Father Ryan Erickson

This case is unusual on many levels. I am sure I could find plenty of criminal cases involving Catholic priests but there are only a few that also involve murder. Today we may see cases that are solved with the perpetrator deceased but let's be fair and note that most of those are coming from forensic genealogy and basing things on DNA. There of course are the cases in which the perpetrator has died and they are highly suspected as being responsible in a case but there are few cases, such as this one, in which there is an actual court proceeding where a judge and/or a jury are asked to make a decision. Some would argue that Ottis Toole was announced to be the murderer of Adam Walsh posthumously. They would be correct in this statement but that was announced by the police department, not a judge or jury. Of course there have been some bodies identified over the last several years that were determined to be victims of John Wayne Gacy, but in most of those cases they already knew the person was his victim, they just did not know who the person was.

It appears that Wisconsin may possibly be the only state in which they are able to not just conduct “John Doe investigations” but also have what are called “John Doe Hearings.” Now, I am unsure why they are called by that name, especially in this case, considering they had the name of their suspect, but in the end that is what they are called, at least in Wisconsin.

On February 5, 2002 a local medical examiner went to the O'Connell Funeral Home in Hudson Wisconsin to pick up a death certificate. When he got there he saw the bodies of the thirty-nine year old owner, Daniel O'Connell and his twenty-two year old intern, James Ellison. They had both been shot in the head but I cannot say the medical examiner knew that right away because he did not hang around too long, he immediately left. He had no way of knowing if the perpetrator was still in the building so he left and called the authorities.

These murders were the first in Hudson since 1978 so the police department did not have a lot of experience. Despite that the crime scene told them that Dan O'Connell had likely been the target and James likely an innocent bystander and witness. Dan O'Connell had been shot while still sitting behind his desk. James' body was found slumped over a chair. He too had been shot in the head but in the back of the head. It appeared that he may have come into the room and was retreating when he was shot.

There were really few leads other than this. At some point it was thought that maybe there had been some kind of robbery and that he perpetrators were drug addicts. There was a rumor that formaldehyde used in embalming could be mixed with other drugs. The rumor was proven to be false and in the end nothing seemed to be missing at all from the funeral home. Over the next two years over 1,800 people were interviewed, including the local priest, Ryan Erickson, but the trail went cold. The only two things they could rely on was that they still believed Dan had been the target and they believed that the murders had occurred between 1:08 and 1:22 in the afternoon. They based this on telephone calls Dan had and the time the medical examiner had arrived to get the death certificate which had been about 1:40.

Dan O'Connell and his wife had two small children and were very well known in the community whether it was through the funeral home business (Dan's brother was a co-owner), the Catholic church or the multiple organizations they contributed to or participated in. No one seemed to have an issue with either of them but it was clear that some one, somewhere did.

It is unclear whether someone “dropped the ball” in the investigation in the first two years or what occurred that had investigators kick starting the case again in late 2004. They began interviewing people again, including Father Ryan Erickson. They had began hearing things that Erickson may have been involved in some sexual assaults and wondered if this could have played a role in the murders. In November of 2004 investigators went to talk to Erickson, who was now an associate pastor at a church in Hurley Wisconsin, some 200 miles from Hudson. This was Erickson's second move since the murders had occurred back in 2002.

In September of 2003 Erickson had been reassigned to a church in Ladysmith Wisconsin but that did not last long as the head priest there complained that Erickson drank too much. He had also been known to spend a weekend “partying” at a local teenage hangout one weekend and when he was reprimanded Erickson told the priest that “he wasn't a priest that weekend.” These, and other issues had lead to his transfer in August of 2004 to Hurley. It is unclear exactly what the investigators knew about these transfers or any alleged sexual misconduct on Erickson's part when they interviewed him in November of 2004. However, Erickson made a comment that made them suspicious.

In the interview Erickson was asked how he thought Dan and James had been killed. He basically stated exactly where the bodies were found in the room and where they had been killed. He claimed to the investigators that he had read this in the newspaper or had seen it on the news but investigators knew this was not true. They had been careful to not let out how the bodies were found for this exact reason. They knew if they had not released particular things that if someone knew these things there was only one way they had known, they were either the killer or knew who the killer was.

Erickson was interviewed again on December 7^th and on December 9^th a search warrant was served on Erickson's personal belongings including his personal computer. It was later said that after this second interview Erickson had told a deacon at the church “I done it and they are going to catch me.” It was said that the deacon told other staff at the church but that the police were not told of this until later. When asked the deacon stated that he believed Erickson was confessing that he had committed the murders.

It seemed rather evident to Erickson's friends that the fact that he had been interviewed twice in just over a month that he was nervous and depressed about the situation. A few of his friends went to Hurley on Friday December 17^th to spend some time with him and to check on him. They would say that when they first arrived they knew Erickson was distraught but by the following day he seemed much better and happier. On the morning of Sunday December 19^th, around seven, a janitor at the rectory found the body of Father Ryan Erickson hanging from the fire escape (one report claimed it was in the hallway so to be fair I should note both). I must say that I found it disturbing that not only a priest, who had often preached against suicide, would do so, but did so on the holiest of days. Erickson had left two suicide notes. One was to his parents and one was to the two friends who had come to see him that weekend. In both notes he denied murdering Dan O'Connell and James Ellison.

After his suicide more things came to light. One was the information from the deacon who proclaimed that Erickson had all but confessed to the murders. Investigators learned, if they did not know already, that Erickson had been known for his good aim with guns. In fact he owned more than fifteen of them and was known to carry them on him often. This was important because they felt that the head shots that the victims had suffered would have been a more difficult shot to make. They also learned that Dan O'Connell had stated to someone that he had knowledge that Erickson had molested a teenage boy and he planned to confront him on the afternoon of the murders.

Their investigation into Erickson found several issues of sexual misconduct. It was discovered that at the age of six he had “sexual contact with a four year old male cousin” and when he was nineteen he has sexual contact with a fourteen year old boy. When he was twenty-one there was an investigation done where he was accused of sexually assaulting a boy at a summer “resort.” This last allegation may have taken place in 1992, or at least before entering the seminary there was an investigation by the diocese into the issues I have mentioned. After an investigation concluded it was said he “does not appear to be predatory or exploitative in his overall orientation, and he does not seem to be a high risk for acting in a sexually aggressive or manipulative manner in the future.” He was allowed to enter the seminary and in June of 2000 he was ordained. Soon after he was assigned to St. Patrick's in Hudson.

Erickson had committed suicide before anything had been discovered for certain in the search that had been conducted on his living quarters ten days prior. During that investigation a file was discovered on his computer that had been created in August of 2004 and last accessed in December, prior to it being seized. It was said to have “more than forty images of gay and prepubescent male pornography in a variety of sex act and poses” and that some included bondage.

After Erickson's suicide the family of Dan O'Connell asked for a John Doe hearing. It was said that Erickson had lawyers and neither they, nor his parents would attend or work with the hearing. They continued to believe that Erickson was innocent of the murders. The “prosecution” in the trial laid out their theory with the evidence and fifteen witnesses testified. One was the young boy that stated from 2000 to 2002 he had spent “many weekends” at the rectory with Erickson. He, and apparently there were others, were supplied with lots of alcohol. The man “estimated that Erickson had supplied him with more than 1,200 cans of beer and the same amount of liquor shots.” He stated that he could “remember” “about 10” incidences in which Erickson had sexually assaulted him but because he had been given so much alcohol there were often times that he could not completely remember the night before. It was theorized that it was this young man that Dan O'Connell had learned about. Another witness testified to seeing O'Connell the morning of the murders and claimed he mentioned this issue with Erickson, asking the witness if they had noticed anything unusual and that he planned to meet with Erickson that day.

It is unclear whether authorities were able to match the bullets at the scene to any gun found in Erickson's belongings. The prosecution also pointed out Erickson's statement about how the victims were killed and presented the deacon who claimed Erickson all but confessed to him after this interview with authorities had taken place. Once all of the evidence was presented and the witnesses testified the judge made a ruling in October of 2005. The judge stated, “I find that and conclude that Ryan Erickson probably committed these crimes in question. On a scale of one to ten as far as strength of evidence I would consider this a ten. It is a very strong case for circumstantial evidence.”

While I cannot say that I disagree with the evidence that was presented, I also cannot say that we will truly ever know the truth about things. The fact that lawyers that had been representing Erickson did not participate in the hearing meant that the witnesses were not cross examined in any way. This of course would have been different had Erickson been tried while he was still alive. But, because he was no longer living he obviously was not looking at jail time. Wisconsin does not have the death penalty so that would not have been on the table if he would have been charged prior to his suicide. But, let's look at the evidence that was presented.

First let's look at the issue in which investigators claimed that only Erickson knew exactly how the victims had been killed and in what position their bodies had been found. They would say that they had purposely not released how the bodies were found in order to help the investigation in determining who was responsible. This is done quiet often in investigations, but in the same respect I question whether Erickson's position as a priest may have allowed him more access. It was said that the church had been called after the murders and that another priest had gone to the crime scene, as is apparently Catholic tradition. It was also said that Erickson did in fact visit with Dan O'Connell's widow on the night of the murders as well as conducted the funeral of at the very least Dan O'Connell. I am absolutely not saying that I know for a fact that he did not commit these murders, but I do believe that despite holding some information back, and likely never suspecting that a priest was involved, especially in the very beginning that his position would not have made him seem more trust worthy to investigators and family. We also must consider that Erickson claimed that he believed he heard this information through the news or newspaper. Now, this was likely not true but Erickson made this statement nearly three years after the murders.

Then there are the many other witnesses who testified to things at the trial. One of the main issues that I have with this sort of proceeding is that as I mentioned earlier, these witnesses were not cross examined in any way. They were posed questions from the prosecution and presumably stated exactly what the prosecution wanted and expected. The question lies first with, if they had been cross examined, especially properly, would other information come out? Secondly, despite the fact that Erickson was already dead, he could have been represented in some way and in some fashion he would be “facing his accusers” which is a fundamental issue in court. For example, I would highly suspect that a defense attorney would have questioned the deacon who, after Erickson's death, claimed that after the second interview authorities conducted with Erickson he allegedly confessed to the murders. I would have liked to have heard the exact words of this confession, beyond “I done it and they are going to catch me.” It is unclear whether this statement was made after December 7^th but before December 9^th when a search warrant was issued and Erickson's computer was seized. In my opinion, without knowing more and having a more specific confession, this statement could have been about the pornography found on his computer, and not necessarily the murders.

If there had been lawyers cross examining these witnesses I believe many of them would have been “drilled” about why they alleged saw behaviors, heard stories both about what Dan O'Connell knew and what Erickson was doing or acting but did not come forward until after Erickson committed suicide. The deacon claims he told other staff members at the church but it is unclear whether any of them testified. Any attorney worth their salt would have argued that it was suspicious that this information came out after Erickson had committed suicide and not before in the nearly three years between the murders and his suicide. If my information is correct while investigators obviously questioned Erickson about the murders in the November 2004 interview, they had gone back to him after learning about sexual abuse allegations.

Again, I am not saying that Erickson was innocent. But, I do feel that the verdict given by the judge in October of 2005 was a “pacifying verdict.” What I mean is that it closed the case for the family and even for investigators. To be fair I have also felt this way about the posthumous “conviction” of Ottis Toole in the murder of Adam Walsh.