Brown's Chicken Massacre

If you are a regular reader of my blog you know that they are not always simply about the crime. Sometimes it is about the justice system that includes things like fair trials, evidence presented, and sometimes it is about my opinion in the guilt or innocence of the person or people accused. It was many of this latter things that had me flip-flopping on my feelings on the case throughout the time I was researching this case. In the end however, I believe that it has to be one of those cases that common sense has to come into play when deciding if the correct perpetrators were taken to trial.

Sixteen year old Michael Castro was working at Brown's Chicken and Pasta in Palatine Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, on January 8, 1993. The restaurant had closed at 9 pm but a few hours later he had not returned home and his parents were worried and called the police. A short time later the wife of Guadalupe Maldonado also called the police stating her husband had not returned home and she, or someone she knew, had reported that his car was still in the parking lot of the restaurant, although it was closed. At this point the police decided they should go check things out and arrived somewhere between 11 pm and midnight, they could not imagine the horror that they would find.

In 1993 Brown's Chicken and Pasta was apparently very popular. They had over 100 franchises between Illinois and Northern Indiana. It has been said that the events in 1993 took a toll on the business and that as of 2016 there were less than 25 restaurants still in business, all in Illinois. Richard and Lynn Ehlenfeldt owned the franchise in Palatine. They had three teenage daughters and two of them were supposed to be working the night of January 8^th but for whatever reasons were not there. Instead it was Richard, Lynn, Michael Castro, Guadalupe Maldonado, Thomas Mennes, Marcus Nellsen and seventeen year old Rico Solis.

When officers arrived to check on the situation they found the back employee entrance to the building unlocked and open. Inside there was blood splattered everywhere. When authorities opened the walk in cooler they found the bodies of all seven of the employees that had worked that night, including owners, Richard and Lynn Ehlenfeldt.

Keep in mind that in 1993 while DNA was around in its infant stages there still was little that could be done with forensics but it was a time of hope. Today tests can be done with very small amounts but then there was not only a need for larger samples, they were often ran and re-ran, meaning even more was needed. Even so authorities kept some partially eaten food they found in the garbage at the scene. According to the chain of evidence this was keep in a freezer until about 2002 when it was tested for DNA using the more modern methods.

A medical examination on the bodies determined that all of the victims had been shot, some multiple times, except for Lynn Ehlenfeldt, who's throat was cut. Authorities were also able to determine that the restaurant safe had been robbed to the tune of just under $2,000. So the reality of it all was that seven people lost their lives for less than two grand.

Throughout the years the building that housed Brown's Chicken and Pasta changed hands several times but no business seemed to prosper there due to the stigma of people in the area knowing what had happened in that location. In April of 2001 the building was finally demolished and a bank currently occupies the location. Even at the time of the razing of the building in 2001 the crime remained unsolved.

In March of 2002 a woman by the name of Anne Lockett went to the police and implicated her now ex-boyfriend, James Degorski and his friend Juan Luna in the murders. She would claim that the day after the murders Degorski had confessed to her. She would also claim that she had remained quiet for over nine years because Degorski had threatened her life and she feared him. Authorities obviously looked into the two men and in April of 2002 they would say they had linked the partly eaten chicken they had recovered from the trash to Juan Luna, a former employee at the restaurant.

Both Luna and Degorski would be arrested in May of 2002. On the record both men would apparently confess to authorities, although as is the case with many criminals it appeared that each attempted to lessen their own culpability and put more of the blame on the other. Attorney's for both men would argue that they had been coerced into their confessions and forced had been used. Now, we hear this quite often from attorney's that represent those who have confessed to crimes and the majority of those claims are often unfounded. The difference here is that the Chicago police department would have a reputation of beating suspects into confessions so this was taken a little more serious. For Luna's part, his attorney's would argue that authorities had used threats of the death penalty and deportation to get the information they wanted. Luna in the end had put his confession, not just on paper, but a video would be shown to a jury at his trial in 2007. When it came to Degorski, things were a bit different. First, the jury at his trial in 2009 were not shown a video, nor does it seem that a signed confession was presented. Many believe that the video of his confession was not presented, if there was one, because it seemed plainly obvious that things were not conducted as they should have been. After his arrest in May of 2002, Degorski suffered a beating that included several facial fractures and required surgery. The deputy involved was eventually dismissed from his job. In 2014 Degorski received a settlement of $451,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. I will get into what could come from that money in a bit.

The prosecutors in the case decided they wanted to seek the death penalty against both men. Luna would go to trial in 2007. Prosecutors had his confession, DNA linking him to the chicken found, and at the very least a link to at least some of the victims since he was a former employee. It is unclear if Lockett did, or was even allowed to testify at Luna's trial considering that although her information had led investigators to look into Luna, her claims were highly considered hearsay evidence. As a former law student I can tell you that the exceptions to hearsay evidence rules are many and they are often the most confusing to determine just what can be allowed in a court and what cannot. On May 10, 2007 Luna was found guilty of all charges and while the jury recommended 11-1 for the death penalty the law required that they be unanimous so he was sentenced to seven counts of life without parole.

It would be over two years later before James Degorski would go to trial. Like Luna, Degorski was charged with seven counts of murder and the prosecutors were arguing for the death penalty. Unlike Luna, it appears that the only evidence that the prosecutors had was the apparent forced confessions of both Degorski and Luna, and the word of Lockett and another woman who would claim Degorski had confessed. Keep in mind that the other woman was also a friend of Lockett's. There was no DNA evidence or anything else apparently linking Degorski to the crime. Lockett's story of how the confession came about would be put into question. Defense attorney's would argue that not only was Lockett not dating Degorski at the time of the murders, but that on the day she claimed he called and confessed to her she was a patient in a mental facility. Not only did they use Lockett's apparent mental issues against her but also the fact that it was said that she was a drug user at the time. They presented the man in which they claim she was dating at the time of the murders and he would testify that she never mentioned to him the supposed confession. They also at least attempted to show the evidence of her mental health stay and pointed out that patients could not just receive phone calls as had been portrayed. Now, how exactly that played out or what the jury come to believe in making their later decision is unclear. In fairness to Lockett, and keep in mind I have no more real information on her or the evidence the defense obtained, I believe it is possible that Degorski still could have confessed and yet it not be the day following the murder. If the defense proved that Lockett was a patient in a mental hospital on that day and could not have received the call on that day it does not in general mean the eventual call did not happen. We have to remember that this revelation did not come out until more than nine years after the supposed confession and if we believe the defense in the fact that drugs had been a part of Lockett's life the timing of the call, if it happened, could have been a different time. I believe one of the reasons that I tended to “flip-flop” as I stated earlier is that it appears that even in court the only things that linked Degorski to the crime were comments from three people.... Luna (who remember was arrested at the same time and was allegedly coerced), Lockett and her friend.

The jury in Degorski's trial found him guilty on September 29, 2009. And, like the jury in Luna's trial, they could not vote unanimously for the death penalty (ultimately ending with a 10-2 decision for death), so he too was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Over the ensuring years Degorski's case has periodically made it back into the news. In September 2016 defense attorney's sought a hearing for “new evidence” saying that the jury was not informed that Lockett and the other woman who testified against him at the trial received close to $100,000 in reward money for their testimony and information that had led to the arrest. It is not completely clear but it seems that the court denied the motion. If I am wrong on this then it means it is still within the courts.

I told you earlier that I would discuss the settlement that Degorski received in 2014 for the beating that he endured from a deputy that was said to have led to his confession. Of course there was a lot of outrage from the community that a man who had been found guilty of seven counts of murder and committing one of the most memorial and heinous crimes residents could remember (and keep in mind this is Chicago), was given nearly a half a million dollar settlement. Authorities and prosecutors would say that the Department of Correction “could” sue Degorski for repayment of his incarcerations obtaining all but about $15,000 of that money. On top of this the families of the victims could also sue. Whether any of this happened is unknown. The deputy who was dismissed based on his actions was charged criminally but was acquitted. He claimed it was self defense although like many of the cases we see in the news as of late (and remember this was before everything was documented as it is now), it appears that even the prosecutors did not believe this story.

As I have already stated a few times this case had me going back and forth a few times in whether I believed the evidence was sufficient in the convictions of the two men. When it to Luna I was less conflicted. Let me state that the fact that both allegedly confessed to the crime held no bearing on my thoughts. I am one that likes to see the confession, compare it to evidence and other things before taking a confession for face value. To add to this it is apparent that the police department had a bad reputation in their treatment of suspects. I have said before and I will say again, for me crimes, no matter how heinous they are, for me comes down to the legalities and the evidence of things, including allowing information into a courtroom that should or should not have been allowed by law. In fairness, there are some things at times that are allowed by law that I personally find unfair, such as for instance when prosecutors show evidence of unfaithfulness in a marriage when it is unrelated to the crime that is being presented. But, if we are to believe, and as a rule of thumb we should, that the prosecutors had evidence, that was not contaminated in any way that forensically linked Luna to the scene on the night of the murders, then we know he was there. We also know that Luna was a former employee would knew what kind of money would be held in the safe. This would appear to be enough for me and I found nothing that even a defense attorney disputed this.

But, then there was Degorski. There were no forensics that I found linking him to the crime. I saw no evidence that any weapon was ever found proving to be ones used in the murders. The only thing Degorski had against him was the word of three people. First there was Luna, who as I stated was arrested for the same crime at the same time as Degorski. In his confession Luna would tell authorities that Degorski had been the one to shoot six of the victims while he was the one who used a knife to slit the throat of Lynn Ehlenfeldt. Keep in mind that it is very highly likely that through their tactics the officers interrogating Luna continually brought up Degorski themselves as they were convinced Degorski was involved. This was a prime opportunity for Luna to “pass the buck” onto Degorski. This is not to say that I know for certain this is what happened, I am simply stating that without collaborating evidence it is simply the word of one man who is linked to the scene against another. Then there was Anne Lockett. I was left questioning just what points the defense possibly made in their criticism of her. Where there drugs involved in her life? Were she and Degorski really not dating at the time of the murders? And, most importantly was she really in a psychiatric hospital when she alleged she received a call from Degorski. It is not as if defense attorney's (or prosecutors for that matter) have not been found to at the very least stretch the truth, or come right out and lie simply to find that “reasonable doubt” verdict. However, for the most part professional attorney's do not make specific claims, especially within the walls of a courtroom without evidence to back them up. In this case I can assume there was some testimony about the involvement of drugs in Lockett's life. Now, whether those were current or past issues are unknown but also remember there was nearly a decade between the time of the crime and Lockett's tip to the police. Could she have been on drugs at the time of the supposed confession? Absolutely. Could she have been on drugs at the time of the tip to officers? Again, yes, she could have been. One has to wonder what, if any, role drugs played not just in possible motivation but also in issues of memory. As I stated earlier a man testified that he was dating Lockett at the time of the crime despite her claims that she was dating Degorski. Could she have been dating both men? Sure. So, that in and of itself is another issue of one person stating something about someone else without real evidence behind it. However, the issue of whether she was a patient in a psychiatric hospital did appear to be true. My research showed whether she had admitted it or not prior to Degorski's trial, Lockett did have to admit this to be true when confronted with the defense and apparently it is she who would claim that Degorski called her at the hospital and the call was put into her. Now, this I have a problem with. First, it does not seem likely, and apparently the defense presented evidence to show that it was not standard, that anyone, especially someone unrelated could make calls to this facility (it was claimed no phones in the room), and Lockett would be given the phone. Secondly, it seems even more unlikely that a criminal would call someone in a psychiatric facility and confess to a crime. The person would not only be near many people that she could tell the story to, but those people would not likely hold a secret and authorities would have been notified. Add to this if she was in a psychiatric facility, as has been claimed she would obviously been unstable in her emotions and it seems odd that anyone would risk being caught in this manner. Let me be clear in saying that I am not necessarily saying that Lockett was lying when she said Degorski confessed to her. I just doubt the timing of when it supposedly happened. I also find suspicious the fact that the other woman who would share in the reward with Lockett and claim that Degorski confessed was a friend of hers. I am going to assume that this friend had less of a shady history than Lockett and the prosecution knew this, wanting her on the stand to back Lockett up.

With all of that said I do find it “suspicious” that Juan Luna and James Degorski were old high school friends at the time of the crime. Luna was eighteen while Degorski was twenty. They were and apparently continued to be friends. It seems a bit too coincidental that Anne Lockett would go to the police saying that Degorski confessed to committing the crime with Luna to her and there be so much evidence against Luna at the scene, let alone that they were friends. I am sure there are those who allege that evidence was planted or manipulated and while I am not one to say that it never happens, I will say that would make no sense here. In my opinion if authorities were going to manufacture evidence they would have done a lot more of it, and it would have been more against Degorski than Luna in order to collaborate Lockett's story. For instance if they were going to manufacture evidence it would make more sense that the DNA found would have matched Degorski because they could conclusively link Degorski to Luna and Luna to the restaurant. This rational helped me stop second guessing the guilt or innocence of either defendant. It did not help me decide if there was legally enough evidence to convict at least Degorski, but sometimes it has to come down to that.