A conviction for murder, then new cracks in the case

On Oct. 18, 1983 - a Tuesday exactly seven months after David Johnston was killed during a holdup at Kelly's Deli in Collingdale - Terry McCracken went to trial for murder.

His jurors in the Delaware County courtroom would hear six days of testimony.

They would hear from an eyewitness, who, though his testimony fluctuated, said he saw McCracken enter Kelly's Deli at the time of the March 18, 1983, robbery and flee the store less than 10 minutes later.

They would hear from a police scientist, who testified that tests had shown gunshot residue on one of McCracken's hands hours after Johnston, a 71-year- old retired security guard, was killed by a masked gunman at Kelly's.

They would hear from customers and employees of the small, family owned delicatessen on MacDade Boulevard, several of whom, although they differed in the details of their descriptions, said that the gunman's clothing resembled what they were later shown of McCracken's.

And when the testimony was over, after just two hours of deliberations, they would pronounce McCracken - the 19-year-old son of Terence "Screw" McCracken, a one-time member of the Warlocks motorcycle gang - guilty of second-degree murder.

Today, as Terry McCracken, now 22, awaits formal sentencing to life in prison, an Inquirer investigation has uncovered evidence that suggests he did not commit the crime.

That evidence indicates that two other men were instead involved in the Kelly's Deli robbery - William Vincent Verdekal and John Robert Turcotte, who were arrested for a similar robbery 17 days after McCracken was jailed and who were found with the gun that killed Johnston.

Verdekal and Turcotte were charged, along with McCracken, with the holdup and killing at Kelly's. But after McCracken's conviction - and to a large extent because of it - the charges against them were dismissed.

Verdekal has since said in interviews with The Inquirer - and in statements supported by a polygraph test - that he waited outside the store in his truck as Turcotte committed the killing and that McCracken, whom he did not even know at the time, was not involved in the crime.

That information, and other findings that have come to light in a six-month Inquirer investigation, did not surface at the trial of Terry McCracken 2 1/2 years ago.

As the trial started, McCracken, dressed in a suit and his hair neatly combed, sat with John McDougall, the attorney his father had hired for him. McDougall had represented his father, and other Warlocks, in the past. Sitting across from the defendant was the assistant district attorney assigned to prosecute the case, Howard J. "Bud" Gallagher.

The trial, before Judge Robert A. Wright in Delaware County Court, had originally begun Oct. 12, but a mistrial was declared after Michael Aldridge, the eyewitness, used the word Warlocks in his testimony. Wright ruled that the word was prejudicial, and a new jury had to be chosen.

Gallagher began by calling witnesses who had been in Kelly's Deli when the gunman entered, or had arrived at the store just before he fled.

They described the gunman as between 5 feet, 9 inches and 5 feet, 11 inches tall, 150 to 160 pounds. Most remembered a dark ski cap. Some said it was green, some said it was black, some said dark blue. The bandanna the robber wore over his face was variously described as light-colored, off-white, beige, red, paisley, blue and dark-colored. Some said the red hooded sweatshirt had no piping, others said it did.

McCracken's red hooded sweatshirt had white piping and a "Puma" insignia; none of the witnesses recalled the insignia.

The most specific description came from Robert Murphy, a SEPTA employee and five-time robbery victim. Murphy, one of two customers in the store when the robber entered, said the gunman wore a red hooded sweatshirt that was missing its drawstring, that he wore boots and that he carried the gun in his left hand.

Although it was not mentioned in court, Murphy had sketched for police a drawing of the masked gunman, he said in a recent interview.

Officials in the district attorney's office said in an interview that the drawing - which both they and Murphy say resembled McCracken - was lost sometime before the trial.

After Murphy's testimony, Catherine Laurie, the other customer, took the stand and told of a calm gunman with deep-set eyes. From the eyes, she said, he looked like John Hinckley. Laurie said she had never been shown any clothing by police.

Asked, "Other than the eyes being deep-set, did you make any other observation about the eyes?" she answered, "No." There was no mention from her - or any other witness - of the pinkeye that had led a school nurse to send McCracken home from school the morning of the murder.

Laurie was not asked in court whether McCracken resembled the gunman, nor did she offer her opinion - though by then she did have one.

It was at a pretrial hearing, Laurie said, attended by all three suspects, that she first saw John Robert Turcotte, who, like Terry McCracken, was about 5-foot-9 and 160 pounds, with sandy hair and a beard. "It's funny," she said in an interview, "but I remember thinking to myself that he looked more like the robber. "

"It was the shape of his face and everything. . . . I said to myself, 'He looks more like the guy with the gun than McCracken. ' " With the exception of her husband, she said, "I never mentioned that to anyone. "

Also testifying on the opening day of the trial was Michael Aldridge, 20, a vocational-school student who lived in the neighborhood. By then, in statements to police and testimony at pretrial hearings, Aldridge had contradicted himself several times.

On the day of the robbery, about 3:15 p.m., Aldridge - the only witness who would identify McCracken as being at the scene of the crime - gave police this statement:

"I was on my way to Tire Kingdom (Tire World) and I saw The Boss (Eugene Schoffield) walk into this store (Kelly's). The next thing I noticed . . . was a guy with a red sweatshirt with a hood come out with a black hat. Wearing a black hat. It was a fitting type hat. A white guy. A little bigger than me. I think he was 19 or 25. He didn't have anything on his face at the time. "

Question - Did you notice any hair on his face?

Answer - No.

Q. - Is there anything you could add?

A. - He ran to the back of the store. He was running in a running motion.

At no point did he mention, as all of the witnesses in the store had mentioned, that the gunman was wearing a mask.

Three days later, on Monday, March 21, however, Aldridge told police it was Terry McCracken, whom he knew from school, he saw fleeing the store. He said he was on his way from - not to - Tire World, going to Kelly's Deli, and was about six houses away when he saw McCracken almost collide with a customer headed into the store and run to the back of the building with his hand concealed in the pocket of his sweatshirt, which he now specified had white trim.

This time, Aldridge said specifically that the gunman did not have a mask over his face when he saw him flee the store and almost run into the customer. The customer, Dudley Denison, said the gunman was wearing a mask.

Aldridge, in his second statement, said that he was going to Kelly's to get iced tea for Robert Brown, an employee at Tire World, and that he arrived before the police or paramedics.

On March 24, at an arraignment for McCracken, Aldridge gave basically the same story, but he said that he was standing in the middle of traffic and that, by the time he had a clear view, he could not see the gunman's face.

". . . I didn't really look at the face when I first - when he first came out. . . . A red-like jacket and blue dungarees, that's all I noticed right then. . . . So then when the traffic was clear, I started to walk. And I looked up, and I seen Terry running to the back of the store . . . Terry McCracken. "

McCracken's attorney, in an attempt to discredit Aldridge's testimony, argued at that hearing that, from the angle at which Aldridge was approaching the store, it was unlikely that he could have seen the fleeing gunman's face.

On April 8, Aldridge gave police a third statement, and a fourth account of what he had seen.

"Okay, Mike, why are you here today?" a detective asked him, according to that statement.

"To tell the truth of my story. " Aldridge replied. In this statement, Aldridge said he was near Tire World when he saw McCracken - before the robbery - walking down the sidewalk toward Kelly's on the other side of MacDade Boulevard. He said they waved at each other, but didn't exchange words. He said he saw McCracken pull the hood of his sweatshirt over his head.

Aldridge told detectives he then went to Tire World, across the street and half a block away from Kelly's, and was standing out front, talking to Robert Brown, when he saw McCracken run out of the delicatessen. He said he went to the store after he saw ambulances arrive to see what had happened.

A month later, at McCracken's preliminary hearing, Aldridge repeated that account. But this time, he said that as McCracken was going into Kelly's, they called to each other from across the street, asking, "What's up? "

On Oct. 18, at McCracken's trial, McCracken's attorney sought to point out the discrepancies, and Aldridge said on the witness stand that he had lied about certain details in his earlier statements to police because he was scared:

Question - You weren't too afraid or scared to make up a story putting it (his vantage point) closer to Kelly's Deli to identify him, were you?

Answer - No sir.

Q. - . . . But you were afraid to say he was across the street?

A. - I thought it sounded better.

Q. - . . . So you decided what was right to say and what was not right to say.

A. - Yes.

Q. - And with him being charged with first-degree murder, you made up a story to what you would say to the world.

A. - Yes.

Since McCracken's conviction, additional doubts have been raised about the veracity of Aldridge's statements to police and his testimony in court.

"I don't think there's any way he saw anything," said Robert Brown, the man Aldridge said he was standing with when he saw McCracken run from the store.

"Mike came up and we was talking, and five to 10 minutes passed, then all of a sudden I hear the cops start shooting toward Kelly's and Mike said, 'I'm going to go see what happened. ' I remember saying, 'Make sure the boss (Schoffield) is all right,' because he had just had a heart operation. "

Although Aldridge testified that after seeing McCracken walking toward the store he watched the store for 15 minutes while talking to Brown, Brown said in an interview that Aldridge did not seem to be paying particular attention to Kelly's and did not indicate that he had seen anything unusual occur until after he saw that police had arrived.

Jody Hageman, a resident of Collingdale who described himself as a close friend of Aldridge's and whose house Aldridge visited during the three days after the Kelly's Deli killing, said, "Mike never told me he lied. "

"He came over and said he'd been at CID (Delaware County Criminal Investigation Divicion) headquarters all night long," Hageman said in an interview, "but when I would try and bring up what happened, Mike would shuck the question or say, 'I'm not at liberty to say. ' "

Two acquaintances of Aldridge's said in interviews that Aldridge admitted to them that he was unsure whether the person he saw fleeing the store was McCracken.

One of them, James Lannen of Secane, Delaware County, said, "He said that the cops had stuff on him, and that they thought it was McCracken and he just

went along with them. " It could not be determined what, if any, charges were pending against Aldridge at the time.

Glenn Severa of Collingdale, a close friend of McCracken's, said Aldridge made a similar comment to him: "He said, 'I'm really not sure if it was Terry or not, but we ain't gonna talk about that. ' "

Aldridge did not return phone calls, but his father, Frank Aldridge, said on behalf of his son, "Michael never changed his story. They were just twisting his words around. He was sure then and he is sure now. "

He said his son was afraid because of the reputation of McCracken's father. He added, "I really don't want to go into it any further; anything I say would just start stirring the whole thing up again. "

In an interview in September, William H. Ryan, first assistant district attorney of Delaware County, said Aldridge "didn't want to get too heavily involved, he didn't want to show what he knew. . . . Again, I'm theorizing. So he says what comes to his mind in order to get the hell out. In the beginning he's vague or not forthcoming on the details for the same reasons he doesn't tell us who did it, and he's not real careful about choosing his words.

"But what motive does he have to lie?"

*

On the second day of McCracken's trial, prosecutor Gallagher presented evidence concerning residue removed from McCracken's hands the day of the robbery.

Robert E. Saunders, a criminalist for the state police at Lima, testified that an analysis he had conducted showed that while there were no powder burns on McCracken's hands, there were particles that contained lead. He identified those particles as gunshot residue.

Defense attorney McDougall objected to that conclusion, and later he would call his own expert, University of Pennsylvania chemist Gregory Farrington, who had been allowed to conduct his own tests on the samples, in Saunders' presence, and had found no particles containing lead.

In court, though, Farrington found himself at a disadvantage.

"The problem in the testimony was quite simple," he said in a recent interview. "Saunders stated unequivocally that lead was there. My difficulty was that I haven't done 200 analyses like he did and wasn't considered to have his expertise. On the other hand, I did not find lead. "

The problem became more complex when Saunders testified that the incriminating particles he had found might have been destroyed in his testing.

"The whole thing is strange, and I don't think justice is working in this case," Farrington said. "I've always felt kind of personally responsible, but then when I think about it, I realize there wasn't anything more I could do because they were saying maybe the sample was destroyed in the tests. But it's bothered me ever since. "

Most of the jurors said that, although they were confused by the lengthy and complex gunshot-residue testimony, they felt it was the most incriminating evidence presented against McCracken. And Saunders, several jurors said, appeared more learned, more experienced and more confident than Farrington.

"The scientist from the state police was very convincing," one juror said. ''It was like, absolutely, positively, without a doubt, in his many years of experience, this was gunshot residue. At one point, I specifically remember, he was asked directly, 'Could it be anything else? ' He said, 'No.' ''

But according to the scientist who developed the test Saunders used, Saunders was wrong.

"I conclude that the criminalist Saunders was definitely not justified in testifying that gunshot residue was found on the hand of Terence McCracken," scientist Peter F. Jones wrote in a report for The Inquirer. Jones was retained by The Inquirer to review Saunders' written report and courtroom testimony.

There are two accepted methods of detecting gunshot residue on a person's hands. The one used by Saunders, the newer and more conclusive of the two, makes use of a scanning electron microscope capable of X-ray analysis. It is used to detect the chemical elements that are in bullets and cartridge primers - lead, antimony, barium and copper - as well as their amounts, shapes and sizes.

Jones is credited with developing that technique.

Saunders, in outlining his background and expertise in court, cited the work done by Jones and his colleagues and said that his knowledge was derived in part from reading their published work. Additionally, he was trained in the method at the McCrone Institute in Chicago, whose instruction is also based on the work and reports of Jones and his colleagues.

Jones said that in his opinion, Saunders severely overstated what his test had found. Under the courtroom guidelines established by Jones and his colleagues for the U.S. Department of Justice, only particles containing barium or antimony, in addition to lead, can be considered gunshot residue, or ''unique" to gunshot residue. Saunders found neither of those elements, according to his test report and testimony.

Less conclusive samples, which show certain elements of a certain shape that probably resulted from the firing of a gun, are considered "typical of" gunshot residue.

Finally, a sample is termed "consistent with" gunshot residue when it possibly was from a gunshot, but was equally likely to have come from occupational or environmental sources.

Two lead-containing particles were found on McCracken's hands. One of those also contained iron. According to Jones, the lead particle without iron should have been said to be "consistent with" gunshot residue.

The second particle, because there are so many environmental sources of iron, was not even strong enough to be considered "consistent with" gunshot residue, Jones said.

Saunders five times in his testimony stated unequivocally - and incorrectly, Jones said - that the particles he found were gunshot residue.

Jones said that Saunders twice incorrectly stated in court that there are no sources other than gunshot residue for similar lead particles.

And four times, Jones said, Saunders wrongly stated that the lead particles on McCracken's hand could not have resulted from working on an automobile.

Less than 40 minutes before the shooting, McCracken was working on a car engine with a friend and neighbor, Andrew Leicht, according to interviews with Leicht and his court testimony.

"Saunders incorrectly says that one could not get similar lead particles

from batteries, auto exhaust, or from working on an automobile. . . . All of these sources can give lead particles," Jones said.

"Our report (for the Justice Department), which he repeatedly cites, clearly says that the particles that he found on the discs used to sample McCracken's hands are not unique to gunshot residue," Jones concluded.

*

On the third day of McCracken's trial, the prosecution concluded its case, presenting testimony it contended showed that McCracken knew William Vincent Verdekal, then 34, and John Robert Turcotte, then 22, before the killing.

But that link was fragile and would continue to erode.

Originally, detectives had interviewed two employees of Better Home Deliveries, the furniture warehouse out of which Verdekal worked as an independent deliveryman. The terminal manager, Michael Laterza, and assistant manager, John Pine, both said that the photographs of McCracken that detectives showed resembled a young man who had worked there.

Pine said he had seen the person about three or four times, while Laterza said he had seen him "maybe once. "

Detectives also went to the Collingdale home of Verdekal's stepfather, Ralph Baylis, who by then had become familiar with McCracken's name through news accounts. He told them that he thought McCracken worked with Verdekal and that he once got a ride home from McCracken.

Continuing the efforts to link the three men, a detective on June 2, 1983,

went to the home of Kenneth Thomson, also a subcontractor for Better Home Deliveries, who at the time was dating Verdekal's sister Sara.

Thomson said he was shown three pictures. He identified Verdekal, whom he knew, and Turcotte, whom he knew. He was then shown a photograph of McCracken, not unlike the ones he had seen in newspaper accounts of the Kelly's Deli case. Thomson correctly told the detective that the photo was of Terry McCracken and said, in addition, that it looked like a person who had once worked with Verdekal.

Two months later, Thomson, who by then had married Sara Verdekal, accompanied her on a visit to her brother in prison. Inside the jail, Verdekal pointed McCracken out to Thomson.

"At that point, I realized I probably made a mistake," Thomson said in an interview, blaming it on his assumption - based on what he had read in the newspapers and what detectives had told him - that the three men conspired to commit the crime.

"It never really entered my mind until it was put into my mind that he (McCracken) was one of the ones working with Bill," he said. "When they (detectives) are showing pictures and saying, 'This guy worked for Bill,' if they're telling me that, I believe them, even though I wasn't sure I'd seen him there," Thomson said. "It seemed like they were steering me into answering the way they wanted me to. "

Detectives, at the insistence of the defense attorney, arranged a lineup for Thomson, Laterza and Pine before the trial. At that lineup, neither Pine nor Laterza could pick out McCracken, and Thomson told detectives that his earlier identification had been a mistake. He was never called to testify at the trial.

At the trial, Pine testified that the photos he had been shown of McCracken looked like the person he had seen in the warehouse. But, seeing McCracken in the courtroom, he could not identify him as that person.

Laterza, who was called to the stand but was dismissed by the prosecution without explanation before being asked whether he could identify McCracken, said in an interview, "If I remember right, I didn't remember McCracken at all. I couldn't pick him out of the lineup. So many people worked there I couldn't say who was who. "

Verdekal said he had two other helpers who resembled McCracken, both in the color of their hair and the way they dressed. He said he believed that Pine was mistaking McCracken for one of them.

The statement of Ralph Baylis, Verdekal's stepfather, collapsed shortly after he took the witness stand.

Baylis had been questioned by police after the arrest of Verdekal and Turcotte.

"They wanted me to identify him (McCracken)," Baylis said in an interview. ''They said somebody had seen him come out of the store. They tried to confuse me. After they told me about the robbery and all, I assumed he was the one who worked for Billy. "

Baylis, in his statement to police, was quoted as saying that McCracken worked for Verdekal and that McCracken had once given him a ride home from King of Prussia. When he saw McCracken in court, though, he realized he was not the man he had been thinking of, Baylis said.

"So I told the judge the truth: I don't know the fellow."

*

McCracken's defense - that he was at home, seven-tenths of a mile from Kelly's Deli, when the killing occurred at 1:37 or 1:38 p.m. - primarily consisted of alibis from friends, neighbors and family.

In two days of defense testimony, McCracken's attorney, John McDougall, also raised the possibility that Turcotte, not McCracken, committed the killing.

"Would a young man whose intention in the morning was to go to school . . . are you going to be asked to believe that somewhere, maybe 1:25 or 1:30, he said, 'Oh heck, nothing else to do, let me run down to Kelly's and rob the place'? "

McDougall pointed out that Turcotte - who had been arrested with the gun that killed Johnston and who was charged with robbing other places in much the same manner that Kelly's was robbed - bore a resemblance to McCracken.

"It's the defense contention," he concluded, "John Robert Turcotte is the robber and the killer and that he should be tried for those crimes. "

On Oct. 25, 1983, the jury was excused at 2 p.m., and, after a lunch break, deliberations began.

Seven of the 12 jurors agreed to interviews under the condition that their names not be printed. Most said they found the testimony of state police criminalist Saunders convincing, and that witness Aldridge, despite his contradictions, also impressed them.

"It's hard to put into words," one juror said of Aldridge, "but he was very believable. . . . It seemed to be in line with human nature that he would be upset and confused and scared. And when he said. 'I talked it over with my father and now I'm going to tell the truth,' it was very moving. I thought at the time that I was the only one who believed him. I felt sympathy for him, rather than, 'this kid's a liar. ' But it turned out all the other jurors felt the same thing I did. "

The jurors said they were not particularly impressed by the testimony of family and friends. One friend from across the street, Vincent Cefaratti, said he was with McCracken until after 1:30 p.m.. Another, Andrew Leicht, said that McCracken was helping him work on his car until about 1 p.m. and that he saw McCracken again before he left for work at 1:40 p.m. The jury said they both appeared nervous and inconsistent. And while mailman Robert Vance, who testified McCracken signed for a certified letter sometime between 1 and 1:30 p.m., seemed credible, they added, they still felt McCracken had time to commit the crime.

Despite the word Warlock having led to an earlier mistrial in McCracken's case - and the judge's warning that any mention was considered prejudicial - two jurors said they were aware that the trial had some sort of a connection to motorcycle gangs.

One juror said that during the trial there were "murmurings that the family were Pagans or something," referring to another notorious motorcycle gang. ''I wasn't aware of being consciously influenced by that, but . . . I know people can be subconsciously influenced. That was not discussed, but it was something that was kind of murmured. "

Asked what he meant by "murmured," the juror said, "I heard somebody say something to the effect that the family was involved with motorcycle gangs. " He was unable to elaborate.

Another juror said that going into the trial, he was familiar with the reputation of Screw McCracken and the Warlocks. He also said he knew that John McDougall "is a Warlock lawyer. " He and other jurors said the issue of motorcycle gangs did not arise in their deliberations, however.

From the beginning of those deliberations, jurors said, there was no disagreement over whether McCracken was guilty, only over the degree of murder.

At 4:44 p.m. - after less than two hours of deliberation - the jury returned to the courtroom with its verdict.

The jury foreman was asked for the verdict on the charge of first-degree murder, which can result in either the death penalty or life in prison.

"Not guilty," the foreman said.

Cheers and cries of glee erupted from the family and supporters of McCracken in the courtroom. The judge called for order, and the foreman was asked for a verdict on the charge of second-degree murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence.

"Guilty," he said.

As some members of the crowd moaned, McCracken whispered "oh no," and

put his head in his hands.

*

That night, McCracken was back at Delaware County Prison, and so was his attorney, John McDougall, who, shocked by a verdict he said he had not expected, put in a request to see inmate William Verdekal.

"Terry's attorney came to visit me the night that Terry got convicted," Verdekal said. "Here's a grown man in his 50s or 60s, and he's standing there crying, asking me to help. I mean real tears are rolling down his cheeks. I'm sure it wasn't any play to make me feel anything. "

Since then, as McCracken has waited in Delaware County Prison, McDougall has submitted a series of motions and amended motions for a new trial.

He has said that Verdekal made comments that implicated him and exculpated McCracken. He has asserted that Aldridge was promised a reward for his testimony. He has said that he found five prison inmates who said Turcotte had admitted to them that he committed the killing. And, finally, in desperation, he has taken the stand himself during a hearing and has testified that Turcotte confessed to him.

According to McDougall - as well as Verdekal, his attorney, McCracken, McCracken's father and others - Turcotte, at a point at which he faced charges in connection with three other robberies, was willing to plead guilty to the Kelly's Deli killing in exchange for not receiving more than a life sentence.

"Bob (Turcotte) was calling a lot of people from prison," said David Grenfel, a brother-in-law of Verdekal's. "He tried to help. He told me everything and he called McDougall and told him everything. He called McCracken's father and said he was going to come forward, but the district attorney's office wouldn't let him. "

Said Screw McCracken, "I've talked to Turcotte on the phone two or three times. He told me the whole thing was a fog and he can't even remember the guy's face. He said he was so messed up all he remembers is the gun going off. Turcotte told me himself it was him. "

Verdekal has said in interviews that both he and Turcotte had been drinking and taking drugs on the day of the murder. Turcotte declined to be interviewed.

Both McDougall and Luke McLaughlin 3d, Verdekal's attorney, say Turcotte had stated that he would plead guilty to second-degree murder, make a statement about the killing and attest to it in a polygraph, provided he did not receive more than one life sentence for all the crimes with which he was charged.

Said McLaughlin: "It's my understanding that the D.A.'s response to that was that only if he pleaded guilty to murder one would they even talk to him.

"Why, when Turcotte was willing to plead guilty and clear the whole thing up, did they hang the death penalty over his head, then end up nol prossing the charges against him anyway? " McLaughlin asked. "If he's willing to do a life sentence, isn't that indication enough that he really did it?

"It is almost as if everything that was done - not letting Turcotte plead, refusing the polygraph examinations that were offered, nol prossing him so that they can still hang this charge over his head - all that seems to be an attempt to hide the truth, as opposed to get to it. "

The Kelly's Deli charges against Turcotte were "nol prossed," or dismissed by the district attorney's office with prejudice, meaning that Turcotte can still be charged with and tried for the crime without creating double jeopardy.

Verdekal's legal situation is less clear. He was granted a demurrer by Judge Robert A. Wright, the same judge who had heard McCracken's case. Wright ruled during Verdekal's trial in February 1984 that with no testimony linking Verdekal to McCracken, there was insufficient evidence to let the case go to a jury. Normally, Verdekal could not be charged with the same crime again.

But the district attorney's office is appealing the demurrer in hopes of being able to prosecute Verdekal at a later date. State Superior Court has upheld the demurrer, ruling that it was appropriately granted. That decision is now being appealed in state Supreme Court.

Verdekal was sentenced to five to 10 years in prison for a March 28, 1983, robbery at Koban's Beverages Inc., in Glenolden. In October 1985, he was sentenced for the April 7 robbery at the Westbrook Market in Clifton Heights - the one that led to the arrest of him and Turcotte. He received six to 15 years for that, and was ordered to serve that term consecutively with the other sentence, making his total sentence 11 to 25 years.

It was after the Westbrook Market robbery that Verdekal and Turcotte became suspects in the Kelly's Deli killing. Detectives found in Verdekal's truck a lottery ticket purchased at Kelly's minutes before the killing, knit caps similar to the one the robber at Kelly's was described as wearing, a newspaper folded over to an article about the killing and, on Turcotte, the gun used to kill Johnston.

Turcotte agreed on Jan. 11, 1984, to plead guilty to four counts of robbery involving holdups at two gas stations and the Westbrook Market robbery. Each carried an eight-to-20-year sentence. He also pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in the Westbrook case, carrying a five-to-10-year sentence. While that could have meant a minimum of 37 years in prison, all the sentences were made concurrent, meaning Turcotte will have to serve one 8-to-20-year sentence and will be eligible for parole in 1991.

It was after that sentencing, McCracken's father said last month, that he talked to Turcotte a third time on the telephone.

"I talked to him right after he got sentenced. He said, 'Look, I gave it my best shot. This ain't easy. I'd be stupid to turn it down. ' I had to agree with him. What do you do - say, 'No, I don't want eight to 20, give me life? ' ''

Turcotte did not respond to four letters sent to the state prison in Huntingdon requesting interviews. The public defender who represented him, Stephen Leach, denied that Turcotte ever officially offered to plead guilty to the killing. The district attorney's office also said it received no such offer through either Leach or Turcotte.

"Turcotte never approached us, nor did his attorney," said Ryan, the first assistant district attorney, in September. "That was all from John (McDougall). He was definitely talking to Turcotte out at the prison when he was visiting McCracken. John McDougall" McCracken's attorney, "could not ethically represent Turcotte's interest. "

But, when Howard Gallagher, McCracken's prosecutor, was put on the stand April 11, 1984, during a hearing seeking a new trial, he said that the district attorney's office did discuss the possibility of such an offer with Turcotte's attorney prior to McCracken's trial.

"I spoke to Mr. Leach about that, but I told him that the office was taking that under advisement," Gallagher said. "We were considering it, but I specifically cautioned him that there was not an offer on behalf of the district attorney's office. "

McDougall - I told you, did I not, that Turcotte was going to come in, plead guilty to murder and the robberies in return for a stipulated low sentence and no consecutive time for the robberies, is that not so?

Gallagher - Yes.

McDougall - . . . A plea to murder and all the robberies in return for the one life sentence, was that not proferred from me? . . .

Gallagher - Yes.

McDougall - And did you relate that to your supervisors?

Gallagher - Yes, I did.

McDougall - Was that rejected?

Gallagher - Yes.

On the stand, Gallagher also disclosed, under questioning, that Michael Aldridge had asked for a reward. "His exact words, as I recall them were, 'What about my reward? ' I responded, I said, 'What reward? ' He said, 'Captain McKenna (John McKenna, head of the Delaware County Criminal Investigation Division) promised me a reward. ' "

In an interview, officials of the district attorney's office denied that a reward - though one was discussed - was promised.

As the post-trial hearings continued, McDougall continued to present new evidence. At one of those, he called Verdekal to the stand for the first time. Verdekal testified that he had never seen Terry McCracken before his arrest in April, and that McCracken had never worked for him or Turcotte.

Verdekal said at the hearing that he had information about the crime that ''would have proven that Terence McCracken had nothing to do with it at all," and that Turcotte had committed the crime.

When pressed as to the source of his knowledge, Verdekal said Turcotte had told him so in prison. Verdekal did not, at that point, admit to a role in the crime. Verdekal, in interviews, said he was less than truthful at that hearing.

McDougall also presented five Delaware County Prison inmates who testified that Turcotte had admitted to them that he killed Johnston.

One of them, Raymond Davis, 25, testifed that Turcotte had told him that McCracken was innocent and that it was he who had killed Johnston. "He told me he was surprised by the door opening. He said he turned around and there was an old man standing there and he fired the gun. "

Another, David J. Sirulnik, said that while playing cards with him in prison, Turcotte said, "Isn't it a shame the person who is going to do the time on the murder charge is McCracken. . . . Those fools in Media have got the wrong man. "

Later at the hearing, McDougall took the stand himself.

He testified that Turcotte had confessed to him that he was the one who shot Johnston during the robbery. "I remember the whole thing," McDougall quoted him as saying. "It was like a dream. I was so stoned, I can't remember the guy's face. The gun went off accidentally. "

Officials in the Delaware County district attorney's office say that William Verdekal was lying. So, they say, were the inmates who said Turcotte admitted committing the crime. And they say they believe the reason is the Warlock connection.

Said Assistant District Attorney Dennis McAndrew, who is now fighting McCracken's motion for a new trial, "They were all prison people that he (Turcotte) had made these statements to, with the exception of John McDougall, who of course had represented bikers in the past. I say that not

because I disbelieve, or any of us disbelieve John McDougall, but I say that

because the perception of a person in prison . . . under those circumstances becomes one of fear - 'What will he tell the other bikers and what will they do to me in prison?' "

*

Both Terry McCracken and William Verdekal passed polygraph examinations commissioned by The Inquirer.

The tests were administered by William B. Anderson, chairman of the

criminal justice department at West Chester State College. Anderson is a former career agent in the FBI and past executive director of the Pennsylvania

Crime Commission. While working for the FBI, he conducted hundreds of polygraph examinations.

On June 20, 1985, Anderson interviewed and tested McCracken at Delaware County Prison, asking six questions:

* "Did you have a gun in your hand March 18, 1983?

* "Are you the man who held up Kelly's Deli March 1983?

* "Did you shoot that old man in Kelly's Deli?

* "Have you ever shot a person with a gun?

* "Have you ever shot a handgun?

* "Did you ever know or work for Bill Verdekal prior to March 1983? "

To each question, McCracken answered "no;" and, in each case, Anderson said, there was no evidence of any attempted deception. "It is my opinion McCracken was truthful when he denied the murder of March 18, 1983," Anderson concluded.

On July 22, 1985, Anderson interviewed and tested Verdekal at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, near State College, Pa. Verdekal, Anderson noted in his report to The Inquirer, appeared eager to take the test.

"When questioned, he gave his motive for coming forward as 'justice and honor,' " Anderson said. He said Verdekal told him he "had nightmares when he reflected on the consequences to McCracken of this wrongful conviction.

"I've spent half my life in prison and know what it's like," Anderson quoted Verdekal as saying.

Verdekal was asked seven questions:

* "On the Kelly's Deli robbery day, did Turcotte wear a red sweatshirt with a hood and blue jeans? " Verdekal answered "yes."

* "Did Turcotte have the gun when he came out of Kelly's Deli that day? " Verdekal answered "yes."

* "Did Turcotte tell you the gun went off during the Kelly's Deli robbery? " Verdekal answered "yes. " (Verdekal, in interviews with The Inquirer, maintained that he was not told about the gun being fired until the Monday after the robbery. Anderson pointed out that this question - unlike the previous two, which specifically pertained to the day of the robbery - did not contain a time element.)

* "Before the Kelly's Deli robbery did you ever meet or know Terry McCracken Jr.? " Verdekal answered "no."

* "Did Terry McCracken have any part in the Kelly's Deli robbery? " Verdekal answered "no."

* "Did Turcotte do the actual Kelly's Deli robbery? " Verdekal answered ''yes."

* "Did you go in Kelly's Deli during the robbery? " Verdekal answered ''no."

Anderson said that except for one question - the final one - Verdekal gave no indication of deception and that, in his opinion, Verdekal was telling the truth when he answered each of the others.

Anderson said the one indication of deception - when Verdekal answered ''no" to whether he went into Kelly's during the robbery - could relate to the fact that Verdekal went into the store before the robbery. Verdekal says he went in for a lottery ticket; investigators believe he was checking out the store as a robbery target.

In conjunction with the polygraphs, urine samples were taken from both men, analyses of which showed the presence of no drugs that would affect test results. In addition, both men received psychological evaluations that showed they were rational at the time of testing and sufficiently intelligent to properly comprehend the questions' meaning and results.

The Delaware County district attorney's office, after being told of the polygraph results, said the tests alone proved nothing.

"We would never hold anyone or let anyone go on the basis of a polygraph," said District Attorney John A. Reilly. "It's just a tool. "

"Polygraphs are far from infallible," said Ryan. "The fact he (Anderson) got the results he did is not disquieting to us. It's not unusual. "

Despite the reservations about polygraph tests expressed by Reilly and Ryan, the Delaware County district attorney's office did use them in their investigation of the Kelly's Deli killing.

Michael Aldridge, the witness who originally told police he did not know the man he saw running from Kelly's Deli after the shooting, was given a polygraph test during subsequent questioning by investigators. Officials in the district attorney's office said the test was used because John McKenna, head of the CID, "did not feel he (Aldridge) was being truthful. "

McKenna, in an interview, said Aldridge passed all the questions except ''do you know who did this? He failed that. " McKenna said Aldridge responded "no" to that question.

When Aldridge was told he had failed that question - after the test - he said "McCracken did it," according to McKenna.

Asked whether Aldridge was given another test to confirm whether that statement was truthful, McKenna said, "After he clarified the answer, what would be the reason to go back and do it again? . . . There was only one question he failed on. Once he explains to you why he failed that, there's no reason to go back. He's clarified it."

*

"We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Terry McCracken did it," Ryan said in the September interview. "We're convinced that Verdekal was running the show, with McCracken, Turcotte, and perhaps others we don't know about. But Verdekal was running a robbery ring here using young punks to help him out. "

Of the actual shooting, Ryan said, "Our theory is that perhaps - we don't know - perhaps this guy (Johnston) gave him (McCracken) some grief and he panicked and shot the guy because he was scared. "

Ryan said the prosecution's theory was that McCracken met Verdekal before the robbery, was given the gun, committed the robbery and killing, and then, before returning home, returned the gun and the money to Verdekal.

He added, "The investigation was done as a good investigation is supposed to be done. . . . We don't have any axes to grind. We drop cases against people we know committed crimes but we don't have sufficient evidence to convict them. We would have no reason to nail Terry McCracken just because his father is a stupid Warlock or an ex-Warlock. What do we care? "

Both Ryan and McKenna speculated that he may have committed the crime to impress his father.

*

"My father taught me a lot," McCracken said in an interview in a visiting room at Delaware County Prison. "I know he looks big and mean, but he's very smart. One thing he taught me was to always leave a person a man's way out. Like if you're arguing and a fight's about to start, always give the other person a chance to back down and still feel like a man.

"I don't think it's because of him that I'm in here," McCracken added. As he spoke, a mouse scurried out of an adjoining bathroom, along the bottom of the visiting room wall. McCracken glanced at it casually and continued.

"I guess the name McCracken was a hindrance. But I think that at first they honestly thought it was me. Then I think when they caught the other guys, they just didn't want to back down and look bad. But still I think things will get worked out. "

"I don't want him to get his hopes up so much," Screw McCracken said in an interview. "His hopes go up and down like a roller coaster. He knows he didn't do anything. He knows he shouldn't be there. And he still has this innocent hope that everything's gonna come out. He doesn't know it's probably going to take years of pounding to get everything to come out.

"It just doesn't make any sense. He was at home when this happened, and, I mean, who the hell is going to walk up the street, wave to a friend, and walk in and hold up a place in their own neighborhood - and then follow the cops around while they investigate?

"Everybody tries to tell me that he's in there because of me, that they wanted me, and this is the closest they could come to getting me, but I don't think that's it. I think it's the gunshot test. If it's proven that Terry didn't do this, what happens to their gunshot tests? If their gun tests are proven unreliable, how many people are in jail from this guy coming out and saying, 'Yeah, I'm positive. ' "

Terry McCracken is still awaiting a ruling on his motion for a new trial. At least one more hearing is expected to be held before Judge Wright makes his decision - either to grant McCracken a new trial, or formally sentence him to the mandatory penalty of life in state prison.

"I try not to think about state prison," McCracken said. "I made it a point in my life that I won't be going to state prison. I plan to get out, and the first thing I plan to do is visit all my friends.

"All my friends now are getting into adult lives. Before, we were all kids. Now, they're getting married and having kids and getting jobs and all these things, and I can't touch any of it.

"You don't know what freedom means till you lose it."