Prosecution Begins Presenting Case in Jury Trial of People vs. Willenborg

The presentation of evidence in the jury trial of People vs. Robert Willenborg got underway on Tuesday with opening statements from both the state and defense before the presentation of the case by the prosecution. Fayette County State’s Attorney Brenda Mathis first called DCFS Investigator Jennifer Ralston to testify as she was the on-call investigator on the evening that a call came into the DCFS hotline with information about sexual abuse of a minor. Ralston responded to Fayette County and along with Sheriff’s Deputy David Russell, visited Willenborg Farms where contact was made with the defendant Robert Willenborg and he was informed of the allegations against him of sexual abuse of a minor and was also asked to produce a roster of workers employed by the farm. Deputy Russell was the next witness called and confirmed details of his visit with Ralston to the farm and was also asked about a phone conversation with Willenborg the next day after initial contact was made by Ralston and Russell. Illinois State Police Special Agent Theodore “TJ” Tebbe was called to the stand as the case was handed over from DCFS to the ISP for investigation while DCFS also continued its investigation. SA Tebbe testified to cell phone dumps being done of Willenborg’s phone as well as the phone of the first victim relating to charged counts 1 thru 7 and it showed both the defendant’s and the, at that time, 15-year old victim’s locations in the same place at odd or non-work times. Tebbe also testified that incidents pertaining to all 8 counts against Willenborg as well as incidents with an uncharged victim all happened on the farm. During cross examination on Tebbe, defense attorney Monroe McWard questioned Tebbe as to why there was not clothing or items asked for with probable evidence and why a crime scene unit was not called out to the farm. Tebbe said with the time lapse, DNA evidence on clothing would be unavailable and it was a given fact that the defendant’s and victims fingerprints and DNA would be at the farm due to both being employed there. After a lunch break, the state called DCFS investigator Lynette Heselton who testified as to her initial takeover of the case from the on-call investigator and based on the forensic interview done at the Child Advocacy Center in Effingham and based on Heselton’s interview with the first victim and others surrounding the case, Heselton had a finding of indicated which showed belief that child abuse had occurred. A juvenile worker of the farm was next on the stand and testified as to his time working at Willenborg Farms and his recollection of occurrences that the defendant drove him home from work and would have the first victim ride along as the defendant said it was to keep him awake as he had taken medication that made him drowsy. The second victim who was 17 at the time of the alleged incident pertaining to the eight count against Willenborg took the stand and testified as to an incident when she was a minor working for the farm where the defendant asked her every day for about two weeks in a row not long after beginning her employment at the farm to place her breasts in an udder cleaner. The second victim explained that she finally gave in and did so and was given $25 by the defendant Willenborg for the act and testified that the defendant was “giggling” as he watched her from behind as she committed the act. Following cross examination from attorney McWard about whether the second victim had ever told a friend via SnapChat that the incident had never happened to which the victim testified that was not true, that she had always told people the incident had indeed occurred. A brief amount of testimony was heard from former farm worker Cameron Summers about how he had witnessed the defendant Willenborg playing with the hair of the first victim in the milk parlor and that he had thought the interaction at that time to be “weird.” Testimony for the day wrapped up with the state calling the first victim to the stand where she testified as to multiple instances of touching of her breasts, butt and vaginal area above her clothing and under her clothing in three locations on the farm as well as instances of touching in a truck she was in with the defendant alone. The first victim testified that the defendant asked her to perform acts of oral sex on him and that he also performed oral sex on the minor victim and that the defendant also penetrated her with his fingers. The first victim also testified that upon picking up her last paycheck from the defendant as she quit working at the farm, she was told by the defendant Willenborg that he was being accused of acts with a minor but that he knew she wouldn’t tell anyone about what had happened between then and that he asked her to describe him as a “father figure” to others. During cross-examination, defense attorney McWard questioned the first victim as to what he described as inconsistencies between the victim’s CAC forensic interview and an interview she gave to ISP SA Tebbe. McWard questioned the victim as to when she revealed what had allegedly happened to her mother and details of the incidents and questioned the victim as to her telling the defendant that she wanted to have sex with him. McWard also brought up a civil lawsuit by the victim’s mother on her behalf asking for $50,000 each for nine counts outlined in the lawsuit and potential financial gain as a motive in the case and the victim stated she did not care about the lawsuit or money. Upon re-direct questioning by State’s Attorney Mathis on the alleged inconsistencies, the first victim said she remembered little details that she informed SA Tebbe of that she previously did not think to disclose in the first interview and says it is still hard to talk about to this day. Following the first victim’s testimony, the trial was put on recess until Thursday morning at which time the state will continue to call witnesses as part of its presentation of evidence before resting and turning the matter over to the defense and their presentation of witnesses.