Terry Ekl Attacks Tom McQueen’s Testimony about Withholding Evidence in Bianchi Trials

The afternoon of the second day of the indirect contempt of court trial of McHenry County Special Prosecutor Thomas “Tom” McQueen consisted mainly of Lou Bianchi defense attorney and prosecutor of the McQueen case Terry Ekl’s questioning McQueen about his morning testimony.

The information turned over by then-First Assistant State’s Attorney Tom Carroll was first on Ekl’s agenda.

McQueen said he “couldn’t recall the details, but” that it was “directional” in nature.

Quest Consultants President Robert Scigalski wrote the email about a conversation with Carroll.

“[Did you not know] that the Carroll email had a number of statements about the second indictment?” Ekl asked.

“I had no recollection of their existence,” McQueen replied.

Ekl probed McQueen’s experience finding, to his surprise, that the Special Prosecutor had only handled “not more than a half a dozen” state felony cases.

At issue was Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412, which McQueen admitted having first seen as an Assistant Lake County State’s Attorney in 1973.

“Part of the Rule [says] prosecutors must turn over oral statements to the defense…You knew your obligation, but you didn’t turn over all the memorandum, [did you]?”

“With the exception of that part of the Demetios Tsilismigras memo that refers to Count 5, [I did.]”

Thomas McQueen.  Photo Credit:  First Electric Newspaper.

Thomas McQueen. Photo Credit: First Electric Newspaper.

“You consider yourself a highly competent criminal defense attorney, [don’t you]?”

“I think I do OK.”

“You didn’t turn over everything favorable to the defense, did you?” Ekl said, “referencing Brady material, which may tend to negate the guilt of the defendant.”

“{It was an] accurate statement of what I knew at the time.” McQueen replied.

“I now know thee were other documents that were not produced.”

“Other documents?”

“Most of which I never saw.”

“Did not turn over at that time?”

“No.  Just a matter of [having enough] time.”

Ekl asked if McQueen did a word search of his email.

“I didn’t do any word search of my email.

“I made copies of every email from Quest regarding witness summaries.

“The only statement I’m aware of is the [Jeff] Borah statements.”

“Did you look…[for] verbatim accounts of what witnesses told your investigators?”

“I don’t recall dong that.”

Asked about the April 21, 2010, “subject interview of Tom Carroll,” McQueen indicated that both he and Special Prosecutor Henry “Skip” Tonigan reviewed it, but “Mr. Carroll is Mr. Tonigan’s witness.”

“You’re the one who signed off on those responses, [weren’t you]?”

Carroll “was a defender of State’s Attorney Bianchi.  He admitted he was the one who solicited volunteers.  [He admitted he had] no personal knowledge of that, no personal knowledge of anything although he practically ran the office.”

What Carroll said was favorable to Bianchi, Ekl observed.

“The last part contradicts the first part.

“You never produced this email, [right]?”

“Correct,” adding shortly that the information was in the report and in the Grand Jury proceedings.

McQueen response to the Scigalski email about his conversation with Carroll, which included that staff Christmas gifts were not paid for with county funds including the word “disappointing.”

McQueen’s take on his use of the word was, “I believe he wasn’t being truthful.”

Ekl’s intensity increased as he said,

“Your marching instructions on this case was to indict Lou Bianchi, weren’t they?”

“Did Mark Gummerson tell you that?”

“I don’t remember talking to Mark Gummerson about that.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.