitchhiked. If the ticket was re-usable but he got to Chicago some other way, he might have saved the ticket for use in the future.
This happened in Sycamore, Illinois, in the great downstate boonies. Chicago cops wouldn’t have had much, if anything, to do with it.
Which suggests that he may have saved the ticket because he thought its very existence might prove him innocent. At least unless someone could prove it was not used.
I can’t speculate on the psychology of sociopaths, but just to clear up a couple of railroad things: tickets of that era were good on pretty much any train any day; they only showed the end points and the class (adult) of the bearer. Had the ticket been audited en route, the conductor would have punched it with an identifying specially shaped punch unique to that employee, and would have then returned it to the passenger.
Now the suspect could have returned the ticket for a refund, but perhaps he thought that would call too much attention (in a small town) to the fact that he didn’t leave town that day. Perhaps he planned to do so some time in the future.
How could it have helped him prove himself? It’s the existence of the ticket that led to his arrest. And if it could have helped him prove himself, why not produce it years ago?
The police in 1957 seemed to have believed his story without the ticket, so presumably he didn’t produce it because they didn’t ask and he didn’t really have any reason to do so. He put it in a safe place in case the cops did call him back to ask for the ticket, and eventually forgot about it, so that it ended up with his ex-gfs things. Or at least, if I were his defense attorney, thats what I’d say.
Any idea what the chances of traveling and not having the ticket punched would be? As I said, I know nowadays they can be pretty loose about punching tickets, but if you could return an unpunched ticket for your money back in 1957, I’d think they’d be a stricter about punching every ticket, in which case the suspect might be in trouble.
He could have bought 2 tickets hoping to bring his girlfriend and at the last minute she couldn’t go and saved her ticket while he used his. He could have bought the picture frame and it already had a ticket in it…
I have calculated that there are least 54,034,326 possible, plausible, explanations for what we know so far about the unused train ticket.
But people get convicted on purely circumstantial evidence all the time, it is the ‘big picture’ of all the evidence combined, the train ticket is not the only evidence.
To review:
AND…
they found an unused train ticket from that day hidden behind a picture frame.
Book’em, Danno
Nice job. Thanks for all your work.
As I said a few posts ago, the authorities may now be hoping that he’ll simply confess - to clear his conscience, to spare the survivors, to win some concession, or simply because he can now see that ‘the jig is up’.
Can we conclude from that comment that you feel the evidence you laid out proves him guilty? Because if I were the defense attorney, I would use the same evidence to prove him innocent, or at least introduce reasonable doubt, especially after all these years.
And who told them he was in his twenties, despite Tessler being 17. Again, he may have lied, but why lie about his age but give his real first name? And again ,the witness changed her story several times.
This is sort of what I mean about it being hard to convict after so long. This is someone in 2010 saying they saw a particular car in a particular place in 1957. It’s going to be pretty hard to get a jury to be convinced by that.
He was in the process of applying for the military on the day of the kidnapping, so his leaving town wasn’t due to the murder. As for changing his name, presumably thats due to being a suspect in a murder that attracted national attention.
Again, the recollections of a then teenager about a 4H meeting fifty years ago.
This is more damming, but while he may have been a pervert, there isn’t really anything here that suggests he was a murderer.
She was eight and it was fifty years ago. So the best of her recollection is not super-convincing. I’d also bet that she knew what Tessler looked like (they were neighbors) and that he was a suspect at the time, so her picking him out of the yearbook is less impressive then it seems.
Again, not saying he’s innocent, but I think that after all this time, investigators are going to need some hard evidence. Too much time has passed to build a case on circumstantial evidence alone.
And memories tend to confabulate over time; vivid memories are distorted and enhanced by information accumulated. There are many cases where this has happened; “memories” are often not true memories after the passage of time, but fiction created in the mind of the beholder.
Also, thinking about it more, there’s a certain unfairness to this. Tessier’s main defense at the time was his alibi, which is father backed him on. And if he was telling the truth, then several other people in a 1957 trial probably could’ve supported him as well. But fifty years on, his main witness is probably dead (at least they don’t mention the father in the story), and people at the burlesque shows in Chicago or the train station in Rockford aren’t going to remember him, even if he was really there and they could be tracked down.
So while I can’t imagine it was their intent, the Prosecution here has to some degree basically waited until the people that could testify for the defense are all dead or scattered to the winds, and then moved to try the suspect.
nm
His father gave his statements at the time they are still admissible in the current case. They have since received statements that contradict his story and appear to be verifiable, and he’s dead. (this is an old case but not so old that there aren’t still plenty of remaining witnesses being interviewed besides the father)
It wouldn’t be unheard of or surprising in the least for parents to help fabricate an alibi for their son.
I don’t mean to imply I he is definitely guilty based on this mountain of circumstantial evidence he is facing. I say “Book’em Danno” because it is abundantly clear the police have substantial reason to make the charge and a trial needs to decide the specifics. The unused train ticket (despite attention-grabbing headlines) is a fairly insignificant part of that case considering all the other evidence.
How are they verifiable? We have the 50 year old, and somewhat inconsistent testimony of a girl who was eight at the time, and recollections of relatively unmemorable events (seeing a specific car and getting a ride to a 4H meeting), recalled after fifty years, of two witnesses who were in their teens at the time. I don’t see how any of these can be independently verified.
But most of the witnesses who would have been useful for the defense in 1957 are worthless now. Fifty years ago they may have talked to the physician that saw him in Chicago, the guy that sold him the train ticket, someone who saw him at the Burlesque show. Fifty years on, that’s pretty much impossible, even if they could find the relevant people, they’re not going to remember a random encounter from a half-century past.
I guess we’ll find out, but I think the State is wasting their time and money. They’re hanging their case on testimony of witnesses from 50 years ago.
(also, I don’t think most of it is “circumstantial evidence” as I understand the term, the testimony of a witness to a crime, or someone claiming to have seen the suspect somewhere that would invalidate the their alibi aren’t really “circumstantial”, its direct evidence that the person committed the crime. Owning the same style sweater might be circumstantial).
The case is old but I don’t know how you draw from that any testimony from persons involved is ‘worthless’. Based on the number of people that have given statements in the past year or two a large number of those actually involved in the crime and/or events of that day are still alive and seem perfectly lucid. The suspect was in his early 20’s the victim and her eye-witness friend only 7. There are plenty of living persons who can still contribute to either the defense or prosecution depending on their story.
Fifty years is not an extraordinarily long time to remember in vivid detail the events of a day when a traumatic, shocking event occurred. Kennedy was killed about 5 years later. How many people remember details about the day he was killed like what they were eating for breakfast, or what color dress someone was wearing when the news came to them?
The eye-witness testimony is direct-evidence but some eye-witness testimony might be “I know he wasn’t in Chicago that day because xyz”, which is circumstantial to the charge that he committed murder instead of being in Chicago. The evidence about his former and latter continued history of sexual assault is circumstantial, but far more damning IMHO.
And how many people do you think have those memories correct?