John Wayne Gacy (39 page)

He approached the lectern in front of the jury box, grabbed it, leaned forward, and began.

“Judge Garippo, Mr. Kunkle, Mr. Egan, Mr. Varga, counsel for the defense, ladies and gentlemen of the jury: Today is March 11, 1980. On Thursday, March 13, two days from now, John Mowery would have been twenty-three years old, if he had been allowed to live. Instead, his body was uncovered from John Gacy’s crawl space.

“On Sunday, March 16, Robert Piest would have celebrated his seventeenth birthday. Instead, his body was recovered from the Des Plaines River, the very river that he had volunteered to clean to become an Eagle Scout.

“On Monday, March 17, John Gacy will celebrate his thirty-eighth birthday. Before that, you will have the opportunity to decide whether or not John Gacy is allowed to be sitting somewhere in an easy chair, with his legs propped up, in his casual clothes, puffing on one of his big cigars, and making another one of his famous phone calls. Before that, you will decide whether or not he is allowed to tell a friend, such as Ron Rohde, on the telephone, on Sunday or Monday, ‘Ron, didn’t I tell you, didn’t I tell you I’d be out. I beat the system again.’ Or, you will be the ones to tell John Gacy, in a loud and clear tone, a message that says, ‘John Gacy, your cruising days are over. Young boys need fear you no more!’”

You didn’t have to study the jury to determine if they were paying attention. One quick look, one passing glance, and anyone could see that Terry had captured the rapt attention of each and every jury member. He was painting a picture. He began to pace and move about the well of the court.

“You will have the opportunity to tell him, ‘John Gacy, you will not manipulate us.’ You will be able to send him a message: ‘You are guilty.’

“You people have served a long trial and in a very unselfish manner. On behalf of my partners, on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, whom we represent, I wish to thank you.”

Terry was settling in, finding his stride. After having lived with this case every day of his life for such a long period of time, he knew what he wanted to tell this jury. He had been preparing for this moment for over a year.

Terry began by reminding the jury of the initial questions asked of them back in Rockford, when they were being selected as jurors, bringing them back to the beginning, reminding them how it felt to be told that they were going to be sitting on a jury where a man who was charged with thirty-three counts of murders would be judged.

He reminded them that this case was “not a single incident, not just one single massacre like a berserk person who maybe would
take a machine gun and fire into a grade school for an hour. That is not what we saw here for the past month and a half. This wasn’t a single incident, this went on for years. I believe that the evidence has shown you that these killings were carefully planned, that they were calculated, and then, that they were carefully covered up. That evidence should have shown you people that John Gacy could make conscious, responsible choices.

“I’d like you to recall through your lifetimes that there have been other mass murderers, but seldom, if ever, has anyone been so cold, so cunning, so calculated over such a long period of time as John Gacy has.”

Terry was about to slice very thinly the primary issue in the case. He knew he had to do it. He also knew it was a risky move. He took a breath, and continued.

“Now, I am not going to stand here for one minute and tell you that he is normal. No, I couldn’t do it, and I wouldn’t expect you to believe it. I’m going to tell you, right up front, that we consider him to be abnormal, not normal. You folks probably consider yourselves normal—you have never killed anyone before, let alone thirty-three people. He is abnormal. The very dictionary says that abnormal is a nonconformist, someone who is peculiar, bizarre, one who infringes the law, one who doesn’t conform to what society dictates, someone who puts himself above. Yes, that is abnormal, that is John Gacy. But because he is abnormal doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong. If he does, he is legally responsible. There is quite a difference between being abnormal and legally insane. Nobody who murders is quite normal.”

So there it was—the crux of this case, the basic question, that searing question that had landed in the lap of this jury. It seems that everyone could now officially agree that John Gacy was crazy, that he was nuts, that he was abnormal. But was he nuts enough?

Here was Terry Sullivan, arguing that our defense was right, agreeing with our basic premise that John Wayne Gacy was insane.
He just didn’t think he was insane enough. It would have been nice if he took a seat at that point. You know, thanked the jury and left it at that. Of course, he didn’t. He had plenty more to say.

“We must stress to you people the concept of responsibility, the concept upon which our laws are created, that concept of criminal responsibility that a person must be held responsible for his acts. Just because a person has a personality defect doesn’t mean that he is insane, and just because he has a complex personality doesn’t mean that he has a mental disease. Criminals don’t make our laws, ladies and gentlemen. He is abnormal, but he is rational and he is sane.

“Now, you were instructed, and His Honor will instruct you again, that we had a burden to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We had that burden on two issues: number one, we had to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of thirty-three murders; and [two] we also had to prove that he was legally responsible beyond a reasonable doubt.

“I feel there is no doubt but that we have proven both of those. As to the former, the fact that he has murdered thirty-three people: twenty-seven of those individuals, those young boys, were found under John Gacy’s house, one was found under the driveway, one under the back of the garage—twenty-nine on his property. Four were found in the river—Robert Piest, Tim O’Rourke, Frank Landingin, James Mazzara. You may recall that he said there were five that went in the river. We even may be missing someone still—that is by his own statement.

“In addition, Robert Piest’s jacket was found in his home; in addition, Frank Landingin’s bond slip was found in the defendant’s house; and in addition, he talks about the Mazzara boy as Joe from Elmwood Park. He has admitted to at least thirty murders. He said thirty or more.

“Subsequent to the recovery of the identifications, identifications were made. You heard Dr. Pavlik, the dentist, advise you on
how he made identifications from teeth. You also heard Dr. Fitzpatrick, the radiologist, testify about certain X-rays in which he said he based his identification. I am not going to bore you with all of that testimony, nor am I going through all of that again. We have proven that he has killed thirty-three people.

“I think we have also proven that the defendant has also taken other advantages, with which he is charged, with Robert Piest.

“As to the second point, the defendant being legally responsible, His Honor has told you before, and I will advise you of this again right now, that the only definition for being legally responsible is the one that has come from the court in Rockford, and the one that will come to you again. And that is simply [this] …”

Terry paused for effect. He eyed each and every member of the jury.

“A person is not criminally responsible for his conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the fact that his conduct is criminal, or to conform that conduct to what is required by law.

“Those are the words that you are going to get again later from Judge Garippo. That is the only basis upon which you should make a decision.

“I suggest that the evidence here just does not show that the defendant was not criminally responsible. In fact, when you look at all of the evidence, it shows that he did have the capacity to appreciate what he was doing and to conform his conduct to what the law requires. It shows further that the defendant was for years, and is, sane and calculating, and premeditating, and cunning, and manipulating, and evil, and rational. His acts and words, ladies and gentlemen, show that. The evidence shows that.

“I think it further shows that the defense of insanity, as used by John Gacy, is a fraud, plain and simple.

“Now, as we talk about the evidence, what I would like for you to do, if you can, is to keep in mind certain of the categories that
have been gone over and over again, but maybe during the evidence they haven’t been all drawn together into neat little niches. Some of those categories that the psychologists and psychiatrists base some of their decisions on, things that they were looking for, things that you should have been looking for, using your common sense as to what makes a sane or an insane individual. Some of those things that I would ask you to consider again would be intelligence, his memory, his ability to manipulate or con people, his credibility or lack thereof, his self-control, the emotions that he may or may not have had, his use or misuse of alcohol or drugs, his work and sleep pattern, his physical acts or strengths, and finally, a category that I call consciousness of choice, that is, during his life, could he make conscious decisions?

“Now, back when this case first started, Mr. Motta, Mr. Gacy’s attorney, made certain statements to you. In his opening argument, Mr. Motta said certain things that I would just like to reflect upon for a minute.

“He said that the evidence will show that John Gacy is insane under any standards. Whether it be that standard of your own good conscience or your common sense, the evidence will show, undeniably, that he could not control his conduct. Well, now, I’m not sure which courtroom Mr. Motta was in during this court case, but I don’t think that the evidence has shown that at all. He said that our psychiatrists—that is, their psychiatrists—will testify that Mr. Gacy is incapable of forming an intent because his intelligence and thought processes were helpless, incapable of forming an intent. Well, I think the evidence shows quite the contrary. It does show conscious choices.”

Terry went on to give an extensive restatement of how the State interpreted the evidence. He went through the witnesses he thought important and tried to emphasize testimony that he thought pertinent or helpful to his case. He talked for hours. Sometimes he had the jury’s attention, and sometimes he did not. But he covered
the evidence and related that to the story that was John Wayne Gacy. He did his job. He rarely looked at notes except when he wanted to offer a direct quote. He was leading the jury to a place where he wanted them to be. Then he began to sum up. His passion for this case was unleashed.

“Finally, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for bearing with me. I know you’re probably very hungry. Finally, I ask you only, what was the evidence that we have seen? What picture do we now have after all of this evidence? We have a man who has led a life with no regard for the law or people in general. A man who has shown a consistent pattern of antisocial conduct from as far back as Iowa in 1965. He’s intelligent. He’s cunning. He decided that he enjoyed having sexual relationships with males, and in particular, with boys. And he went about setting up, like a hunter, ways in which to lure and trap his prey, and then ways in which to disarm them. Then, to use them for his own gratification. He got caught once, but there were too many other boys in the future. Only henceforth, he was to be more careful. Shows how he thought those who would later cause him trouble he would kill. Keep them out of his way.

“So like tumbleweed that just keeps rolling along, John Gacy rolled through Iowa, being stopped only for a short time by prison walls, and then he rambled to Illinois and rolled and rolled and rolled through some of our younger citizens, making sure along the way that nothing got in his way and being ever so careful to think before he acted, and then, to cover up when he was done. And he left a path of destruction in his way. Thirty-three boys were dead; and the lives of parents, brothers, sisters, fiancées, grandmothers, friends were left shattered.”

Motta couldn’t take it anymore. He half-rose from his seat. “Objection,” he said. The judge didn’t respond. He let it pass. Sullivan continued.

“Even though technically he left some of the surviving victims, they were little more than void shells—you saw them—and perhaps
described best as living dead. John Gacy has accounted for more human devastation than many earthly catastrophes, but one must tremble. I tremble when thinking just how close he came to getting away with it all. Further, [the] evidence shows that his intention was to concrete that entire crawl space in the very near future, a move that certainly would have kept him from detection.

“John Gacy’s freedom would no doubt have meant for others, somewhere, more shattered lives, and it surely would have meant that Rob Piest would have died in vain. John Gacy had caused misery and suffering enough to last a century. Thank God, he’s been stopped. John Gacy is either evil or crazy, said Mr. Motta in his opening statement. I submit that beyond a reasonable doubt, he is evil. He is vile. He is base. He is mean, he is diabolical, and he is a murderer who must be held responsible for his conscious acts. He used all of his victims, both the dead and the living victims, for his own selfish, egocentrically physical pleasures.”

Terry pointed at Gacy. He walked toward him.

“John Gacy, you are the worst of all murderers, for your victims were the young, the unassuming, the naive.”

Gacy, true to form, totally unable to act appropriately, laughed nervously at Sullivan.

“You truly are a predator,” Sullivan went on. “John Gacy, you have pilfered the most precious thing that parents can give: that of human life. John Gacy, you have stolen the most important thing that any person has: his very life. John Gacy, you have nipped in the bud thirty-three young lives, and you have deprived them of everything that this country, based on laws and justice, stands for and guaranteed to those people: their lives, their liberty, and their right to pursue their own happiness. Finally, John Gacy, you have snuffed out those lives like they were just candles. You have snuffed out the very existence of those thirty-three young boys forever. Those candles can’t be lit again for all eternity.”