He then removed Donnelly's pants and anally raped him. We fail to see the relevance, however, of evidence that Russell and his future wife had the names of their children already picked out and that Mrs. Nelson would not divulge the name of Russell's girl friend because she was trying to make a life of her own and was very upset about *86 what had happened. We note further that defendant made no objection to this portion of the argument, which waives the issue on appeal. Although no objections were made at trial to the admission of these confessions, defendant argues that the plain error rule should be invoked or, alternatively, that the failure to object is evidence of the incompetency of counsel. Defendant contends first that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized as the result of the search warrant issued on December 13, 1978, and argues that both the complaint for the search warrant and the search warrant itself were defective. She went out to the garage and discovered a blanket on the floor, and a red light and a mirror on the wall. In light of defense counsel's able representation of defendant throughout the trial proceedings, we reject the contention, made by appellate counsel, that trial counsel "abandoned [defendant] and rendered ineffective assistance of counsel * * *.". Rignall was 26 in March of 1978 when John Wayne Gacypulled up beside him in his Oldsmobile, inviting him in to smoke some marijuana, the Associated Press reported in 1980. 2d 62, 70, 87 S. Ct. 1056, 1062]; that in judging probable cause issuing magistrates are not to be confined by niggardly limitations or by restrictions on the use of their common sense, United States v. Ventresca [(1965), 380 U.S. 102, 108, 13 L. Ed. Defendant told his counselor, and other inmates, that he was in prison for showing porno films to adolescents, and showed disdain for homosexuals. Defendant argues that the evidence obtained as a result of the searches executed pursuant to the final three warrants must be suppressed as fruits of the prior illegal searches. Defendant stated that only "Jack Hanley" knew why Piest's body was put into the river. He was put to death in 1994. Next, in the main theme of counsel's closing argument, he proposed that it would be better to study defendant than to have him executed in an act of revenge. The court may have decided that an objection made in that form should pass without further comment. No objection was made to this argument, and the issue is therefore waived. Jeffrey eventually passed away in 2000 at 49 years old. When questioned concerning Dr. Brocher's diagnosis, Dr. Fawcett explained why he disagreed with that diagnosis, and also explained that even if this diagnostic evaluation were to be accepted, there still was no causal relationship between his diagnostic theory and any possible inability of defendant to either appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of law. The People argue further, citing People v. Williams (1967), 38 Ill. 2d 115, and People v. Miller (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 439, that the instruction was properly refused because it did not contain a correct statement of law, as Illinois does not recognize a "mere personality disorder" as meeting the test for insanity. Mic hel Ri ed had mov ed in w ith and was work ing for G ac y when G ac y ine xplic abl y hit him with a hammer, stating "he did not know what had come over him, but that he . 1979, ch. Since we have held to the contrary, we need not address these issues. The record shows that defendant was given the opportunity to request that the court ask specific questions as to the prospective jurors' opinions of the guilt of defendant. The People respond that all this information was relevant to defendant's assertion that his victims were "street hustlers," "homosexuals" and "human trash." So she did not. In view of the fact that defendant stated he threw five bodies from the I-55 bridge and all five bodies were found in the same general vicinity, a reasonable inference to be drawn was that O'Rourke was one of defendant's victims. In rebuttal, Dr. Jan Fawcett, a psychiatrist, also opined that the problem with psychodynamic or psychoanalytic *68 theory in determining criminal responsibility is that it was used to explain behavior retrospectively as if no other outcome could occur. For example, there was evidence in the record that defendant liked to "play clown" because he could grab the breasts of women in a crowd watching a parade and get away with it. He said, "You're just in time for the late show" and turned on a projector and showed a "gay" pornographic film on the wall of the room. The People note that defense counsel, during opening argument, asserted that all the victims shared "certain sexual preferences." As John Wayne Gacys basement crawl space was running out of room for the bodies of his victims, a man named Jeffrey Rignall survived a horrific encounter with the serial killer. Ried got up and saw that defendant had his arm cocked back as if he were going to strike again and had a "kind of strange" look in his eyes. If defendant had revealed to his attorneys any details whatsoever concerning the 33 murders, defendant's attorneys were aware that some 27 or so bodies were buried in the crawl space and in other parts of defendant's home and that the police were on the verge of uncovering these bodies. Defendant contends that it was improper for the assistant State's Attorney to impugn the integrity of Dr. Morrison by commenting that she had the "nerve" to submit a bill for $9,000. When Donnelly screamed, defendant pushed his face into the couch. Defendant asserts that "virtually all of the expert witnesses for both sides support the proposition that defendant was acting under an `extreme mental or emotional disturbance,'" a statutory mitigating factor. Dr. Rogers testified that there were empirical studies which proved that the Draw-a-Person test does not work, and generally disparaged the interpretation of other test results which Dr. Traisman reached. He repeatedly stated, "You love it," talked in obscenities, and "made it clear" to Rignall that defendant was in complete control. The court then instructed the jury to disregard any remarks concerning *82 this matter. Dr. Freedman explained that during the homosexual encounters with his victims, he projected his own anxieties about himself onto his victims, thinking that they, and not he, were "trash." 2d 637, 645, 89 S. Ct. 584, 590-91.) Defendant contends next that the circuit court erred in permitting certain experts to testify that they had found defendant fit to stand trial. As he did, defendant hit him with a hammer. A common sense reading of the complaint indicates that Lieutenant Kozenczak received this information while investigating a missing person report at Nisson Pharmacy on December 11, 1978. Defendant contends next that the failure to sequester the jury between the time of their selection and the beginning of trial denied him his right to a fair and impartial jury. The supplemental motion was denied. Furthermore, much of the mitigating evidence to which defendant points is questionable. The circuit court told defense counsel that in order for the court to properly evaluate the motion, counsel needed a letter from the research firm explaining what the firm proposed to analyze and how such an analysis would be conducted. Rossi testified that defendant was not a heavy drinker, that he complained of his health often, told Rossi that he had leukemia and once experienced something that appeared to be a heart attack, but that his health never prevented his getting his work finished. Dr. Cavanaugh testified that he could not if the law were followed. He testified concerning defendant's anxiety regarding his sexual identification and his anger at being called a homosexual, and that defendant showed no emotional affect when he described the stabbing of his first victim. The People also assert that defendant's confession to deviate sexual assault and indecent liberties on Piest was sufficiently corroborated. 2d 1326, 102 S. Ct. 2922, aff'd on remand (5th Cir.1982), 686 F.2d 311, vacated and remanded (1983), 463 U.S. 1223, 77 L. Ed. In reviewing the sufficiency of the complaint we are guided by the Supreme Court's statement in Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410, 21 L. Ed. We find no error in the circuit court's refusal to allow funds for this expenditure. Oxygen correspondent Stephanie Gomulka contributed to this report. (Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 238, 76 L. Ed. We find it unnecessary to address these contentions. The board had holes in it where his arms went through and where his head was placed. From the context of the statements, we find that the assistant State's Attorney was merely arguing that the People *98 had proved their case, and were entitled to a decision in their favor. 1801, 1809, 69 S. Ct. 1347, 1358) is inapplicable to this situation. Not only did defendant fail to object to the use of these statements, he stipulated to their use and, at least in part, relied on them in arguing that his mental defect constituted a factor in mitigation which should preclude the death penalty. Moreover, defense experts were able to explain how the events of defendant's childhood and adolescence, as corroborated by numerous friends and relatives of defendant, affected defendant's development. Defendant argues that the assistant State's Attorney's statement "that the psychiatric institute testified on behalf of defendants 75% of the time" was not based on facts in evidence. Citing People v. Pumphrey (1977), 51 Ill. App.3d 94, defendant argues if the sole purpose of the impeaching evidence is to contradict the witness and if it is not relevant for any other purpose, it is inadmissible. 9-1(c)(2).) The defense called two other psychiatrists. *106 Defendant next argues that the death penalty statute requires that where a defendant is convicted of more than one murder, but the deaths occurred in unrelated acts, no aggravating factor exists unless it is proved that these acts were premeditated. The circuit court emphasized the emotional connection that the inhabitants of Cook County had with this case because of the type of publicity, e.g., human interest stories and community interest stories, combined with the "particular community interest" in determining that the prejudicial impact of news reports required a change of venue. jeffrey rignall testimony transcript When asked how to reconcile the fact that the last five bodies were thrown into the Des Plaines River with his theory that the dead bodies were "love objects," Dr. Rappaport conceded that this was difficult to explain, but that there would be some explanation that he had not yet come to understand. Gacy was arrested, but quickly released on a minor bond. But just as the People may not select a jury which is predisposed on a pertinent issue which will arise at trial, the defendant may not seek out a county in which prospective jurors will most likely be predisposed on the defenses which the defendant will raise. Defendant contends next that the circuit court erred in its ruling "that expert witnesses for the State would be allowed to recount statements made to them by John Gacy, but that defense expert witnesses could not do so * * *.". Defendant's father tripped on a chair and fell, accused defendant of tripping him, and threatened to kill defendant. Defendant, in his reply brief, asserts that he never abandoned his claim of innocence because "at jury selection and at the time of jury instructions the jury was informed that there were two issues to be resolved: guilt and sanity." For example, the prosecution stated: "Thirty-three boys were dead and the lives of parents, brothers and sisters, fiances, grandmothers, friends were left shattered." This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. Another factor to be considered was reports of statements made by public officials. jeffrey rignall testimony transcript Defendant cites the cases of People v. Kubat (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 437, People v. Haywood (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 540, and People v. Jenkins (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 61, in support of his contention that the giving of conflicting instructions to the jury was reversible error. Defendant appeared very relaxed. Dr. Richard Ney, a psychologist, was called to interpret the data contained in the survey and the material gathered from the press and electronic media. Jeffrey Rignall's account with John Wayne Gacy is so - Reddit Dr. Freedman also interviewed defendant's younger sister and his mother and spoke with the interviewers who were attempting to contact defendant's friends and neighbors. David Cram worked for defendant and moved in with him after defendant was divorced from his second wife. The film receipt which was found in a waste basket in defendant's home showed that film had been left for development at Nisson's Pharmacy and would tend to show that he had been in the *26 pharmacy. The police learned that he had a record of sexually assaulting young men and had been convicted in Iowa for an assault on a teenage boy. Id. Thursday's testimony became heated, with Trump's accuser, E. Jean Carroll raising her voice at one point, and the judge scolding a Trump lawyer for asking questions that were "argumentative . In sum, we conclude that all the alleged errors during argument, as reviewed together, would not constitute reversible error. While defendant has attempted to distinguish Kubat by arguing that the *100 defendant in that case had waived his right to complain about the conflicting instructions because no objection was made to them, we find the circumstances here more compelling to hold that the error was harmless since the instruction was incorrect in only one of the readings and in none of the written forms. Defendant points out that the complaint stated only that Lieutenant Kozenczak had received this information on December 11, 1978, but does not indicate on what date Piest was last seen at the drugstore. *61 Robert Donnelly testified that he was walking in Chicago when defendant approached him in his black car (which had spotlights on both sides) and asked for identification. Defense counsel stated: "The defense of insanity is valid and it is the only defense that we could use here, because that is where the truth lies." jeffrey rignall testimony transcript - mazoutdft.com At this time they tried to make love, but defendant began crying. Defendant first argues that the following remark helped to deny him a fair sentencing hearing: "I will be frank with you, ladies and gentlemen, as a citizen of the State of Illinois myself, I don't want to pay this guy's rent for the rest of his life." For this reason, defense counsel may have decided as a tactical matter not to ask that the jury be sequestered before trial. His face was scarred and swollen and he was bleeding from his rectum. As the circuit court noted, "as a practical matter, your statements [defendant's statements to defendant's experts] are actually going in anyway * * *. When asked whether defendant's explanations of why he murdered the victims, e.g., because they asked for more money or threatened to reveal his homosexuality, were inconsistent with the theory of projection espoused by Dr. Freedman and Dr. Rappaport, Dr. Rappaport stated defendant may have "imposed those ideas on the individuals" or "tried to elicit behavior on their part to conform to his idea that they were bad people.