Heads should roll at SAO and MCSD

On 2010, more than two years ago, Rajesh Chilakapati was charged with seven felonies. Two were dismissed on March 25, 2010, when they were superseded by other charges. Yesterday, April 30, all charges were dismissed. Well, not quite "dismissed", according to court records. More accurately, nolle prossed.

What was yesterday? The day before Chilakapati's jury trial was to start! Or the day it was to start. Jurors would have been selected and must have been called and waiting.

Why were charges dropped? According to the Northwest Herald, Assistant State's Attorney Michael Combs "... said he reviewed the case and determined that the case could not go forward and 'I don't think that the evidence would support prosecuting the case.'" When did he do that? Over the week-end?

How nice that he figured that out on the day before the jury trial was to begin!

Who were the deputies and detectives of the McHenry County Sheriff's Department who investigated the case? Who were the attorneys in the State's Attorney's Office (SAO) who considered the evidence for two years and who prepared to start a jury trial today, May 1, 2012?

Chilakapati should sue the Sheriff's Department and the State's Attorney's office. How many times has his name appeared in the newspapers and court records? Thanks to electronic news and reporting, his name will be forever linked to these felony charges.

There are 34 (THIRTY-FOUR) court dates in the McHenry County Circuit Court online calendar for this case.

Will Chilakapati's attorneys, Jamie Wombacher and Todd S. Pugh, seek to have Chilakapati's court records expunged? Are the charges even eligible to be expunged, since the charges were (only) nolle prossed?

When did Combs first smell a rat in the files in the SAO and realize that this case was not going to fly? Did the SAO try to get Chilakapati to cop a plea? Did his attorneys hold the line and just say, "See you in court."

Nice little tidbit tossed in by Attorney Pugh, who told the reporter that "...two nannies who since have fled to the Philippines." Did they "flee" because it was believed they had something to do with the child's injuries? Or because they were undocumented workers? Or for some other reason? Or did they just go back home? "Fleeing" makes it sound like they were suspects.

Chilakapati ended up with these cases nolle prossed. Is that good enough for him? Could the SAO re-file?

Why did the SAO wait until the day before the start of the jury trial to drop the case?