http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/jay-given-case-cold-nearly-years-later/article_3b61f9a5-12d7-5160-a7f5-b9f32d78f6b6.html

Some little tidbits from the article that UM left out:
-Robert Pastrick (the mayor who Given was trying to oust at the time of his murder) had another "associate" die under suspicious circumstances within a year of Given's murder.
-The investigator interviewed (the one with the eye patch) insisted he locked the evidence in his desk, but the article says that the evidence was mishandled and not locked.
-There was another POI in the case at the time, who was the man who saw Given talking to officer John Cardona in the hallway shortly before he was shot. After talking to police a couple of times, he lawyered up and moved to Florida.
-A potential witness refused to answer questions and cooperate with police and decided she'd rather spend 10 days in jail than answer questions. The theory is she saw something but was scared into not talking.
-John Cardona stopped off at the hospital where Given was taken after being shot. He had no explanation as to why he did this.
-Someone shot through a window at Given's apartment the day after he was murdered.

I tend to think it's pretty obvious that Cardona was the one who murdered Given. He was seen at the fundraiser, had no reason to be there, was seen talking to Given before he was murdered, failed (miserably) a polygraph, and owned the same style of rare weapon used in the murder. I smell big time coverup in this case, or else Cardona would have been charged, IMO.

I just watched this last night. I did a search and this was the only thread that came up. I guess this is another contender for most "underrated" case, eh?

My gut feeling is that Cardona had a hand in it. The fact that the bullet was tampered with is very telling IMO because that officer's desk, locked or not, would have been accessible to, I'm imagining, a pretty short list of folks.

There really is no reason to go to such lengths by tampering evidence unless the goal was to conceal what type of gun was used because the list of owners was pretty short given the make, and one of those owners was Cardona, who I'm assuming would have had access to the desk.

I think that because a police officer was involved and there was an obvious attempt to cover up (either by Cardona or one or more of his cop buddies), this case will probably never be solved.

One thing that got me is how ballsy this murder was. I'm surprised the perp didn't try to commit the crime in a less conspicuous place. Just an observation.

Do you think Cardona was the triggerman, or do you think he was simply there as someone to kind of distract Given?

This has always been a favorite segment of mine, I'm surprised there wasn't more discussion on it here.

ETA: Wasn't UM trying to locate a group of people leaving at the exact time that Given was shot and killed, because they would have been within eyesight of the actual murder itself?

Do you think Cardona was the triggerman, or do you think he was simply there as someone to kind of distract Given?

My knee jerk reaction was that Cardona probably wasn't the triggerman. However, I think he was involved and was possibly there to set up Given. The segment touched on this, and I agree that it would been unlikely that Cardona would go to the Elks Club armed (presumably with the rare Detonics handgun), make a point to be seen by many people who knew him personally, and then kill Given in front of so many potential witnesses. The segment mentioned that Cardona was in bed with some other political group that strongly opposed Given's politics.

I find the mechanics of the crime odd.

It was mentioned that Given was shot in the back of the head at point blank range. The re-enactment of the crime showed Given casually strolling out of the club, lighting a cigarette, and someone sneaking up behind him and firing.

Yet, there is a later reenactment (based on a witness account) that shows Given conversing with an unknown man (presumably Cardona, as he fit the description from the witness). The witness went into the restroom and heard the shot, ran out and saw Given on the floor. Was the unknown man Given talked with the killer? Was it Cardona?

And, what the Hell happened? Did Given have a conversation or possibly an argument with this guy and the guy killed him? Possible. However, it wasn't mentioned if there was evidence of a struggle. Also, Given was shot in the back of the head. Seems kind of weird if there was a confrontation beforehand and also the earlier re-enactment which suggested the killer snuck up behind Given.

The use of the Detinics is also weird, IMO. The segment made it seem like it was a rare gun when Given died. Obviously, someone must have had similar knowledge and feared that there was a chance of it being traced since the evidence tampering occurred. It was eventually revealed that Cardona owned a Detonics, yet he claimed it was stolen. I guess what throws me is why use such a rare/traceable gun in the first place? Also, if Cardona wasn't the shooter, did he give someone else his Detonics to use? Did someone use the Detonics in a bizarre attempt to frame Cardona? The latter seems unlikely given the evidence tampering though, but it sort of reminds of the Paul Freshour situation.

Given's son seemed understandably bitter that Cardona wasn't charged, but I have to say I can see why. Although Cardona likely had a hand in it, the evidence is all circumstantial

- he owned the Detonics but claimed it was stolen, presumably the gun never materialized in any event.

- his dislike of Given and opposition of his politics.

- he was at the scene and told contradictory stories.

- he matched the description of the last person seen with Given but the identification wasn't positive.

- he would have had access to the desk where the evidence was kept.

- he failed a polygraph but it's not admissible.

That's pretty much it in terms of the evidence against Cardona (i.e., not much).

ETA: Wasn't UM trying to locate a group of people leaving at the exact time that Given was shot and killed, because they would have been within eyesight of the actual murder itself?

Yes, at the end of the segment, Stack mentioned that there were supposedly three black men who were descending a staircase leading to that exit and would have been in the right place at the right time to witness the shooting itself. However, the men presumably were never identified.

Possibly another reason this wasn't prosecuted? These would have been key witnesses that could have possibly confirmed or denied Cardona was the shooter, yet they never materialized.

Cardona also asked a fellow police officer (before Given's murder) if it was possible to change or hack a fired bullet in a way that it wouldn't be able to determine which gun it was fired from. A ton of circumstantial evidence, but still enough to warrant a conviction, IMO.

My knee jerk reaction was that Cardona probably wasn't the triggerman. However, I think he was involved and was possibly there to set up Given. The segment touched on this, and I agree that it would been unlikely that Cardona would go to the Elks Club armed (presumably with the rare Detonics handgun), make a point to be seen by many people who knew him personally, and then kill Given in front of so many potential witnesses. The segment mentioned that Cardona was in bed with some other political group that strongly opposed Given's politics.

Interesting. I think Cardona was definitely the triggerman. Why was Cardona even there in the first place? Wasn't this a fundraiser for Given, attended by his supporters? If Cardona was involved with Given's political foes, I find it hard to believe that he would have even showed up at all...unless he was there to kill Given.

It was mentioned that Given was shot in the back of the head at point blank range. The re-enactment of the crime showed Given casually strolling out of the club, lighting a cigarette, and someone sneaking up behind him and firing.

The article mentioned a cigarette and lighter found near Given's body. I'm guessing that was the theory presented by LE, that Given was shot as he was going outside to smoke.

Yet, there is a later reenactment (based on a witness account) that shows Given conversing with an unknown man (presumably Cardona, as he fit the description from the witness). The witness went into the restroom and heard the shot, ran out and saw Given on the floor. Was the unknown man Given talked with the killer? Was it Cardona?

That article mentions the man by name, Mark Warholic. I can't remember if the UM segment mentions that he was a suspect or POI, but the article makes it seem like he was a POI at the time. He lawyered up shortly after the murder and moved away. What's interesting here is that Warholic was given a ride to the station by Cardona after the murder, to give a statement. According to Warholic, Cardona made an unscheduled stop to the hospital where Given was taken, without any explanation. The thing that's weird is that Warholic obviously knew what Cardona looked like, yet he claims that he saw Given talking to someone else at the time. I'm thinking this was the man who was there to distract Given, while Cardona shot him.

And, what the Hell happened? Did Given have a conversation or possibly an argument with this guy and the guy killed him? Possible. However, it wasn't mentioned if there was evidence of a struggle. Also, Given was shot in the back of the head. Seems kind of weird if there was a confrontation beforehand and also the earlier re-enactment which suggested the killer snuck up behind Given.

Yes, if the killer snuck up behind Given, then it's entirely possible that the guy he was seen having a conversation with is just another red herring. The guy could have simply been having a quick "congratulations" type conversation with Given, and as he left, Given turned to walk outside while his killer stepped out and shot him. Warholic makes no mention as if the conversation seemed heated.

The use of the Detinics is also weird, IMO. The segment made it seem like it was a rare gun when Given died. Obviously, someone must have had similar knowledge and feared that there was a chance of it being traced since the evidence tampering occurred. It was eventually revealed that Cardona owned a Detonics, yet he claimed it was stolen. I guess what throws me is why use such a rare/traceable gun in the first place? Also, if Cardona wasn't the shooter, did he give someone else his Detonics to use? Did someone use the Detonics in a bizarre attempt to frame Cardona? The latter seems unlikely given the evidence tampering though, but it sort of reminds of the Paul Freshour situation.

Weird indeed. It's just too much of a coincidence to believe Cardona wasn't involved. He claims his gun was stolen, shows up on the night of a political rally for a political foe, attended by a man whom he despises who coincidentally gets murdered that same night, and was asking about how possible it would be for the casings to be matched back to a fired gun. I don't think anyone was trying to frame Cardona. I think he figured that by using the rare gun, it would increase the chance that ballistics tests wouldn't be able to determine the type of gun used.

Yes, at the end of the segment, Stack mentioned that there were supposedly three black men who were descending a staircase leading to that exit and would have been in the right place at the right time to witness the shooting itself. However, the men presumably were never identified.

Possibly another reason this wasn't prosecuted? These would have been key witnesses that could have possibly confirmed or denied Cardona was the shooter, yet they never materialized.

What's odd is the article makes no mention of these mystery witnesses. They talk about a woman who was working at the club that night, and how she wound up spending ten days in jail for not cooperating with the investigation. She was scared for her life, apparently.

Ultimately I think Cardona figured that:

-his gun wouldn't be traceable, since it was rare.
-people wouldn't suspect him as the murderer, since he showed up and was seen by several people that night.
-since the number of people at the event was kind of high, he figured in a frenzy, no one would have been able to trace the comings and goings of him after the initial shot.

I had also forgotten about the little tidbit about Cardona saying he was at the bar at the time Given was shot. Apparently, there were witnesses at the bar that night who knew Cardona, and none of them remembered seeing him there when they heard the shot.

And not to get too conspiracy theory-esque, but I wonder if during Cardona and Warholic's ride to the station if there was some sort of pay off or threat to keep Warholic quiet. Because according to his description of the man talking to Given, the guy looked exactly like Cardona.

Wow. Surprised that this case hasn't generated more attention/discussion here.

Based on the link in the first post and the discussion thus far, I think it's pretty open and shut. Cardona was definitely in on it (along with possibly the investigator featured in the segment - who said the murder weapon was locked up, when the aforementioned article stated otherwise).

Two questions:

-Did the mayor at the time, Robert Pastrick, have anything to do with it? (could he have ordered it or otherwise paid Cardona to do it/have it done)

-Did Cardona actually pull the trigger or did Mark Warholic? (mentioned in the article as the unknown person seen talking to given) ?

I initially was going to suggest that Cardona perhaps was acting to set up Given and that Warholic was the shooter.

Thinking about it more, I don't think Pastrick was involved. Cardona was just too much of a hot head and way too sloppy, so much so that Pastrick would have to be implicated at some point. Cardona was almost *too* obvious about how he was following Given, his alibi (being in the bar) didn't hold up, he failed a polygraph and he went to the same hospital Givens was taken to after the shooting.

The segment mentioned possible changes in the 'lay of the land' as it were if Givens political maneuvering paid off and something about Cardona going back to walking a beat or whatever. His career & political allies both being threatened is reason enough to want Givens dead. Though he was sloppy, his allies (and possibly the mayor if you want to believe he was in on it) had enough clout to make enough people clam up and even skip town

This might not be of any significance, but I always wondered if Given was voting against the Hispanic political party out of racism? Cardona felt he had to avenge the Hispanic political party by killing Jay Given because he himself is Hispanic? Indiana is still a racist state, if you can call it that, so the racism angle might not be too farfetched. Did Jay's murder have any influence on the outcome of the campaign?

Given sounds like a total parasite-somebody who just ran around jumping on whoever looked likely to win, or who he could manipulate & it wasn't surprising that the guy he promised to make a beat cop wanted him dead. Wouldn't be surprised if that eye-patch cop was in on this hit as well-leaving evidence in his desk drawer rather than entering it into the evidence locker, or maybe that force was just totally incompetent. That Cardona wasn't indicted despite only 58 guns like that being manufactured & one of them coming back to him, him having made no report of his gun being stolen months earlier, being at the scene of the murder that night, witnesses not seeing him at the bar when it happened etc. Guess it was just politics that stopped him being charged.

When I saw this one again recently, I had thought about the possibility of someone wanting Given dead who also had a beef with Cardona. I think even Stack mentions this in his narration about why would a well known cop show up at an event and willingly let people see him there when it was for a politician that he didn't like. I thought of another Doyle Wheeler/Donovan Jacobs like scenario. Maybe someone hated Cardona and Given, and murdered one to set up the other. But I forgot about Cardona's trip to the hospital where Given was taken that night. He's guilty.

This might not be of any significance, but I always wondered if Given was voting against the Hispanic political party out of racism? Cardona felt he had to avenge the Hispanic political party by killing Jay Given because he himself is Hispanic? Indiana is still a racist state, if you can call it that, so the racism angle might not be too farfetched. Did Jay's murder have any influence on the outcome of the campaign?

Given was working to help elect a black man. I don't think racism played any involvement at all. If it did, it certainly came from Cardona's side.

Watched this again last night.

I definitely think that Cardona was involved.

I guess what I don't get is why did he kill Given in such a public place within earshot of so many potential people? And why use a piece that is so rare and easily traceable?

I contemplated that maybe they could have had an argument and Cardona shot him, but then why was he carrying the piece, unless he routinely carried it with him anyway?

If the shooting was unplanned that may explain some of the sloppiness and the hasty attempt to coverup after the fact such as by damaging the slug.

EDIT TO ADD: Just reread the article cited above. Cardona admitted he was armed that night. I definitiely think this could have been a crime of passion by Cardona and a hasty coverup.

I watched this today. Had only really seen the segment once or twice before. Cardona is the only one in my opinion that could have done the murder and tampered with the bullet that was in the desk. on top of that the failed lie detector and refusal to take a second one.

I can't find anything else online related to this case, whether or not it's even still an open investigation, and whether or not Cardona is even still alive.

I watched this one twice this AM.

It seems pretty obvious Cardona was involved based on the handgun alone (who the hell owns a Detonics? It's still a tiny manufacturer) and the fact that he did have a motive.

I think a further dig into East Chicago politics might be warranted if we want to put a little more context on the case. If anything, it sure seems interesting.

And as far as leaving evidence in a desk is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised if that officer knew damn well ahead of time someone was going to pluck that round out of the drawer. In fact, I suspect it was left there specifically for that reason, or that the story is untrue altogether.

https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/shot-in-the-back-of-the-head-years-later-given/article_69d3e520-1bec-5c0c-a153-be79ea15817c.html?fbclid=IwAR3FXpttw9MR8PpX7bBz6G-TZu07wWpfbExDXA9uP0u1mt8A4cJm1yHWbZ4

Not sure if this was the article the poster above me was linking to as it isn't available to me, but this one says the one eyed cop who put the bullet in the drawer was in 1987 being charged with lying to the police & perjury over the case & a later article I cannot access says he went to prison for a year.

It rather begs the question why in 1993 or 1994 Unsolved Mysteries were interviewing him & not making it clear this guy was up to his neck in covering up this murder, went to prison for his lies about it & was still lying about it years later on the show. There is no possible way they couldn't have known this information when they filmed it.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/33428243/the-times/

Not sure if this was the article the poster above me was linking to as it isn't available to me, but this one says the one eyed cop who put the bullet in the drawer was in 1987 being charged with lying to the police & perjury over the case & a later article I cannot access says he went to prison for a year.

It rather begs the question why in 1993 or 1994 Unsolved Mysteries were interviewing him & not making it clear this guy was up to his neck in covering up this murder, went to prison for his lies about it & was still lying about it years later on the show. There is no possible way they couldn't have known this information when they filmed it.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/33428243/the-times/


No - this wasn't the article I posted a year ago. Great find though - pretty much confirms what I had suspected all along (that DiCharia was dirty - he probably figured that if Given had succeeded in marginalizing Cardona, he would go down too)

Re: this JG murder & the very strong political element involved here, it seems fairly evident that LE knew who was responsible for this & that it was covered up. The fact that this happened at the entrance to a a building where a large political event was being held (with people coming in and out all the time) makes it clear that someone must have seen something.

I.e., it wasn't like this crime occurred in a dark back alley @ 1:00am with no one else around.

I watched this segment last night and tried finding anything recent about the case but did not find anything. I found this (https://www.chicagotribune.com/1986/12/23/perjury-claim-reopens-slaying-case/) article which goes over the potential perjury charge against Paul DiCharia (eyepatch guy in the segment) before he was eventually charged and convicted of it a year or so later (mentioned above by JamesT). IMO, I think DiCharia comes off as truthful in this article, not shady:

DiCharia, 44, now a police sergeant in the Georgia seacoast town of St. Marys, said in a telephone interview that he lied when questioned about evidence tampering in the case because he feared for his job.

He said he lied when he testified he had no knowledge of when the tampering occurred, when in fact he knew it five days after Given was killed by a .45 caliber bullet to the head.

”I was a widower with five kids to raise,” he said. ”I lied to protect my job. I had no political connections.”

DiCharia said he is eager to return to Indiana and testify truthfully.

”All Jack has to do is pick up the phone and call me and I will be there,” DiCharia said. The reference was to Jack Crawford, the county prosecutor who named Van Bokkelen as his special prosecutor with instructions to identify the killer and gather evidence for a conviction.

”No one wants this case solved more than me,” he said. ”I came up with a lot of evidence on my own. I have nothing to hide.”

DiCharia said he is convinced the shooting was ”political” and that an East Chicago police official may have been responsible for the crime, as well as a botched attempt to tamper with a slug and the ejected casing of the bullet that killed Given.

”(Someone) in our department got to the evidence,” he said. ”I was set up. That (tampering) was directed at me because the evidence was in my custody.”

DiCharia said Given and the suspect, whom authorities have not publicly identified, exchanged heated words only minutes before the fatal shot was fired in a vestibule of the Elks building as 400 people mingled nearby.

DiCharia quoted unidentified witnesses as telling police they heard Given say to the suspect, ”I`ll see you walking a (expletive) beat again.”

IMO, he lied about the tampering during the grand jury because he thought that it would look like he was involved with helping the murderer, since he was the one in charge of the evidence. Coming forward years later and admitting that he lied doesn't strike me as something someone would do if they in fact knew about or helped get rid of the evidence.

I found this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCgLyIbYLlQ) short YouTube video which features an interview with Gus Flores (also interviewed in the UM segment) and has various newspaper articles shown as well as the 911 call made by a still unidentified woman (call starts at approximately 14 seconds in the video) who the police never got around to identifying and interviewing. At around 2 minutes in the video they show a clipped article written a month after Jay's murder and it says, "Police now say they believe the killing was spontaneous." That would gel with the unidentified witnesses who DiCharia claims to have overheard Jay tell whoever he was arguing that night with that he was going to essentially ruin their career in law enforcement. Which of course would point back squarely to John Cardona, since he owned the same type of gun as the murder weapon and he also had beef with Jay.

The biggest wrinkles in the Cardona did it theory are that the witness who claims to have seen Jay arguing with someone in the lobby that night minutes before he was shot knew Cardona and did not identify him as the man arguing with Jay. There were other off duty police officers present at that fundraiser that night, so that remark about walking the beat didn't necessarily have to have been directed at Cardona. Regardless, I think that remark set off whoever murdered Jay, and it wasn't a planned killing but rather a spontaneous act out of rage. This is the composite sketch of the man seen arguing with Jay on the night of his murder:

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/nwitimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/84/68427309-531c-5b84-bb91-6a9ae094b86e/5d0bcb4bcfbb8.image.jpg?resize=300%2C443

Also of note, Jay's car was found sideswipped in the parking lot, and there was a theory that he got into an argument with the person who hit his car and that is why he was killed. But the tampering with the evidence makes one thing abundantly clear: someone in the East Chicago Police Department was involved in Jay's murder.

https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?id=309776221&clippingId=32962309&width=860&height=708&user=3701988

This article says that there witnesses who said Cardona was in the bar when Jay was shot, meaning Cardona could not have possibly been the triggerman.

I've always found this to be such an underrated case. It's fascinating to me.

The more I've learned about the case over the years, I've noticed that in the UM segment you can almost feel the pains taken to avoid talking too much about Robert Pastrick. As he was the sitting mayor of East Chicago at the time (and had been for about 20 years at that point), maybe UM was worried about potential litigation.

In 1969 or 1970, while Jay Given was city attorney of East Chicago, he was actually involved in a pretty big kickback scheme centered around construction contracts for public housing. The money from those kickbacks was then invested into a travel agency company on behalf of Given, East Chicago Housing Authority executive director Benjamin Lesniak, and Robert Pastrick, who was at the time the city controller and was eventually elected mayor in 1972. Given resigned in 1973, but continued to work as a close confidante and advisor to Pastrick until his 1981 murder.

The executive secretary of the Disciplinary Commission of the State Supreme Court recommended misconduct fines for Given related to this scandal. Pastrick appears to have escaped any repercussions whatsoever. However, Lesniak--who already was facing other charges related to similar corruption schemes--served a short prison stint after pleading guilty to a tax fraud charge in 1975 and then disappeared into federal witness protection. In fact, Lesniak's failure to appear at Given's disciplinary hearings (they were occurring at least as late as 1978) was a big reason most of the counts against Given were ultimately dropped:

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/nwitimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/45/d45d9852-7384-5a2a-9f6b-f9a0b1dd0329/584ba560c8d4f.pdf.pdf

By 1981, Given was publicly warring with some members of the city council as well as Pastrick himself over allegations that they had violated sunshine laws, and this was ultimately a big reason why Given moved to support Spann for mayor. Given actually filed a lawsuit against Pastrick personally accusing him of holding an illegal executive session with the city board of sanitation, and this suit was open at the time of Given's death. It was soon dropped afterward for obvious reasons, but the timing is interesting.

I have a hard time deciding whether Pastrick--who ultimately ended up ousted as mayor of East Chicago after holding onto the position for over 30 years after being indicted on federal racketeering laws in a vote-buying scheme--is in a "Clinton body count" type situation (he was at the helm and didn't have totally clean hands, but is almost certainly not the string-puller he is alleged to be in such a conspiracy theory), or if he was in fact the person who probably ordered Given's murder.

The segment spends a lot of time talking about John Cardona, but between Cardona "walking the beat" and Pastrick potentially being indicted on corruption charges after nearly a decade in the mayor's seat, I guess I think Pastrick had more to lose and probably a lot more pull to make it happen.

Also--I'm pretty sure I read somewhere earlier this year (maybe NW Indiana Times?) that Cardona spent a considerable amount of time on the scene after Given was shot and was even questioning potential witnesses about what they may have seen or heard. If he was the one who shot Given, why would he do that?

Also--I'm pretty sure I read somewhere earlier this year (maybe NW Indiana Times?) that Cardona spent a considerable amount of time on the scene after Given was shot and was even questioning potential witnesses about what they may have seen or heard. If he was the one who shot Given, why would he do that?

This is the exact reasoning behind the county prosecutor's decision to not indict Cardona. Cardona told the responding officers to sequester and question Mark Warholic (man who saw Given arguing with his possible killer) as to what he saw.

Robert Pastrick being the mastermind (or privy to the plan) behind Given's murder seems very plausible. Cardona told investigators (IIRC in 1982 during a grand jury investigation) that he was there at that fundraiser that night to be a "political spy". So he obviously was there to gather information for someone, possibly Pastrick. Setting aside the obvious conclusion that a Detonics gun being used to murder Given means Cardona (who owned such a weapon) is guilty, I wonder if his presence there was a means of setting him up as the fall guy? The man seen arguing with Given, who Warholic did not identify as Cardona, could have been there as a distraction. Given's car being sideswiped also makes me think there were various plans in place to kill Given that night.

What I find really weird is that the UM segment is the only source of the three black men descending the stairs at the exact moment the shot was fired. I have not found any reference to them elsewhere.