Inmate Death

I wasn't aware that inaccurate reporting was what made the news these days. If the reporter had taken the proper amount of time to fact check, then he or she would have quickly realized the flaws presented in the story. First of all, this case was a setup. Since the news and police clearly want to evade telling the truth, I will do that job for them. The case that Richard was tried for was petty theft. They accused him of stealing $500.00 from the Farmers-Merchant bank in Paxton via an ATM in Rantoul. One would assume that if the alleged crime was committed in Rantoul that bank in Rantoul would be the one pressing charges. This was not the case. For some odd reason it was the city of Paxton pressing charges. Richard remained innocent and refused every plea that he was offered. Ask yourself this, "Would a guilty man really deny much lighter pleas?" If you are at all capable of intelligent thought, then surely your answer was no. If this is not enough to convince you, then perhaps you should consider this, his girlfriend came forward with a notarized letter confessing to the very crime that Richard was being accused of. But would this make any difference to Judge Pacey? Surely not. To Judge Pacey it is a finding that should have been used as a "defense tactic." It is also important to note that during the trial no evidence was presented to prove that Richard was the one who committed the crime. The video that they played showed nothing more than Richard's face. On the video was no evidence of anything being deposited. Then, the bank employees who supposedly received the envelope were nowhere to be found. In court they claimed that they "threw it out." I would assume that the bank would keep the crucial piece of so called "evidence" that could prove Richard's guilt, yet they "threw it away." Richard also called his bank to verfiy that funds were on his account and they were. How could Richard have used money that wasn't there? It astounds me that this [censored] trial was allowed. The most astounding incident of hypocrisy was when the Judge, himself, said to the courtroom "I better make sure that I hold up the deposit envelope to the camera so that they see I'm making a deposit." Pacey, knowing how to protect himself, made sure to say this while the jury was away deliberating so that it wouldn't be on the record. If this, alone, isn't enough to express how framed this trial was, then I don't know what will. I, Richard's father, will agree to a lie detector test myself to prove that all of this is accurate. Some of this information can be seen on Judici or collected through the Freedom Of Information Act. I can only hope that those in charge of records and transcripts are at least decent enough to provide us with those. So now that I have hopefully cleared the misunderstanding of the case, I will continue to clear up the rest of the inaccuracy here. I would like you to then ask yourself if a 30 year old man would really die of natural causes when he was in perfectly good health. Again, I pray that your answer is no. I know first-hand that foul play is suspected considering I was present when Kankakee county Coroner Bob Gessner stated that their preliminary findings included a fracture to the right scapula associated with hemorrhaging pending further investigation. Hopefully this fact will clear up the ignorant claim that foul play is not suspected. Let's put this together now, shall we? So we have an innocent man being framed for a crime, a bloodthirsty judge denying a confession that further proves his innocence, and a fracture to his right scapula associated with hemmorhaging. Clearly, the judge feared the heat he would take for convicting an innocent man and decided to eliminate the problem by killing Richard. If this is still unclear to you, then perhaps this breakdown will clear things up a bit. Richard has been denied every motion to reduce his sentence, his last major offense was 10 years ago, another person confessed to the crime, and he was still convicted. Now consider this, during a phone call between Richard and I, Richard suddenly hung up. I later found out that the reason for this was because Richard had a seizure. It is important to note that Richard has a medical history of anxiety attacks and was taking Xanax in order to help treat his anxiety. Richard told us, his family, that he was not given any of his medical records and wasn't informed about what had happened to him. To make matters worse, the prison never checked his blood pressure and didn't provide him with medical attention when he asked. If this kind of treatment doesn't make you cringe enough, then perhaps this next detail will. While Richard was on the phone with his girlfriend she heard him pounding and asking for help because he wasn't feeling well. You would assume that the "noble" correctional officers would have immediately responded and given him medical treatment, but this was not the case. Instead, the guards told him "Shut the [censored] up!" How can such injustice be allowed? This was a setup from the beginning and the ones we entrust our rights with are the ones who are guilty. What does it say about the world we live in when you can't trust your judge, your law enforcement agents, or even reporters? Judge Pacey is responsible for Richard's death no matter which way you view it. He ignored and denied key pieces of testimony that would have cleared Richard all because he hated him. I can see no other reason for Pacey's behaviors. The judge knew that he would have lost the appeal and decided to take matters into his own hands. I even contacted a Chicago attorney who agreed with me about the likely scenario. The scenario being that Richard was killed because he wanted to appeal Judge Pacey's decision. As for the public defender, he did nothing for Richard, he's just as guilty as Pacey. The public defender was informed several days prior to the motion to reconsider that Richard's girlfriend confessed to the crime, yet he did nothing about it. The truth is in the transcripts. Pacey knows the law very well. He knows that the appeal dies along with the person who wants to appeal. In this case, that person was my son. I just received more news regarding my son's case. As I suspected, they placed my son in a separate cell so that he was entirely alone and away from any aid. My reason for suspicion was because I spoke with my son last night around 7:30 p.m. and he mentioned nothing about being alone in a cell which means that they transferred him to a single cell after 7:30 sometime. Does this sound right to you? Further suspicion was raised when I found out that my son's girlfriend was contacted that same night in order to be asked about what medications or street drugs Richard was taking. She responded saying that he was only on Xanax and when asked why they said "We need to know in case we need to give him something." I assume that they're going to claim that he was under suicide watch, however this was not true and I have written proof that he was in fact hopeful about this case. I received a letter from my son dated May 21, 2012 in which he stated his hopes of beating this case and hiring a good lawyer. My wife and I will be speaking with the coroner tomorrow, but from what he has already told us it is clear that this was all a setup and a murder, not a natural death.