Officer in Harris case coaxed similar confession in ‘94

By Maurice Possley

Four years before Detective James Cassidy obtained an alleged confession from two boys in the Ryan Harris murder, the detective got a similar admission from an 11-year-old boy under strikingly similar circumstances.

In September 1994, Cassidy, while questioning the boy with no youth officer or parent present, reported that the boy broke down and confessed to killing Anna Gilvis, 84, because she repeatedly addressed him with a racial slur.

That boy was found guilty of the murder solely on the basis of his statement to police, even though a bloody palm print and a partial bloody footprint found at the scene were not his.

The case is now the focus of a lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court, that challenges the boy’s conviction for the murder, alleging that the confession was coerced and should have been suppressed. The boy was not read his Miranda warning -- telling him of his right to a lawyer and not to speak -- before he allegedly confessed.

The boy, who is now 15, was given probation because he couldn’t be locked up under the law at the time. Mental health experts who examined the youth found nothing in the boy’s background or psychological makeup that would explain why he would commit such a crime.

Lawyers from Northwestern University’s Legal Clinic and from the firm of Jenner & Block contend in the suit that Cassidy lacked probable cause to arrest the boy and didn’t properly give the Miranda warning.

On Wednesday, police spokesman Pat Camden declined to comment, and attempts to reach Cassidy, who is on vacation, were unsuccessful.

The lawsuit comes at a time of intense scrutiny of police conduct in juvenile investigations.

In both cases, the suspects were questioned for hours outside the presence of youth officers, who are required by law to be there. In both instances, Miranda warnings were given only after incriminating statements were obtained by Cassidy, a veteran of more than 25 years and more than 1,000 investigations of violent crimes.

The dismissal of the charges against the 7- and 8-year-old boys in the Harris killing, following a crime lab report that crippled the police case, has prompted demands that a parent or guardian be present during questioning of juveniles and that prosecutors review felony charges against juveniles.

The similarities between the two cases are so apparent that Juvenile Court Judge Stuart Lubin, who convicted the 11-year-old, said he has been thinking about his decision.

“It’s very intriguing. . . . I started to think about it because his (Cassidy’s) credibility was the key issue in the case,” he said. “There was a major difference: In my case there was a full confession with a motive.”

In the Ryan Harris murder, police contended that the two boys knew details only a perpetrator would know, but neither boy actually admitted hitting Ryan in the head with the bloody brick found at the scene.

In the Gilvis case, however, Cassidy said the boy admitted beating the woman with her cane and slashing her throat with a kitchen knife because he was overwhelmed with rage after she repeatedly called him a racial slur.

Jenner & Block attorney Thomas O’Neill called the similarities in the cases “chilling.”

“When you look at the record in this case, there is a very strong likelihood this boy was coerced into making a confession to a crime he didn’t commit,” he said.

Based on a review of police reports, transcripts and the suit, the similarities include: the alleged confessions were retracted once parents were allowed to see their children; no physical evidence tied the boys to the crimes; the boys’ physical stature raised questions about whether they could have committed the crime; none of the boys had any prior contact with police; and experts could find no mental disorder in any of the boys that would account for homicidal violence.

Gilvis was found dead on Oct. 5, 1993, in the bathroom of her home at 7219 S. California Ave. A diamond ring and gold watch were missing. But, like Ryan Harris’ stolen bicycle, these items were not recovered by police.

A telephone cord had been ripped from the wall and tightly wound around Gilvis’ arms, neck and hands. Her ankles were bound with a cloth ribbon. Her cane was found in pieces near the body. Her throat had been stabbed once, then slashed open.

Police charged the boy on Sept. 2, 1994, despite a blood trail that suggested the 173-pound victim had been dragged from the kitchen to the bathroom. The boy, at the time, was 5-feet-1 and 88 pounds.

On the bathroom wall was a bloody palm print and on the back porch was a bloody shoe print -- neither of which could be matched to the boy. Despite the apparent struggle and ransacking, none of the boy’s fingerprints was found inside the house.

The boy was initially questioned the day the body was found, and he told police he saw a man in the alley behind the woman’s house who told him to “get away.” The man then allegedly went down a gangway toward the victim’s back door.

The initial investigation focused on a man who lived next door to the victim and downstairs from the boy’s apartment.

Months later, on Sept. 1, 1994, Cassidy decided to question the boy again. Cassidy arranged for the boy to be brought to Wentworth Area headquarters after obtaining permission from his mother. It is a decision she recalls with regret.

“I’m trusting the police,” she said Wednesday. “I never dreamed this would happen. It was the biggest mistake I will ever make. I know my son is innocent.”

Questioned as a witness at different times on two days, the boy changed his story repeatedly until he finally was charged. His accounts varied from being a lookout while the house was robbed to actually witnessing the murder by an adult.

Cassidy testified that he began to confront the boy, saying he could not have been a lookout if he was in the apartment at the time of the murder. But, even though the boy seemed to have moved from being a witness to a suspect, he never was given his rights.

The climax of the questioning, according to Cassidy, came when the boy’s chest heaved, his eyes bulged and he confessed. “I hated her, and I killed her,” Cassidy quoted the boy as saying.

The boy refused to sign a written summary of his confession, and Cassidy’s account later was at odds with the evidence in some instances. For example, Cassidy said the boy said he entered the house through an unlocked back door, but police found evidence the back lock had been pried open.

At trial, the boy testified that Cassidy and his partner cursed, shouted and thumped his knees, calling him a liar and telling him that if he confessed, they -- and God -- would forgive him. Cassidy denied those claims in court.

The boy was charged as a juvenile, tried in Juvenile Court and convicted on Oct. 6 -- a little more than a month after being charged.

On appeal, lawyers argued that the boy’s arrest and statement should have been challenged by the original attorney in pre-trial motions. A state appeals court upheld the conviction by 2-1 vote, with the dissenting judge expressing serious concern the boy’s rights were violated.

The latest challenge is being made in federal court, as Steven Drizin, an attorney at the Northwestern Legal Clinic, and the Jenner & Block team pursue the case. The boy is now in the Juvenile Detention Center in St. Charles after he was convicted of aggravated battery and then violated his probation on that case. He is due out Nov. 20.

The boy’s uncle said he was “floored” when he heard about Cassidy’s involvement in the Harris case. “The coincidence is too strong to me. It is unbelievable,” he said.

The Harris case has given pause to Lubin, who was severely criticized for giving the boy probation even though the law did not permit incarceration.

“I always think about all my cases and whether I’ve made the right decision,” Lubin said. “There were some inconsistencies, but I didn’t feel that they established a reasonable doubt.

” Now, Lubin said: “I just don’t know.”