Dan Curry and John Pearman operate this news site. Their bios are here. They do so because the tragic unsolved murder case of Dyke and Karen Rhoads on July 6, 1986 has been followed by years of one-sided reporting of facts by the news media, egged on by the “Innocence Industry,” a conglomeration of defense lawyers, investigators, a major Chicago-based university (Northwestern), a misguided ex-detective, media outlets, and taxpayers, who help fund some of their activities.
The Innocence Industry, in this case, worked to smear an innocent bystander, a prominent Paris businessman and entrepreneur, in order to free original defendants in the case, Randy Steidl and Herb Whitlock. We helped defend the businessman from the smears in a previous engagement. The businessman voluntarily took two lie detector tests and passed both. He also agreed to extensive interviews with the Illinois State Police without any lawyers present. He has done virtually all he can to protect himself against shadowy allegations of guilt.
But the smears continue. In a recent clemency affidavit filed with the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, an Innocence Industry investigator put forward yet another theory of who killed Dyke and Karen, this one that clung to the old discredited theories that somehow the businessman was involved.
The Innocence Industry has twisted facts in this case like a pretzel. They have presented a narrative that is substantially false. We will work to paint a fuller picture. We will not defend the original prosecution of Steidl and Whitlock, which we had nothing to do with and we acknowledge was far from ideal. We will not definitively solve the mystery of who killed Dyke and Karen but we are certain who did not: the smeared businessman, a Texas serial killer, or the Mob.
Our client in this endeavor does not want to be revealed and we of course will honor that request. Suffice to say our client wants a fair recitation of the facts in this murder saga instead of the one that has been publicly presented to date.
We will strive for accuracy, relying mainly on court records and common sense. If we publish a substantive inaccuracy, we will correct the record. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you see one. This case has been riddled with falsehoods for nearly three decades and it’s time to start providing a closer semblance of truth.