Crime Junkie - INFAMOUS: Juan Rivera

Episode Date: March 14, 2022

If you have any information in Holly Staker’s case, please contact Lake County Crime Stoppers at 847-662-2222.In the summer of 1992, the brutal rape and murder of 11-year-old Holly Staker shakes the community of Waukegan, IL to its core. When Juan Rivera confesses to the crime, it seems like Holly’s family and members of the public might be able to breathe a sigh of relief. But that’s only the beginning of a case that would haunt the Illinois justice system for years.   For current Fan Club membership options and policies, please visit https://crimejunkieapp.com/library/. Source materials for this episode cannot be listed here due to character limitations. For a full list of sources, please visit https://crimejunkiepodcast.com/infamous-juan-rivera/

Hi, crime junkies. I'm your host, Ashley Flowers. And I'm Brett. And the story I have for you today is, well, honestly, it's simply tragic and infuriating from start to finish. It's a case that spans decades, and although there is just one murder, this is a case that absolutely has multiple victims. This is the story of Juan Rivera and the murder of Holly Staker.

On August 17, 1992, Don Engelbrecht is working the evening shift at a local tavern in Waukegan, Illinois. It's a typical Monday night, probably a little slow. But just after 8 p.m., Don sees something totally strange and unexpected. Her five-year-old son, Blake. He's been brought there by one of Don's neighbors, who says that she found him outside locked out of their apartment. And Don is totally confused at this point. See, earlier that evening, she had left both Blake and her two-year-old daughter, Taylor, with the babysitter for the night, this 11-year-old girl named Holly Staker.

So if Blake is here with her neighbor, then where's Holly? Exactly. That's probably one of the many questions running through her mind. Like, where in the heck is the babysitter I am paying to look after my kids? And if my five-year-old is here, then what about my two-year-old? Great. So right away, she calls the house to try and get a hold of Holly and find out what the heck is going on. But the phone rings and rings and rings and there's no answer. At this point, that rage or frustration is probably turning into worry and panic.

Because this isn't the first time Holly has babysat for her, so it's really unlike her to just bail on these two kids. Her heart is pounding as she tries to phone again. And again, and there's still nothing. So finally, she decides to call Holly's mom to let her know what's going on, and the two of them decide to meet at Dawn's apartment. They arrive at around 8.30pm and enter the apartment together. And it's almost completely dark inside. There's just this flickering light coming from a television set that's been left on. But it's enough to see that several pieces of furniture have been overturned.

Panic immediately sets in and these two moms start moving through the apartment, desperate to find their children. Before long, Dawn finds her daughter Taylor in one of the bedrooms, completely unharmed. And this wave of relief washes over her. But again, there's still that question. Where is Holly? Nancy is still frantically searching the place, going from room to room to room, screaming Holly's name. But there's no answer. So at that point, they quickly contact police who arrive within a few minutes. At this point, everyone is gathered in the kitchen with the police trying to calm Nancy down. I mean, she thinks Holly's been kidnapped, but police's first thought is maybe she ran away.

But then as they're talking, something occurs to Dawn. What if in her panic to find Taylor and amidst all the chaos of the moment, she overlooked something? Maybe there's still an explanation for this. Yeah, I mean, that's honestly totally understandable, especially if, you know, her sole focus is finding Taylor. Like, I mean, I don't know if I could even pay attention to anything else if I was looking for one of my kids. Yeah, and that's what Dawn's thinking. So she kind of slips out of the kitchen and down the hallway into Taylor and Blake's room, this time more aware of her surroundings. The first time she searched that room, all she felt was relief and joy, finding her daughter alive and well.

But this time that feeling is replaced by something else entirely, just dread. Because when she pulls back the bedroom door, she cannot believe she missed it. It's Holly. What, like Holly hiding? No, Holly is curled up in a fetal position on the floor. And when Dawn reaches down to touch her, the first thing she notices is how cold Holly's skin is. What Dawn doesn't notice is that her son Blake has actually followed her into the bedroom. And before she can even stop him, he walks back into the kitchen and says to the cops and to Nancy, she's dead.

Holly's dead. And just like that, this Waukegan home is now officially a crime scene. According to reporting by Andrew Martin and Karen Brandon in the Chicago Tribune, the investigators get to work immediately processing the scene. And they definitely see signs of a struggle between Holly and her attacker. Like I said earlier, there was overturned furniture in the home. But they also discover that the back door to the apartment appears damaged, like it was forced open. On top of that, investigators uncover a lot of physical evidence at the scene. They collect 74 fingerprints, as well as samples of blood, semen, tissue and hair.

And they even find a kitchen knife in the yard, which they believe was used to murder Holly. The autopsy turns up even more evidence of how horrible this crime really was. The pathologist finds that in total, Holly had been stabbed 27 times with wounds to her heart, stomach, liver and lungs. There's also hemorrhaging around her neck, which the coroner says is a sign that she was forcibly held down or possibly strangled. And she has defensive wounds on her hands and on her arms. And the pathologist also finds evidence of sexual assault. Okay, so two questions immediately jumped to my mind. Holly was stabbed 27 times.

Wouldn't that leave massive amounts of blood in the apartment? Like did Don and Nancy not see any of that when they first arrived? So that's exactly what I wondered. But the crime scene is never really described as being covered in blood or anything like that. I mean, there's one description of the scene where it says that there was blood in the bedroom where Holly was found, as well as some near the kitchen sink, like someone had maybe washed bloody hands. And there are a couple of like bloody streaks on a staircase banister. So my assumption is that Don and Nancy simply overlooked it.

Like again, it wasn't this like completely horrific crime scene. Well, and also they had this tunnel vision of finding their kids. Right. And remember, it was super dark when they first arrived and there's a lot of panic. There's a lot of chaos. So again, I think that they could actually overlook it. Okay. So my second question is, I mean, you said this is taking place in what 1992.

Is there any hope at all that all these samples investigators have can be tested for DNA? Yes. So DNA profiling is still in its infancy at this point, but police would definitely have that in their toolbox. And listen, with all the physical evidence that they're finding, investigators definitely feel like this is going to be a really simple case to close, which is good because as you can imagine, the community is reeling over this crime.

So in the first week after Holly's murder, police are working around the clock. They follow up on 155 leads and log 1700 hours on this case. They actually even set up a roadblock at one point, stopping motorists in the area and just straight up asking for any information or tips that they have. They've been questioned a number of men in the area, but there's still no one that they would consider a prime suspect. Okay. What do you mean?

Are these men that were close to Holly or the family she was babysitting? Police don't elaborate on who exactly they are. I'm assuming that maybe these are people in the area who have criminal records, maybe a known history of violence, that sort of thing, but it doesn't really matter because regardless, it doesn't get them anywhere. So what about all that physical evidence they found? Did that not turn up anything? Well, not yet.

So investigators are still waiting for the results to come back. And as the days turn into weeks, tension in the community continues to mount. The school year is starting, so parents are watching their kids like walk out the door every single morning, all the while remembering that Holly's killer, someone who was capable of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl and stabbing her 27 times, is still out there,

still walking the streets among everyone else. Then in early October, nearly two months after Holly's murder, someone finally comes forward to say that they have information about Holly's killer, or rather, they know someone who has the information. This tip comes from a guy who's being held at the county jail, and he says that his former cellmate, a guy named Juan Rivera, boasted to him that he knew who killed Holly. Lucky for police, Juan is pretty easy to track down

because he's just a few hours away at Hill Correctional Facility in Galesburg, serving a three-year sentence for burglary. So police head there to talk to Juan and find out what he knows. In that initial meeting, police are convinced that Juan actually could have the information they need, so they transfer him back to the county jail for more thorough questioning. According to Andrew Martin's reporting for the Chicago Tribune, as police press Juan for details about what he knows,

he admits that on the night Holly was murdered, he knew where she was babysitting. And police are kind of thrown for a loop, so they ask him how he would know this. And police say that Juan's response to that question was that he quote-unquote just slipped. Just slipped? What does that even mean? Well, I think investigators interpret it as Juan admitting

that he just made a mistake by saying that, like he slipped up by letting them know. And at this point, they start thinking Juan isn't just a source, he's actually probably a suspect. So they're no longer casually asking him for any information he has, they're straight up interrogating him. And it's during this interrogation that police say Juan's story really falls apart. At first, he offers an alibi and says that he was at a house party

on the night of Holly's murder. But police look into that and discover that there was no party at this house on that night. So next, he says that he was actually riding around the neighborhood on his bicycle that night and that he broke into a car and stole some speakers. But again, police look into that and there's no report of any car break-ins that night. They keep pushing, and finally, after four long days of questioning, it's over. Juan Rivera signs a confession admitting to the sexual assault and murder of Holly Staker.

So on October 30th, after 10 weeks of investigation and more than 500 leads, police arrest Juan and charge him with two counts of first-degree murder. But here's the thing, that confession and arrest, that is not the end of this story, not by a long shot. After Juan's arrest, the state attorney holds a news conference and details how the murder unfolded. He said that Juan just happened to be in the neighborhood where Holly was babysitting and saw her while he was outside.

Apparently Juan spent a lot of time in that neighborhood and actually knew Holly. And not like friends, really, more like acquaintances. Okay, can you clarify something for me real quick? Yeah. So how old is Juan at this point? So he's 20 years old at the time of his arrest, which I think what you're pointing out is that sticks out to me as well, like what business as a 20-year-old man having been acquainted with an 11-year-old girl.

Yeah. But apparently lots of people in the neighborhood were familiar with Holly, as well as her sister Heather, because they were twins. So Juan, like many others, would have at least known of them. Now ultimately, the state's attorney says that sexual assault was the motive in this case. And then he gives this like creepy statement, like the attorney himself does, that goes so far as to describe Holly and Heather as quote, attractive young ladies, which I don't know how anyone can think that's like an appropriate way to describe two 11-year-old children.

And just to clarify, this is the state's attorney calling them attractive, not Juan, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The attorney. Okay. So I just like to confirm the 90s were pretty gross. Yeah.

I mean, to me it's a little dumb-founding. Anyway, he goes on to say that Juan and Holly spoke briefly, and the two went into the apartment, and that's when the sexual assault happened. He thinks that the murder itself was unplanned, that he stabbed Holly with a knife that he found in the kitchen, basically so she couldn't tell anyone about the sexual assault. And did Juan have any history of sexual offenses or violence prior to this? No, nothing like this.

Andrew Martin and John Gorman say in the Chicago Tribune that earlier in that year, Rivera had been convicted on a burglary charge and sentenced to 30 months probation. And then in July, he was arrested again for a similar crime, and he was eventually sentenced to a three-year term, which, again, we already know that he was serving for when police questioned him. Okay. But if he was arrested in July and Holly was murdered on August 17th, can you explain to me how that works?

Well, so he wasn't actually in jail that whole time. His probation officer at the time had recommended Juan be placed under house arrest. But this does lead to the first significant kind of wrinkle in the case. You see, as part of the house arrest program, Juan was required to wear an ankle monitor that ensured he always stayed within 150 feet of his home. So police would know right away if this guy left his house to, you know, I don't know, commit a horrific murder? Well, you would think, especially since the house where Holly was babysitting at

was over two miles away, but here's the thing. These monitors were notoriously easy to tamper with. From what I understand, there are like two devices. The monitor itself, which would be worn by the person under house arrest, and then the dialer, which is what notifies authorities if you leave that established perimeter. Right. The dialer would be like the, like, homing device. That's where you have to be.

Right. But you can unplug the dialer, and I guess it won't notify authorities until either six hours have passed or the dialer is plugged back in. Uh, are we allowed to give an award for the most ineffective monitoring system? Right. Now, apparently even the company that manufactured these monitors recommended that they not be used and then stopped making this model in 1989. And the police just didn't get the memo or what?

Well, in their reporting for the Chicago Tribune, Jerry Thomas and Andrew Martin imply that it was probably a cost decision that kept the county from upgrading their system. Like, apparently they had purchased the monitors for about $45,000 in 1986. And then to replace them with new ones would have cost another like $40,000. So, just because they didn't want to drop another $40,000, one. And honestly, who knows who else could theoretically just leave their house and the police would have no way of knowing. Not even just theoretically, one had left his house before on at least one occasion, July 27th.

The police knew about that one. Because again, it's not that the person wearing a device could leave and no one would notice. The alarm would trigger either six hours later or whenever the dialer was plugged back in, whichever came first. So, do police have any record of him leaving on the night that Holly was killed? Well, it depends on who you ask. Juan's attorney says no. He is adamant that the computer logs show that Juan was home that evening, all evening. That the device was working properly and that there were no attempts to tamper with the monitor.

But the state's attorney says that the device was removed on August 17 in time for Juan to commit Holly's murder. Okay, how can there be any uncertainty though? Either there is a record of the monitor being removed or tampered with or there isn't. I mean, it seems pretty cut and dry to me. Well, that's the attorney's point. Police are saying that they have information showing the device was removed on the night of Holly's murder, but they don't actually follow up and provide any actual record of it. The only thing they officially document is that on August 18, the day after Holly's murder,

the strap on Juan's monitor was found to be loose and then was replaced on August 19. But again, to me, that's not the same as a record showing that he actually left his house. Right, and the strap could be loose for a number of reasons. Okay, so setting all of that aside, there was all that physical evidence. Like you said there were fingerprints, blood, tissue, hair, even semen found at the scene. And now that they have their guy, I assume they must have matched at least some of those samples to Juan, right? Well, it's all still pending, which like, I get the DNA stuff. This is, you know, at the time, new tech.

But what I can't totally wrap my head around is why comparing prints would be so delayed. All I do know is that authorities say in mid-November that they've completed and analyzed some of the physical evidence, but they won't confirm if any of it is a match to Juan. And at this point, Juan's trial is drawing closer. On November 18, 1992, he officially enters a plea of not guilty. But he did confess, right? Well, he did, but his attorney and family say that those incriminating statements were coerced and that he didn't understand the significance of the confession he signed.

And listen, I mean, you and I and every crime junkie listening knows that a signed confession isn't always what they're cracked up to be. But from the prosecution's perspective, that confession is all they need. And they're moving forward with the case, regardless of whether or not the DNA test results come in. And on December 31st, they announced that they will be seeking the death penalty against Juan, which they say they've decided based on Holly's young age and the brutality of the crime. But that assumes that they even get to trial. See, it was originally set to begin on January 25, 1993. But then as that date draws closer, the prosecution and the defense both ask for a delay.

Are they both just not ready? Well, yeah, because they're still waiting for the DNA results from their lap almost three months after Juan's arrest. And listen, at this point, it's becoming kind of clear that this isn't even a case of like, oh, that's just how things were back then. Like, this judge is just as infuriated in 1993 as we are here in 2022. According to Robert Enstad's reporting in the Chicago Tribune, he literally refers to the lap and says, quote, don't these people realize there is some urgency? End quote.

I'm sorry, put that on a t-shirt for me. Yeah. But apparently not because the prosecution says the test results could be another 30 days. So the trial is delayed. And it's delayed again when the defense tries to have Juan's confession thrown out because they say it was coerced. Now, of course, the investigators say that the whole thing was above board. No funny business, just good old fashioned police work. They say that he was treated well, read his Miranda rights, provided with food and drink.

And in his own testimony, Juan even backs up some of these details. But overall, the defense still says that the confession itself doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Because they say that it was signed after four straight days of intense police interrogation. And by intense police investigation, I mean, intense enough to cause Juan to have a complete mental breakdown. At one point, he was found slamming his head against a cell wall so violently that he had to be restrained. Oh my God. This episode occurred just hours before the actual confession. And he was given two different drugs to address anxiety and psychosis.

His legs and arms were restrained so he wouldn't hurt himself. And he's described as laying on the floor of his cell in this nearly comatose state, like eyes wide open and just a blank stare on his face. Okay, yeah, I can totally see why the defense would be trying to get that thrown out. But there's something that's been bugging me about this whole thing. Like, it's not like this interrogation and the confession all took place like in the wild west of the 1800s or something. Is there no recording of any of this? There isn't. And that's something Juan's attorney brings up too.

Like if Juan was so cooperative, then why would he have refused to allow his confession to be recorded? Which is what investigators have been alleging this whole time. Like it was Juan's decision that they didn't have anything on tape. So literally the only document they have is a typed confession written out by one of the detectives and signed by Juan. Now around this same time that all this is happening, there's yet another twist in the case. And this one comes up when Juan's defense team alleges that they know of someone else who may be responsible for the death of Holly Staker. Andrew Martin and James Hill reported for the Chicago Tribune that according to court documents filed by Juan's defense team, police received a tip early in their investigation from an informant that a Waukegan gang member had been bragging to his friends that he had killed Holly.

And I'm assuming this is a different informant than the one that pointed police towards Juan. Correct. This informant is only referred to as John Doe. And the man he alleges committed the murder is never named. But according to the court documents, John Doe told police that on the evening of Holly's murder, he and this unnamed man, the one who he says killed Holly, were at a party. The unnamed man was using LSD and eventually left the party for a time and then returned wearing different clothes. And then several days later, at another gathering, he started bragging about having committed the murder. On top of that, Juan's attorney claims that this unnamed man told several other people about committing the crime who also reached out to law enforcement.

Okay, so did the police follow up on this? Yeah, they say they checked out plenty of other people, including this LSD party guy, and they concluded that none of them were involved. Police are confident Juan Rivera is their guy and not just because he confessed to the crime, but because they now have evidence, physical evidence, they say, that definitively links Juan to Holly's murder. Apparently, police got their hands on a shoe that Juan was wearing the night of the crime. And on that shoe, they found traces of Holly's blood. I mean, I guess who needs a confession when you have Holly's DNA on a suspect's clothing? Yeah, it's not Holly's DNA exactly, though.

The sample found on the shoe apparently wasn't large enough for technicians to say that it 100% was her blood, but they tell the media that their testing narrowed it down to a tiny segment of the population and that segment would have included Holly. Okay, that is definitely not the same thing, though. Like, how tiny are we talking? Yeah, okay, here's the thing. Juan's attorney says that this tiny segment of the population could include Holly, yes, along with 50 million other Americans, literally 20% of the US population at the time. Okay, so how did they get from we found Holly's DNA on your shoe to we found DNA on your shoe and we're confident that it's Holly's, even though it could be literally 50 million other people? Your guess is as good as mine. And honestly, this is almost the least sketchy part of this,

because at this point, it's not even clear that the shoe that they had, the one that they tested, even belonged to Juan. Wait, what? Yeah, so it isn't a shoe that they found, like, at his house. According to more of Andrew Martin's reporting for the Chicago Tribune, they got it three months after the murder from another inmate who said that he had gotten the shoes from Juan in a trade. Like, while they were both in prison together? Yeah, he says that apparently he gave Juan a television in exchange for the shoes, which I kind of have a hard time imagining inmates just like walking around with their own personal televisions. I mean, I know they have television sets in prison, but like, I guess I always thought you were like issued like standard clothes to wear,

standard shoes to wear, and it seems like Juan's just like, oh yeah, I brought these from like back when I was out of prison. I'll trade. It just doesn't sit right with me, right? Yeah. But that's how he says that the shoes came into his possession. Yeah, the whole thing feels kind of sketch, but does this mean the only thing tying Juan to the murder is his maybe not super above board confession? Pretty much, but luckily for police and the prosecution, despite all the claims that the interrogation was coercive and abusive, despite Juan claiming to not even remember signing it, the judge rules that it can be used in the case. The other piece of their case is testimony from Dawn Engelbrecht, the woman whose children Holly was babysitting when she was murdered.

She claims that she saw Juan near the scene of the crime that night and that he had asked her what had happened, which is supposed to prove what exactly that he was nosy around after the fact. Well, I think the prosecution sees it as proof that Juan had left his house that night, regardless of what the monitoring system records indicate. But it doesn't even matter because before the trial even begins, Dawn ends up recanting, saying that she can't say for certain if Juan was the person that she saw at the scene of the crime. And so now they no longer even have that. By this time, the judge is so frustrated by all the delays and the mudslinging back and forth between the defense and prosecution that he's like, you know what, I'm out.

And he actually becomes the fourth judge to be removed from the case. Wait, the fourth? Yeah, so there were others that were removed early on, mostly for like technical reasons like conflict of interest. But thankfully, the fifth time is the charm because finally in November of 1993, more than a year after Juan was charged, his trial actually begins. Naturally, a lot of the trial focuses on what happened when Juan was brought in for questioning. The prosecution hammers home the fact that Juan lied to investigators early in questioning when he provided alibis that were provably false. And then of course, there's the confession itself.

And although there's plenty of room to argue whether or not it's on the up and up, it is still a confession. So did Juan mention anything in that confession that only the killer would have known? Well, yeah, so kind of yes. According to investigators, Juan provided details that they say hadn't been made public at the time that he confessed. For instance, he had told them that he damaged the back door with a mop handle in an effort to make it look like someone had broken. And then he also says that he stabbed Holly using a knife that he found in the kitchen, which he says broke in two and then he tossed in the yard. And those details are consistent with what investigators discovered at the scene. Okay, but we already knew those things like the forced entry, the knife in the yard.

We knew like the broad strokes like police said publicly that they had found a kitchen knife in the yard, which they believe to be the murder weapon. But what they hadn't said was the fact that it was broken into pieces. And here's the thing, without a full recording of the interrogation and confession, I can't help but wonder if investigators maybe led him to those details, let those details slip, because it's not like Juan provided any new information. Like police don't say that Juan provided them with any information they didn't already know, just that they had these details that the public didn't know. Right, so he could have been asked leading questions or something. Exactly. And it is important to note here that Juan's IQ was below average at just 79, which may have made him more susceptible to that kind of interrogation. Again, we just don't know.

So after poking these holes in the confession, the defense has Juan's family testify that he was at home with them on the night of Holly's murder. And then they finally address the thing we've all been waiting for, the physical evidence. And it turns out all of the evidence, the blood, the hair, the fingerprints, the semen was not a match for Juan Rivera. Oh my God, like how is that not just an immediate deal breaker? Right, but the prosecution argues that technically Juan could have killed Holly without leaving any blood and semen at the scene. And so just because he doesn't match the evidence found, that doesn't mean that he didn't commit the murder. Okay, but if he didn't leave the semen, I don't know, found inside an 11 year old child, who did? My thoughts exactly.

In Karen Brandon and Andrew Martin's coverage of the trial for the Chicago Tribune, they say that the prosecution argued that the semen technically could have been there for days before the murder. And I just, I genuinely don't know what prosecutors are thinking at this point. Like either someone else entirely sexually assaulted and murdered this little girl, or at the very least someone else committed statutory rape, and it's almost like they're just shrugging it off. Yeah, like to be honest, I'm almost speechless. But to summarize, there's no physical evidence linking Juan Rivera to Holly's sexual assault and murder. There are no witnesses who can say for sure that they saw him at the scene. Nope. There is an ankle monitoring system that has no record of him leaving the house.

Correct. But they have that confession, and it turns out to be enough. Because after nine hours of deliberation over two days, the jury returns with a verdict of guilty. And although the jury ultimately decides against the death penalty, Juan is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. But the sense of relief and justice that Holly's loved ones feel doesn't last forever, doesn't even last three years. Because in November of 1996, the court reverses Juan's conviction. Why? Dennis O'Brien and Andrew Martin say in the Chicago Tribune that the ruling is based on four technical errors made by the judge during trial, mostly around allowing the admission of some hearsay evidence and limiting the defense's opening statements.

These things are minor enough on their own that, like, it wouldn't have been considered grounds for a retrial, but together they're problematic enough to lead to a second trial. And I have to imagine that Juan's defense team is thinking that this could be a real opportunity for them. Because even if there's no new evidence, four years have passed since this shocking crime, so maybe that pressure to just punish someone isn't as strong now. Maybe it will lead a jury to consider the actual evidence or lack of evidence. Juan's second trial begins in September of 1998, a little under five years after the original verdict was returned. And it ends up being quite similar to the first trial. However, the prosecution does introduce two new witnesses, one of whom says that she not only saw Juan Rivera at the crime scene, but actually saw him murder Holly. Blake and Taylor, the two children Holly was babysitting the night of her murder, are the witnesses.

Blake says that he saw Juan outside their apartment not long after Holly's body was discovered, but it's Taylor's testimony that is truly mind-boggling. Because she says that she remembers Juan picking her up and placing her on the bed where she would later be found by her mother Dawn. Okay Ashley, you know I have a weirdly, weirdly vivid memory. And I can remember things from when I was pretty little. Yeah. But even my earliest memory is like from when I was like maybe four or five. Taylor was what, two? Two, yeah.

How is that even possible? Exactly, I can't even tell you. And at this point, it's been six years since it's happened. So it's not even like she's three and trying to say this or four and trying to say this. It's hard to imagine taking this testimony terribly seriously. Which Juan's defense attorney points out when they got her to admit that she had previously said Holly's killer may have been a black man, which Juan is not. But apart from this absolutely bonkers development, the second trial covers a lot of the same ground. The prosecution focuses heavily on the signed confession and the defense team tries to discredit that confession.

And again, reiterates that there is still no physical evidence tying Juan to Holly's murder. Nothing. And this time, the case does seem to sit a little differently with the jury because they deliberate much longer this time for almost 36 hours. And the lack of physical evidence is absolutely something that they struggle with this time around. But again, they feel like it's hard to argue with a confession. And ultimately, they come to the same conclusion that Juan is guilty. And so once again, he is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. It's welcome news for Holly's family who is still dealing with the pain of not having her around, not seeing her grow up alongside her twin sister Heather.

But the second guilty verdict probably seems like, I don't know, proof that the person responsible for Holly's death is sitting behind bars where he belongs and where he'll be for the rest of his life. That is, until March of 2004, when Juan is given yet another chance to clear his name. Six years after Juan's second conviction, Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful Convictions decides to take up his case. And they're motivated by the same issues that have plagued this case for more than a decade at this point. The lack of physical evidence, the four days of constant interrogation that led to the confession, not to mention that one of the key witnesses at that second trial was an actual toddler at the time of the murder. Yeah, super glad that just didn't get swept on as a rug here. Same. But I guess what I'm wondering is, why do they think that this time will be any different?

I mean, like you said, nothing's changed. Yeah, there's no physical evidence, but that was also true at the first two trials. Well, here's the thing, something has changed, technology. The science behind DNA testing at the time of the original trial was so primitive that it required really large sample sizes. Whereas in 2004, they can do a lot more with a lot less. So all this physical evidence that was collected from the original crime scene gets tested again. And, I mean, once again, it reveals no connection to Juan. And once again, Lake County officials say, it doesn't matter, we've already got our guy.

I mean, I know I shouldn't be surprised, but here we are. You know, I know it's becoming like a very predictable pattern at this point. But the courts aren't quite so confident and they order a third trial. And of course, this time, the physical evidence even more definitively rules out Juan Rivera. But the truly infuriating thing is that when the prosecution tries to again explain away the fact that a different man's semen was found inside Holly's body, they also make this argument that Holly was the type of girl who might have had sex with a different grown man prior to Juan murdering her. And they base this on the fact that she was apparently molested when she was eight years old and that she had previously masturbated. Like, first of all, there's no such thing as consensual sex with an 11-year-old.

That is sexual assault, no matter what. Second, what does it matter if she was molested in her past or if she had masturbated? So she's gone through trauma and then you're like, again, shaming her because of that. I'm as raging as you are. Same. And on top of that, someone's semen was found inside of her. Someone other than the person who has been convicted twice of killing her. Like, even if the person who assaulted her didn't kill her, there's still someone out there who assaulted her that we can't connect to anything.

And at this point, we're talking 12 years after the fact and no one's been looking for that person. Right. Like, have they not entered this DNA into a database or something to see if it's a match for someone else? So from what I can tell, they actually had. The defense actually pushed for this, not the prosecution, of course. And after a federal court order, the DNA was entered into both state and federal databases, but there had been no match. So all of this aside, for the third time, the prosecution relies pretty much solely on the confession as a basis of their case. But there is one really interesting update to the physical evidence that I want to mention. See, remember how I said that Juan confessed to trying to stage the crime scene to look like there was forced entry?

He apparently said he used a mop handle to kind of like damage the back door at the apartment, which authorities later found when they were processing the scene. Yeah. Well, according to the Chicago Tribune, a forensic specialist testified that there was evidence of multiple attempts to force the door open. We're talking footprints on the door, a screwdriver that was used to pry it open. And obviously that doesn't line up with Juan's apparent confession that he saw Holly on the street and followed her into the apartment and then staged the break in after the murder. Now, it's totally possible that those footprints and screwdriver could have been there before the murder, but like, that would be a pretty big coincidence, right? Oh, totally. But ultimately, the jurors still have a hard time getting their heads around the idea that an innocent man could confess to murder in detail and then sign his name to it.

And so for the third time in 16 years, Juan Rivera is found guilty of the sexual assault and murder of Holly Staker. And for the third time, he is sentenced to life in prison without parole. Holly's poor family reliving that trauma just over and over and over again. I mean, it's heartbreaking. And following the sentencing, Holly's mother Nancy reads a victim impact statement in which she says, quote, put him away for life and let us live. Let us never have to go through this again, end quote. I mean, I truly do feel for her pain. I can't imagine not only losing your child in such a horrific way, but then having to have that wound open over and over again.

Like, but it's just so hard to feel like justice has actually been served here. I mean, especially since we still don't know who left their DNA inside the body of an 11 year old child. Yeah, I agree. My heart breaks so much in this case because you can tell that Holly's family really thinks it's one. It really wants it to be one, but there are just so many questions. It's almost like honestly, they need it to be one, you know. Yeah, but they're just not trying to answer the questions, right? Like if you have your guy, let's answer all this stuff because what's so infuriating is that in a Chicago Tribune article filed by Lisa Black and Ruth Fuller,

Assistant States Attorney Michael Murmell says prosecutors are not required to prove whose DNA was found inside Holly. He says, quote, as it turns out for a third time, that really does not alter the outcome, end quote. And so I returned to someone else sexually assaulted this little girl. But it's okay because you were able to convince a jury to convict someone else. I could rage about this for the rest of the episode and I could go on and on for hours. But like to take a real quick tangent, this is probably the one thing that makes me like pull my hair out most about the legal system, the true crime community. Like this to me is so clearly a prosecution looking for a win over everything else. Like they don't really care who killed her.

Or again, if you're going to say Juan killed her and you are so convinced because you have whatever evidence you think you have, fine. But again, someone else sexually assaulted her. It really feels like they're not looking for that person because that's going to poke holes in Juan's case. Well, and to bring up something that was brought up earlier, the whole motive for the murder was the sexual assault, right? Right. So, I mean, unless they're saying like, oh, he still assaulted her but didn't leave Seaman, like is their whole motive gone? Right. Again, I like I hate when we should be looking for the truth no matter what, no matter where that points.

And again, if it is one, okay, fine. Let's find the guy who killed her, but also let's find the other guy who sexually assaulted an 11 year old girl. And clearly the only reason they're not doing that is because it would weaken their case against this other guy. So we're just going to let what a guy who's going around having sex with children run free. Like I feel like I'm losing my mind here. No, no. And you're right. Like I personally could spiral on this for days because I cannot understand the logic of, like you said, again, if Juan did kill her, we still have someone out there who has assaulted a child.

How is that not also worth looking into? I know, I know. To get back to the episode, Juan's legal team is not going down without a fight. They have to be just as infuriated as you and I are. So they appeal the verdict. And in December 2011, the court actually throws out Juan's conviction stating that quote, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt end quote. And finally, we have somebody who's like thinking with their brain.

Rational trier of fact also needs to be on our t-shirt, I think. Yeah. But when you say throws out Juan's conviction, is that like trial three was iffy, try again, or a full, he did not do it. Stop saying he did. The latter, the court actually bars prosecutors from trying this case again. Now that doesn't mean that the prosecution can't request that that ruling be reconsidered. And at first, they say that they're debating what course of action to take. But ultimately, they decide not to challenge the decision.

And so on January 6th, 2012, Juan Rivera is released from prison. At this point, he's 39 years old and has been incarcerated for almost half his life. But this still isn't the end of the story. I mean, it can't be. This has suddenly become a 20 year old unsolved murder. Right. And investigators do start reworking the case. But I actually mean it isn't the end of Juan's story.

See, by 2014, Juan has filed a federal case for wrongful conviction. And that case leads to multiple explosive allegations about the original investigation. For example, two years after Holly's murder, a man found a bread knife buried in the bushes just steps away from the crime scene. And I assume he knew about the murder. It would have been hard to live in Waukegan at the time and not know about it. And that's why he turned the knife over to police. Now, from there, you would expect the knife would have been tested for forensic evidence. But not only is there no record of the knife being tested, it turns out that police actually destroyed the knife.

Destroyed it? Mm-hmm. Juan's legal team was never told about it. And it seems like even the state's attorney didn't know about the knife. And what's more, a forensic expert hired by the defense said that Holly's wounds are actually more consistent with this type of serrated blade than with the straight-edge blade originally found at the crime scene. So this could have been a crucial piece of evidence. Could have been. We'll never know.

But that's not even the worst part, because the DNA that was recovered from the crime scene that investigators still haven't matched to a suspect. Well, that DNA actually showed up at another crime scene almost 10 years after Holly's murder. What? Mm-hmm. In early 2000, a man named Delwyn Foxworth was beaten with a 2x4, doused in gasoline and set on fire. And when authorities investigating that murder analyzed the 2x4, they found DNA that matched the semen found in Holly's body. So was it a match for Delwyn Foxworth? According to Stephen Mills and Dan Hinkels reporting for the Chicago Tribune, not only was it not a match for Delwyn, it wasn't even a match for Marvin Willifert, the man convicted of Delwyn's murder.

So the source material has no information on where this DNA might have come from. I mean, it very well could have been someone who handled this 2x4 randomly, but this is yet another reminder that eight years after Holly's sexual assault and murder, whoever this guy is is still out there. And to me, this is also another case where it's just like, why aren't we finding who this guy is? Yeah. And I have something else that's just going to make your head explode. Remember those sneakers that the prosecution made a big deal about to the press,

the ones that had Holly's blood on them supposedly linking Juan to Holly's murder? Yeah. Well, it turns out that these shoes weren't even available for purchase in store until after Holly's death. Hold up. So the shoes that may or may not have belonged to Juan, may or may not have had Holly's DNA on it, maybe didn't even exist when she was killed? Yeah. And they even tested the DNA sample from the shoe again and get this.

It actually was a match for Holly's DNA, but not only Holly's DNA. The test revealed a second DNA source. And when they tested that DNA, it was a match to the semen found in Holly. That doesn't even make sense though. Like, how? You're right. It doesn't make sense. But there is at least one explanation.

Juan's attorneys in the wrongful conviction suit are saying the only plausible explanation is that the evidence was planted on the shoes by police. And I'm going to assume the police deny this. Well, yeah, but that, along with pretty much everything else about this case, is enough for Juan Rivera to be awarded a $20 million settlement in his wrongful conviction suit. Whoa, did you say $20 million? $20 million. At the time, it was the largest wrongful conviction settlement in US history.

That's how bad this case was botched. And look, thank God he was compensated, but no one deserves to spend nearly 20 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit. But this is anything but a happy ending. Juan can't buy back those years that he lost while in jail, no matter how much money he has. Police can't get back the potential leads they let pass them by during all those years. They wasted, convinced they had their guy when they obviously didn't. And most important of all, Holly's family cannot get their daughter back. Holly Staker was sexually assaulted and brutally murdered when she was just 11 years old.

And the person who did that to her has still not been brought to justice. Even though, by my account, we still have evidence to work with. And I don't know what's being done now to find that. Even if they still believe they have their guy and they think their guy got off, there's still another mystery to be solved. Whose DNA was found in Holly Staker? And until that is answered, I don't think you can answer any of the other questions in this case. If you have any information that could help investigators finally solve this crime and bring justice to Holly, please contact the Lake County Crime Stoppers at 847-662-2222.

You can find all the source material for this episode on our website crimejunkiepodcast.com. And be sure to follow us on Instagram at CrimeJunkie Podcast. We'll be back next week with a brand new episode. CrimeJunkie is an audio chuck production. So, what do you think Chuck? Do you approve?