 Robert Melock (Photo: Loevy & Loevy)
Almost immediately, the police focused on 22-year-old Robert Melock, the victim’s grandson. At the time, Melock was on parole for a theft conviction and was living with his maternal grandmother, Maria Yantz, who lived a few blocks from the victim.
On the night of January 14, 1989, Melock had been with his girlfriend, Cynthia Tarnowske. Over the course of the evening, Melock had purchased a case of beer, and they drove around Waukegan in Tarnowske’s car, stopping twice at a bowling alley. They eventually went to a home where a party was being held. Melock went inside whileTarnowske waited in the car. After about an hour, Melock came out, saying he had lost track of the time. Tarnowske had to be home by midnight, so Melock said that she should sneak out later and come and get him. He said that if she couldn’t get there by 1:30 a.m., he would walk home.
When the police first came looking for Melock for questioning the same day the body was discovered, he falsely said he was home much earlier, a lie he later explained by saying that because he was on parole, he didn’t want police to know he was partying. He gave a blood sample and identified the clothes he was wearing on the night of the murder.
Police questioned Tarnowske as well as Melock’s brothers and other family members. The police learned that months earlier, Melock had borrowed a throwing knife and sheath from his brother-in-law. Possession of the knife was a parole violation.
On the morning of January 19, 1989, Waukegan police detectives Lou Tessman and Donald Meadie woke Melock and brought him to the police station. During questioning, Melock said Yantz went to Florida in December 1988, and during that time, he lived with Augustine. He said that while Yantz was away, he threw a party in Yantz’s garage. During the party, Melock said, someone stole the knife. He said he still had the sheath.
However, police had been told by witnesses that on New Year’s Eve, Melock had gotten into a fight with Ed Woods. During the fight, Melock stabbed Woods with a knife.
Melock said that he remained at the party into the early morning hours of January 15, and when Tarnowske did not return, he walked to Yantz’s home. He said he went to bed and got up on the morning of the 15th to watch wrestling on television.
The officer supervising the investigation would later report that after about three hours of interrogation, Tessman and Meadie “felt that Melock was being honest and straightforward in response to their questions and didn’t appear to be lying about anything. However, it was clear that his explanation of the situation concerning the missing knife was still unanswered.” Tessman and Meadie allegedly were instructed to clear up the discrepancy.
The officers arranged for Melock to submit to a polygraph examination at John E. Reid & Associates, a private polygraph business located in downtown Chicago, about 40 miles south of Waukegan. They arrived at about 2 p.m. Tessman and Meadie waited in the lobby while Melock spent the next three hours with Michael Masokas, a polygraph and interrogation instructor.
The polygraph session was not focused on the discrepancy over the knife, but instead on whether Melock had killed his grandmother. Masokas would later testify that after administering the polygraph examination, he told Melock that he had failed. According to Masokas, Melock then admitted he had killed his grandmother.
During cross-examination, Masokas testified that the polygraph had in fact returned no result. Masokas explained that the absence of registered responses resulted from some conduct, such as movement or deep breathing, or a lack of cooperation by Melock. He stated that this conduct usually means that the suspect lied during the examination. According to Masokas, the lack of registered responses in this case was not the result of any of Melock’s verbal responses.
After Melock’s alleged admission, Tessman then entered the room, and Masokas left. Tessman emerged with a seven-page handwritten statement he said was from Melock. Tessman would later testify that he wrote each sentence of the statement himself using the exact words spoken by Melock.
According to the handwritten statement, Melock said before he got to the party, he had consumed 13 beers. At the party, he said he “did a couple of lines of cocaine.” He said that after Tarnowske went home, he returned to the party where he drank more beer and bought some cocaine.
He said that he was walking to a friend’s home when he got cold and was shaking, so he stopped at his grandmother’s home. The statement said that he tried to persuade his grandmother to let him in to spend the night, but she refused and threatened to call the police. So, he said he began pushing on the door with his shoulder. The glass broke and the door opened.
In the statement, Melock said his grandmother was on the phone, so he pushed down the receiver button to end the call. She then slapped him, and he attacked her.
“I hit her a couple of times with my fist in the face and she kicked me off her. She tried to crawl away,” the statement said. “I grabbed her from behind at her waist and her pants came down. I got up off the floor and went to the kitchen where I had laid my coat after I had got in. My coat was on the kitchen chair in the kitchen. I ran in there and grabbed my knife, leaving the sheath inside the coat.”
The statement said that he went back to the living room.
“Grandma was starting to get up so I grabbed her, and the knife was in my right hand and I was hitting her and we both fell to the ground in the living room,” the statement said. “I had her wrapped up from behind with my hands around her neck [in] a headlock and she was trying to get away, so I squeezed a little harder. I was on my knees…and she was struggling and I then cut her on the neck…She then fell down, and during the struggle, maybe the chair fell on top of her.”
According to the statement, Melock then went into the kitchen, put on his jacket and, still carrying the knife, ran to Yantz’s home. “I went to my bathroom downstairs and wiped the knife off with toilet paper because I saw blood on it. There was a T.V. in the basement and I threw it behind there. I put the sheath on the shelf in the closet.”
This would later be shown to be false – a piece of bloodstained toilet paper was found by police, but it was discovered in the basement of the victim’s home, covered with dust, indicating it had been there for a considerable amount of time.
According to the statement, Melock said that after he learned detectives wanted to talk to him, he broke the knife handle with a hammer and bent the knife on a rug in the basement. He said he put the pieces in a glove, and he walked to the train station, then took a train north to Kenosha, Wisconsin, where he walked to Lake Michigan and discarded the pieces of the knife “in the boulders or rocks on the lakefront.”
Melock was then handcuffed and driven back to the Waukegan police station. There, Tessman left Melock along and typed up an additional three-page statement that Melock signed at 1:45 a.m. on January 20, 1989. In this statement, the account of what happened after he got inside Augustine’s home was changed. The changes resulted in the statement conforming to the evidence.
Evidence was added, including:
- “I grabbed the telephone away from her, ripped it from the base and threw the receiver into the living room.”
- “I took off my right shoe and hopped up the driveway to use the side door, so no shoe prints could be found in the fresh snow.”
- “The chair could have fell on top of her because we were struggling.”
- “I wiped the knife and my hands off on a dark-colored scarf, which was on top of the pink sweater on the kitchen chair.”
- “I was going like a wild man…”
- “I ran all the way home in my stocking feet.”
- “I took my clothes off and threw them into the laundry basket.”
-
Most significantly, this account now included how he sexually assaulted his grandmother and took off his shoes. In the statement, he said he exposed his penis and his grandmother “was giving in to me what I wanted.” In graphic terms he said his grandmother fondled his penis “for about five minutes, but she then slapped me, so I went off again.” He said that when he spread her leg, she “jerked and was able to get me off her.”
-
The defense would later note that despite this detailed account, no blood was ever found on Melock’s clothes, jacket, or shoes.
Melock was charged with capital murder. Burglary and sexual assault were alleged as predicate acts.
Prior to trial, Melock’s defense lawyers filed a motion to suppress the statements. During the hearing, Melock testified that in fact the polygraph had not registered any results at all.
Tessman later testified that the absence of registered responses resulted from some conduct, such as movement or deep breathing, or a lack of cooperation by the subject. He stated that this conduct usually means that the suspect lied during the examination. According to Masokas, the lack of registered responses in this case was not the result of any of Melock’s verbal responses.
The motion was denied.
In November 1989, Melock went to trial in Lake County Circuit Court. The prosecution sought the death penalty.
The prosecution’s primary evidence was Melock’s statements. The defense sought to introduce evidence of how Melock came to make his first statement in the office of Reid & Associates, in particular the evidence that emerged during the pretrial hearing on the motion to suppress the statement about how the polygraph had not recorded any results at all.
Lake County Circuit Court Judge William Block refused to allow the evidence.
Natalie Bohrer, a forensic scientist at Northern Illinois Police Crime laboratory, testified that serology tests on clothing found at the scene revealed only the blood of the victim. No blood was found on Melock’s clothes, jacket, or shoes.
Bohrer also testified about tests that she performed on particles of glass she said she recovered from the bottom of Melock’s shoes as well as a piece of glass from the broken door at the victim’s home. She said she performed a comparison to assess whether the pieces of glass had “similar refractive indices.” The report was dated November 1, after the trial had begun.
Asked to explain refractive indices, Bohrer said, “It’s a property of the glass which is responsible for the amount of bending which occurs as light passes through the glass.”
She said the glass particles were placed on a microscope which was hooked up to a monochrome monitor, which produced light which could be separated into wavelengths, and a “hot stage.” She said the hot stage was a mechanism for heating the slides, and a liquid was added.
She said that in performing the test, she was looking for the moment when the “refractive index of the liquid matches that of the glass particles.” She said that she could vary the wavelength of light passing through the two pieces of glass as well as the temperature of the items under the slide.
Bohrer was asked how she could tell that two separate pieces of glass were “the same.” She said, “They will appear to vanish at the same time.”
Bohrer told the jury three particles of glass from Melock’s shoes had “show[n] similar refractive indexes” as the piece of glass from the broken door.
Assistant Lake County State’s Attorney Steven McCullum asked, “Based upon your tests of the glass from the shoes, and the glass from the scene, do you have an opinion as to whether or not that could have come from the same pane of glass?”
“Three of the questioned samples had similar refractive indices to the known sample, therefore it could have come from that sample,” Bohrer said.
Bohrer also testified that she had performed tests on particles recovered from a carpet in the basement where, according to Melock’s statement, he had broken up the knife.
She said she examined black plastic pieces and metal fragments from the carpet. She was shown a knife that was a demonstrative exhibit that Melock’s brother-in-law had testified was similar to the knife that he loaned to Melock.
She said one of the metal fragments contained chromium and iron which were consistent with tests she had performed on the knife.
Bohrer also said that Melock had been excluded as being the source of numerous hairs recovered from the victim’s hands and body. She said seven hairs from on the victim’s left and right hands were not consistent with Melock or the victim.
During cross-examination about the glass analysis, defense attorney Deborah Grohs asked Bohrer, “There is no way that you can tell that two pieces of glass came from the same place, can you?”
“Not based on their refractive index, no,” Bohrer replied.
Donald Verbeke, a fingerprint examiner and an investigator for the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office, testified that there were 93 fingerprints examined. Ten of the prints were suitable for comparison, and none could be associated with Melock, Verbeke said.
Tessman testified about how he took the two statements from Melock. . Tessman insisted that he wrote down Melock’s first statement verbatim. He denied that he prompted Melock.
Robert Winston, a Waukegan police officer, testified he was working in the police lockup on January 20, 1989, hours after Melock signed his second statement. Winston said that Susan Holloway was in the women’s cell, which was across the hall from the men’s cell. Winston said he was standing outside Melock’s cell talking to him when Holloway asked why Melock was there. “He [Melock] yelled back he was there because he had killed his grandmother.” Winston said Holloway yelled back over to him, “You’re kidding. Why are you really here?”
Winston said, “He yelled back, ‘No, I’m not kidding. I really did kill her.’”
Winston admitted that he initially identified the woman as Janice Randolph. When Randolph was located and questioned, she said she had not heard Melock confess. Winston testified that he later discovered the wrong name had been put on the cell door. He said he subsequently looked at a photographic array and identified Holloway as the woman. No evidence existed that such an array had been prepared or viewed.
Holloway testified that Melock admitted killing his grandmother. During her testimony, she said that she had been told by the police that if she testified against Melock, she "can get off, or I can get out of jail or...shorter sentence."
The defense argued that the prosecution had failed to disclose that Holloway had been promised leniency. The prosecution noted that in fact, she had been sentenced to two years in prison for violating her probation.
Masokas, the polygraph examiner, was identified as an “investigator,” rather than a polygraph expert. He said that Melock denied killing his grandmother for more than an hour. Ultimately, Masokas said he confronted Melock with a question which Masokas called an alternative question. “The individual is given two choices," Masokas said. "No matter which choice they chose, they are admitting to their guilt.”
At that point, Masokas said he informed Tessman that Melock had admitted his guilt.
Dr. Nancy Jones, a forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy on the victim, testified that death was the result of blunt force trauma and manual strangulation. Although Augustine had been stabbed in the neck, that wound was not fatal, though bleeding was profuse, Dr. Jones testified.
Dr. Jones said that Augustine had suffered five cracked ribs, her eye sockets were fractured, as was her right cheekbone, and her hyoid bone under her chin. She said that Augustine’s body was covered with bruises, which were the result of internal hemorrhaging. “I’ve never seen this much hemorrhaging,” Dr. Jones said.
According to Dr. Jones, the autopsy also showed evidence of vaginal and anal penetration, although no evidence of semen was found.
Melock testified and denied that he killed his grandmother. He said his confession was false. He also denied admitting to Holloway that he committed the crime. He said that Tessman promised “to go to bat” for him with the prosecution.
Melock said he was in a minor state of shock because Masokas had been asking him questions about his grandmother; “more or less telling me I did it.” Melock said Masokas claimed to be 150 percent sure that Melock had killed his grandmother. Melock said he “went into shock.” He said he “blanked out” and was “stunned.” He said he did not listen to what Masokas was saying because “it was dazing me.” Melock said Masokas continued to talk for about one-half hour, but he did not respond because he “couldn't say anything.”
At that point, Masokas left, and Tessman entered. Melock said Tessman sat close to him, put his hand on Melock’s knee, and told him that everything would be all right. Tessman then started asking questions.
Melock testified that he did not remember telling Tessman “detail for detail” about the murder because he was “shocked that they said I killed my grandmother.” According to Melock, he was unable to focus on what Tessman was saying, but he recalled that Tessman would read a sentence to him and then ask him about it. After Tessman would read a sentence, Melock said he replied “uh-huh, uh-huh,” but he did not know why he responded that way.
Melock testified that he did not hear Tessman accuse him of the murder. He said he signed a piece of paper, but that he never read it. He said he did not know what he was signing or why he signed it.
The defense called Marva Dawkins, a clinical psychologist, who had interviewed Melock and conducted numerous tests. She testified that Melock had a 77 verbal IQ and would be classified as “dull normal.” She said that more than 90 percent of the population had a higher verbal IQ than Melock. She was not allowed to testify that based on her examination, Melock was emotionally and psychologically unable to give such detailed statements, and that he was incapable of giving a statement in the exact words that Detective Tessman claimed.
On November 8, 1989, the jury convicted Melock of capital murder. The jury found that the murder had been committed during a home invasion and criminal sexual assault. Following a punishment hearing, the jury voted to impose the death penalty.
On appeal, the defense argued that the trial judge had erroneously prevented the defense from presenting evidence of the circumstances surrounding Melock’s initial confession. The defense contended Melock should have been allowed to present Masokas’s deception concerning the polygraph “results,” and that as a result, Melock was hampered in “defending against the confession.”
On July 30, 1992, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial. The court ruled that the defense should have been allowed to introduce evidence of the circumstances of what occurred during the polygraph examination and Masokas’s interrogation.
The Court noted, “While defendant’s test results, or the lack thereof, may have resulted from some interfering conduct or a lack of cooperation, this was not the information which Masokas conveyed to defendant. Masokas’[s] accusation concerning defendant’s culpability, coupled with his false statement concerning the nonexistent results, clearly suggested to defendant that he had lied.”
The Court said it believed that Masokas’s deception “largely contributed to defendant’s decision to inculpate himself…we believe that Masokas’[s] statements were deceptively designed to procure defendant’s confession.”
The court added, however, “While we hasten to express our distaste for the deceptive practices employed in this case, we find that Masokas’[s] conduct, in and of itself, was not so heavily laden with trickery so as to render defendant’s statement untrustworthy.”
The court noted that Melock’s inculpatory statements conflicted with the evidence; in particular, with the claim that he wiped blood from the knife and discarded the toilet tissue in the basement where he lived. The bloodstained tissue had been found in the victim’s basement.
“We believe that the exclusion of the polygraph evidence here deprived defendant of his fundamental right to a fair opportunity to present a defense,” the Court declared. “Fundamental justice requires that the defendant have every opportunity to controvert the State's proof.”
Melock went to trial a second time in April 1993. The defense argued that some unknown intruder committed the crime. Brian Wraxall, a forensic analyst, testified for the defense that a green T-shirt as well as the bloodstained tissue found in the basement of the victim’s home had been tested. He said he was able to exclude Augustine and Melock as the source of the blood.
Melock was again convicted of capital murder on April 14, 1993. The jury declined to sentence him to death. He was sentenced to 85 years in prison.
His conviction was upheld on appeal by the Second District Illinois Appellate Court.
Melock eventually sought a review by the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU). On July 31, 2023, as part of that review, Melock’s defense team was allowed to review the prosecution file in his case. During this review, a copy of the Waukegan Police Department’s prisoner log for the period when Melock was in the jail was discovered.The log indicated the date and time each prisoner was taken in and out of the lockup.
The log showed that Holloway and Melock were not in the lockup at the same time. The log also showed that Janice Randolph, the person that the police initially quoted as saying she heard Melock confess, was in the lockup at the same time as Melock.
In addition, the petition cited evidence that Tessman had been shown in the past to have engaged “in a pattern of fabricating false confessions to convict innocent people of crimes and then lying about it under oath.” The cases included that of Juan Rivera, who was exonerated in 2011 of the 1992 murder of an 11-year-old girl in Waukegan, and that of Herman Williams, who was exonerated in 2022 of the 1993 murder of his ex-wife.
The prosecution and Melock’s defense lawyers filed a stipulation saying that “information about Detective Tessman’s history regarding obtaining false confessions constitutes substantial, newly discovered evidence that must be considered in evaluating the credibility of the witnesses and evidence used to convict [Melock].”
On December 12, 2024, the post-conviction petition was granted, Melock’s conviction was vacated, the charges were dismissed, and he was released. He had spent more than 35 years in prison after his conviction in 1989.
Melock filed a petition seeking a certificate of innocence, which is required to seek compensation from the State of Illinois for a wrongful conviction. Melock also filed a federal lawsuit seeking compensation from the City of Waukegan, Jonh Reid & Associates, and the police officers and John Reid employees involved in his conviction.
His legal team included lawyers from the law firm of Loevy & Loevy as well as David Brodsky, who had been Melock’s trial defense lawyer at both trials. Brodsky had later been appointed to a judgeship. After he retired from the bench, he returned to continue fighting for Melock’s exoneration and secured Melock's release.
A petition was filed seeking a certificate of innocence, which was required to seek compensation from the state of Illinois. A federal lawsuit also was filed seeking compensation from the city of Waukegan and the police department.
– Maurice Possley
|