Chapter 4: Coercion to Lie

---

Palatine Detectives have a well-proven history of eliciting false confessions and false implications from innocent people, but no one questioned Eileen Bakalla (Eileen) about what took place when the Palatine Police blocked her in on her way to work, storming her truck as she pulled out of her Des Plaines apartment and interrogated her for 36 HOURS! P.D.s declined to do a deposition of Eileen when  the Judge (4-15-08 pg 21) offered it. The ASA was so shocked they asked for the refusal in writing. P.D.s didn't cross examine her about this 36 hour interrogation, about not contacting her Family Attorney until after interrogating her for 36 hours, nor did they ask her a single question about the crime the Police/Detectives used to blackmail her with and that she received written immunity for, despite committing absolutely NO crime related to Brown's Chicken! Eileen's (9-2-09 pg. 4-83) impossible testimony implicating me wasn't confronted, or even connected to the wrongful implications of others in this crime, such as Casey's (9-16-09 pg 42-77) and Jon's (9-15-09 pg 69-93) testimonies 13 days after Eileen's, not even connecting Eileen, Casey or Jon's wrongful implications in the closing arguments! Palatine Detectives locked Eileen into statements she couldn't recant without repercussions and more public embarrassment!

My P.D.s should've deposed Eileen under oath pretrial because she testified against me as a witness for the ASA. From the start, it was clear she had been coached to lie. When she messed up their script, the ASA would ask her leading questions with the answers to get her through her perjury. There was so much objection to the "leading" as they call it (9-2-09 pg 34:19-37:6), the Judge more than once had to tell the ASA to "stop leading the witness"!

My P.D.s should've been able to easily point out the impossibilities of Eileen's testimony of me allegedly calling her at work asking her to "meet me at the C.Ville (Carpentersville) Jewel; I just did something Big", counting the robbery money in front of her while confessing, Eileen giving me a ride home as I confessed again, passing by Brown's on the way to my home, and Eileen telling her soon to be husband, Keith, that Juan and I did something BIG at Brown's. At least they could have confronted some of her perjury, or asked her about the $240,000 incentive to lie, BUT my P.D.s only focus was that she used to party in high school (only weed and /or 1-2 wine coolers), which discredited absolutely nothing! During Juan's trial, Eileen testified on 4-17-07 (on pg 75:6-77:14) to have seen "green bloody gloves 'somewhere' in Juan's car" while she stood there talking to us at the Carpentersville Jewel Osco at sometime on January 8, 1993, - even though Detective's, Eileen's, etc.'s stories are that Juan and I told them that on our way to Jewel we had destroyed evidence by throwing our bloody coats, pants, and shoes in dumpsters (4-27-07 pg 20:23 - 22:23). Hmmm - if that was the case, would highly incriminating bloody gloves still be somewhere in Juan's car?!!! At my trial however, Eileen was less sure of her bloody glove story, and with an extraordinary amount of leading, the ASA had problems getting Eileen to commit to the Detective's fabrication! To further illustrate the lie, she admitted (9-2-09 pg 60:3 - 63:23) that she "might not have gotten out" of her car at the Jewel and wasn't sure if she saw gloves. P.D.s changed the subject and never revisited the perjury, not even in closing arguments.

Eileen was allowed to openly lie, telling Juan's Jurors (4-17-07 pg 80:20-82:9) that while we were confessing to the Brown's murders she received $50.00 that I owed her while we were counting the robbery money "on the living room floor" - downstairs. I let my P.D.s know that while I play with and pet cats, I'm highly allergic to them. Their living room floor is covered in cat hair, so there was no way that I would be sitting on that floor counting money! Worse than that, during my trial she was allowed to lie again, now claiming the money was counted way up stairs on the "bedroom floor"with less cat hair (9-2-09 pg 26:20 - 27:21). But still my P.D.s didn't confront the lies, promising me they would impeach her in rebuttal - which my P.D.s did not do. This was Eileen's most incriminating accusation.

The ASAs theorized (and claimed to be quoting me) to my Jurors that we robbed the Palatine Brown's then rushed to the Carpentersville Jewel Osco on the corner of Lake Marion Street and Liberty Street/Route 25 because "it was a great place to be seen and have Juan's car seen in order to establish an alibi", without a single alibi witness from Jewel or ANYWHERE to support this ASA claim! The simple truth is that from 1988 - 2002 Jake's Pizza Pub in Hoffman Estates was my meeting place to travel to events in large caravans, and to not crowd my cul-de-sac when having parties at my home. Since I'm good friends with the owner's Family, they allowed this. Eileen knew this, and that almost everyone at Jake's knew me from the neighborhood and from the time I worked at Jake's. If I was a scumbag, etc., etc., murderer, needing to create a false alibi by "being seen and having Juan's car seen" as the ASA claimed to my Jurors - Jake's would've been my false alibi, and I would've (could've) provided Detectives with a long alibi list, because truly, Jake's was a great place to be seen (and eat while being seen), NOT a nearly empty parking lot of a Jewel Osco at 10 pm on a Friday night in the middle of a suburban ghetto!

For some reason the ASA showed my Jurors Eileen's January 8, 1993 time card showing she punched out at 9:30 pm, claiming she remembered probably staying after work at Jake's to play darts this night - over 9 years after the fact!

Detectives and ASAs had a stack of Eileen's old time cards from the owners son in 1995. My P.D.s failed to ask or point out, and many people knew this, that Eileen punching out at 9:30 was very rare for her on a Friday. She wouldn't take breaks until the end of her shift when she would play darts for that 30 minutes on the clock, hoping for another customer - win, win. I say this to point out that at 9:30 pm Eileen changed her clothes and was on the road to meet me at Jewel by 9:45.

No one questioned that since it's proven Eileen is at Jake's at 9:30 pm, and evidence supports Brown's was robbed between 9:08 - 9:48 pm - there would've been absolutely NO reason for ME, coming from the Brown's/Palatine area, to PASS BY Jake's to go way out to the Carpentersville Jewel!!! I would've paged her (no cell phones), or just used the Brown's phone again to meet Eileen at Jake's, doing something BIG to establish a long list of alibi witnesses for when ever I got arrested - if I was involved, which I obviously wasn't, nor was I trying to conceal a homicide or helping Juan to establish a false alibi!

During the trial, my P.D. attempted to demonstrate (9-2-09 pg 56:18 - 59:16) the inconvenience of the Jewel as a meeting/alibi place by using a little map with old fashioned push pins indicating only some of the important and relevant locations. This map was completely ineffective because Eileen wasn't asked to put an X on the map for the Elgin, IL, condo!!! She wasn't asked to put a pin in Crystal Lake, IL, where Eileen knew the calls to her were coming from about Juan's car drama that evening, nor was she asked about the crime and driving times - this map and testimony presented to my Jurors was pointless and even confusing to me! Without the times, ALL locations; especially the condo, the Jurors were unable to visualize, making it impossible to understand why the Jewel was such an optimal, central place for Eileen and I to meet. (Exhibit E)  Without these two pushpins it appeared that the 3 of us just went MILES out of our way to meet at Jewel - to establish an alibi to NOBODY! My P.D.s failure to literally connect the dots on the map led to confusion among the Jurors and ultimately to my wrong conviction.

The truth makes a lot more sense: I remember the day well. It's the ONLY night I EVER dumped Juan's car off at Jewel Osco! I was mad and being a prick. I took his car on a long test drive to the Marengo, Harvard, Woodstock, Crystal Lake area, and around 8 pm, I called Eileen from a payphone (no cell phones) to shore up our plans for when she got off work. During the phone call I complained to her about Juan not helping me with his car repairs and that I was running late. Hearing my frustration regarding the car and how the non-paying Juan had been paging me non-stop wondering why his car wasn't there when he came to pick it up, EILEEN told me to just leave it at the ghetto Jewel in C.Ville and let him figure out how to pick it up! Truth is, it should've been easy for the P.D.s to prove punching out early at 9:30 discredits the something BIG phone call, even puts me no where near Palatine, and she arrived at Jewel around 10 pm. So around 10 pm we were on our way to Eileen's Elgin condo where she was house sitting her friend's hyper cats while her friends were in Florida. The condo was behind Elgin Community College, only 5 minutes from the Jewel. So you see, the decision to meet at Jewel in C.Ville wasn't  sinister, nor even arbitary; I needed a place in the middle to drop off Juan's car. Moreover, the Jewel was roughly halfway between Crystal Lake and Jake's Pizza: about a 10 minute drive for me and 20 minutes for Eileen...I walked out of Osco with her 'Bartles and James' Cali Coolers and my beer as she pulled up to the door - she never saw Juan's car that I had parked at the Italian Pizzeria. Meanwhile, Juan had a friend (10-6-09 pg 108:4. and 4-17-07 pg 55:11, 13) in a white Escort GT or Thunderbird drop him off at Jewel Osco to pick up his car as we were pulling out of the lot onto Rt 25. He ran to the exit lane to ask if he could go along with us. This IS 'my' alibi!!! When I was questioned about Juan's alibi from November 22, 1995, the Detectives didn't mention this Jewel, and when they did in 2002, I told them that I remember it well: I was selling weed in Crystal Lake, but quit selling weed shortly after, and all that I stated above.

At the condo the three of us hung out drinking, smoking weed, feeding and teasing the cats, and generally just living life to the fullest as usual, nothing unusual - No money counting on ANY floors and NO conversation about Brown's! We had plans to go out, but wound up staying at the condo. Around 2 am, Eileen drove Juan and me to his car at Jewel, then she NEEDED to return to her condo. Eileen's roommates call often and she needed to stay at the condo for the hyper cats! Contrary to Eileen's fabrication, she didn't drive me home that night, Juan did! 

Juan driving me home is important and logical! Eileen was allowed to tell my Jurors that she drove me (over 30 minutes one way) home to Hoffman Estates and on the way we passed by the Palatine Brown's to see what was happening. While passing, I supposedly confessed to her, and she either slept over at my home or dropped me off and went home. This is ridiculous! Palatine is, in fact, over 20 minutes round trip PAST my home (not 'on the way'), in a heavily patrolled D.U.I. area, and I had a girlfriend (Tracy G.). Eileen's description of a Brown's drive by didn't even make sense with the facts, and the most important fact of all was that it was 2 am, celebration was over, and Juan lived only one mile from my home in January, 1993! Here again, my P.D.s failed me. Eileen knew where Juan lived while she told this lie, yet my P.D.s failed to ask Eileen to add a push pin in that useless little map, right next to where she did put a pin in the map for my home!!! There was NO 2 am drive by 'Brown's confession' then or ever!

Unfortunately, Eileen's fabrications with Palatine Detectives didn't stop there. She told my Jurors that she and I spent the money shopping the next day and that in the (January 9, 1993) evening we picked up Juan's car and took it to an outside do it yourself coin car wash to supposedly clean evidence out of the interior(9-2-09 pg 32:21-34:8). She described that as she stood there out in the cold, she saw me suds up the interior, scrubbing the whole interior: floor, seats, dash, doors, floor mats, etc. - then blasting the interior with the pressure washer, rinsing everything, then towel wiping all of the plastic, then pulling it up to the coin operated vacuum to extract the excess water out of the carpeting and seats. Since she said this at Juan's trial first in 2007, I knew I needed to call an auto detailing expert witness to discredit Eileen's highly incriminating, but impossible story, so my P.D.s allowed my friend Mark Mogilinski to testify.

Mark is the longtime owner of MJM Auto Polishing and my former boss. My third chair P.D. questioned Mark on the stand on 9-16-09 (pg 3 - 37) and 30 pages of this testimony was a confusing mess! The Judge needed to lead her. It was very obvious that my P.D. was ill informed and clueless about how she was supposed to connect Mark's testimony to Eileen's testimony, much less discredit her. My P.D.s didn't even get that day's weather report to aid in asking Mark specific questions about January 9, 1993 - only vaguely asking about detailing a car "in the winter".

FIRST, why would I include Eileen in this just to stand there observing and freezing?! SECOND, despite tax records showing  that I was laid off in November, 1992, unknown to Eileen and the Detectives, I still had 24/7 access to Mark's shop from August, 1992 - May 2002. I am grateful to the ASA for accidentally asking Mark this because it was obvious my P.D. wasn't going to! THIRD, I retrieved the weather report information for myself after my unfair trial: the high temperature for January 9, 1993 was only 28 degrees, 4 degrees below freezing, not including the wind chill factor! I would NEVER consider detailing anyone's car at an outdoor car wash in this weather: the doors, locks, and windows would have frozen shut, nor would warm-blooded Eileen have been able to stand  there freezing herself! And FINALLY, I've only ever done this deep cleaning that Eileen described with bank repossessed and dealership trade in cars that had been trashed and would soon be sold wholesale at auctions; NEVER would I use this process on anyone's daily driven personal car! 

My Jurors should've heard that Mark knew Eileen personally from when I worked at MJM. Eileen often brought her cars to be detailed, sitting in back chatting with us, and had seen me deep clean cars as she described me doing to Juan's car, although I never performed this deep clean on her cars, and for sure, NEVER performed ANY auto detailing on Juan's car EVER! So, when Eileen described this, she fabricated this story with the Detectives based on what she had seen me do to whole sale cars at MJM!

If my P.D.s had asked Mark specifically what would happen to a car detailed like this outside at 28 degrees Fahrenheit, he would have told them that the water would've instantly turned to steam that would have crept into the fuse box, computer, ignition, and the rest of the electronics under the dash causing temporary or permanent electronic gremlins, making the car stall out and be unable to start. 

The mist and suds would freeze, making it next to impossible to scrub, wipe, and vacuum away evidence; especially with those weak, coin operated vacuums. (Exhibit F) According to Eileen, this happened at Bill's Coin Car Wash, which is approximately 15 miles from my home. This would mean that after she stood there watching me deep clean Juan's car, which typically takes 45 minutes, we drove it 15 miles in the freezing cold sitting on soaking wet seats, to either my garage or Juan's, neither of which were heated. If my ill informed P.D. would've asked Mark specifically, he would have described to my Jurors how at 28 degrees the car would've fogged and frozen up overnight; freezing doors, windows, locks, etc. The expanding water would have broken plastic wire connectors and even locks! At MJM, however, we had tools and equipment to mitigate the risks of these freezing water related issues. FIRST, with cars going to auction some dealerships took the risks, but there are more expensive ways to deep clean show cars as we did for 'Chevy Vette Fest' and 'World of Wheels' in the winter. SECOND, when done, the cars sit in a HEATED bay until fully dried. THIRD, the shop had an air compressor, heaters, and fans to dry the stalled out cars electronics to get them restarted, and also to speed up the drying process so that the water wouldn't have time to turn musty. Finally, we had the proper power washer and nozzles, and high powered wet/dry vacuums and attachments to do the job right. Yet, the Detectives were able to lie to my Jurors through Eileen's highly incriminating story that should've and could've been easily discredited! NO evidence was destroyed by me at ANY car wash!

Also notable about Eileen's recollection of supposedly seeing bloody gloves and me pressure washing Juan's car's interior; she said she couldn't see the blood because the interior was blood red (4-17-07 pg 6016, 83:16-84:12, 99:19-100:6). Hearing this in 2007, Mark and Susan sent my P.D.s info from Ford Motor Company which stated that red was not even an interior option for Juan's 1989 Ford Tempo. And I let my P.D.s know that I was positive the interior was gray on gray from riding in the car and from taking off many panels, seat belts, etc, fixing the bent jam/post, latch, and lock window track/guides - all from the T-bone accident mentioned earlier. My P.D.s promised to get photos, yet didn't even confront Eileen about this 'red' fabrication, dragging me deeper into this case.

Trying to get Eileen to say she was Juan's alibi with me on November 22, 1995, my P.D. asked her if she had any law enforcement conversations about Brown's prior to the 2002, 36 hour questioning. She answered 'NO', except for telling her ex-husband Keith, prior to their marrying in 1998, which was an absolute lie, but my P.D.s allowed it and allowed Keith to testify (9-2-09 pg 91-95) to corraborate/validate Eileen's whole testimony! Keith's testimony was very quick, and kept to the script Detectives/ASA must have given him and Eileen. He said, completely nonchalantly, "Eileen did mention Jim and Juan did something big and I think she did mention Brown's Chicken, too, a few weeks before we married in 1998" - CASE CLOSED!  The extent of my P.D.s questioning of this lie was "after this something BIG Brown's conversation, did you stay friends with Jim?" Keith simply answered "Yes" - CASE CLOSED!

Two of the most obvious questions my P.D.s should've effectively asked Keith were:  FIRST, "Keith, wouldn't it be a huge red flag waving if Eileen said 'did something big and Brown's' in the same sentence?" Keith had friends working at a Brown's in 1993 near his Franklin Park home. He knew about the murders and the $240,000 reward! SECOND, "Keith, prior to the alleged 1998 Brown's pre-wedding conversation with Eileen, were you aware of any connection of Jim to  the Brown's murders?" He should have answered, yes, that he didn't hear it from Eileen, he heard it from me! Unknown to my Judge, the Press, and my Jurors was that sometime shortly after November 22, 1995, I had a long Brown's conversation with Keith - Keith, along with a large group of his friends, Eileen, and her parents, and I were all together remodeling Eileen's parent's basement. I brought up the Brown's conversation having a tissy fit about how a few days earlier Eileen and I had had surprise visits from the Palatine Detectives, questioning us about Juan's whereabouts 2 years earlier. The remodeling group thought it was funny that we didn't corroborate major parts of his story, and the group was laughing that it would be Juan getting the surprise visit this time. The ASAs and P.D.s knew about this prior to the Law Enforcement's 36 hour, May, 2002, interview. Keith must have had a conversation in February, 1993, and November, 1995, yet neither were mentioned in front of my Jurors because the ASAs and P.D.s didn't want them  to know that my only involvement in this case was being Juan's alibi! During my May, 2002, interrogation, the Detectives kept accusing me of concealing a homicide, even though not following up on Juan's alibi was their mistake, not mine!

With friends like this, who needs enemies! What gets under my skin to this day is that one month after testifying at my trial, telling my Jurors that she is still my friend today, and that I had committed these murders, Eileen returned to court on October 6, 2009 (pg 66-121) to testify on my behalf at the sentencing hearing that I could care less about. That is, in September she calls me a murderer, then returns in October to testify on my behalf: that my hobby was doing charity remodeling, that I took good care of my family, that I was a teddy bear, and that I didn't deserve the death penalty. Even more mind boggeling is the fact that at my sentencing my P.D. and the Judge told her she'd be in contempt of court if she stated her opinion of my innocence, then later the ASA called side bars (10-6009 pg 95 and 100) to tell Eileen again under no circumstance was she allowed to voice her opinion, or they would sanction her.

Eileen should have been my witness from day one! She had known me since 1988, was at my home often, knew all of my girlfriends that I'd dated for more than three days - she could have easily impeached Anne's/ the Detective's/ Melissa's lies against me! And if my P.D.s had confronted Eileen, she would've impeached herself, Anne, Hanger, the Detectives, ETC.! Instead she was allowed to lie against me uncontested.

Anne's foundation to her whole claim was that she was at my home daily since meeting (1991), dating in December 1992, confiding in Brown's confessions on January 9 and 26, 1993, moving in later that night on the 26th - this was all a lie that Eileen and Keith should have proven for me! In all honesty Keith should have been called by my P.D.s to impeach Anne and even Eileen. Keith was Eileen's customer in December, 1992 - February, 1993. We went out 4X4 off roading as a group a few times and he'd come to my home, hanging out in each other's mechanic shops. During this period, he would know for a fact that Anne wasn't around at all, as she was claiming, and I was only dating Tracy G. or Eileen during this period. Keith knew that as a couple Eileen and I went on a vacation alone at the end of February, 1993, when Anne claims I rolled her out of our bed to go with Juan to the Brown's alibi interviews (February 17, 1993- Detectives had Eileen's time cards!). Eileen and I went to visit my friends in Michigan, and to surprise Bonnie and Eileen's old classmate, Brian in Wisconsin, for his early birthday (March 1st). Eileen and I decided on vacation to just be close friends. Keith asked out Eileen for her (February 26th) birthday, and they began dating.

To shed doubt on their story, no one brought to my Jurors attention that Keith and Eileen still invited me to their wedding; then asked me to house sit and take care of their puppy while they were on their honeymoon! Both continued to introduce me to their families, friends, neighbors, and coworkers.  They continued inviting me to family get togethers, neighborhood block parties, corporate work functions - VIP/Skybox, and we often went on vacation together! They both referred their family and friends to me to remodel their homes and for tree removal; working on both their parents homes alone - after 1998. Yet, at no time did Eileen or Keith ever express concern to anyone to distance themselves from me, as both of them could easily have done and would have done if their claims in court had actually been true. They NEVER expressed concern, of course, because I am NOT a mass murderer! I NEVER committed, planned, or covered up the Brown's murders, NOR any murder for that matter. My P.D.s should have questioned Keith and Eileen's story. Now, no one has learned the true identity of the murderer!