Richard Wanke’s Response to the One-year Anniversary of His Attorney’s Death
Posted by parchangelo on February 4, 2009
This is a copy of a letter recieved from Richard Wanke which he requested be posted today. The frustration he feels after a year spent in isolation and limbo, cut off from news of any efforts or progress and with no public scrutiny of his extraordinary legal detention, is evident.
To: Joseph Bruscato, Winnebago County States Attorney January 19, 2009
First, let me congratulate you on your impressive electoral victory. I wish you well in your new duties as States Attorney of Winnebago County. You will have many challenges, choices, obstacles and pronouncements. One dependent challenge left behind by your predecessor, Mr. Nicolosi, is attorney Greg Clark’s murder investigation. I am cognizant of your obligations and struggles.
Being alternately named a suspect, not a suspect, a person-of-interest and all points in-between publicly has shown the disarray of the investigation and polarization of the previous administration.
Rarely have I commented on the tragedy, answered criticism or negative correspondence. But after a year of counseled silence and noting little has limited the landscape of idle speculation, gossip, purposeful false rumors and misrepresentations; I have taken your election as a positive change for our community.
I have stated both publicly and privately numerous times that I have no knowledge or responsiblity for the death of my attorney Greg Clark. Though I have not been charged, little has stemmed the flow from unnamed authorities with promises of numerous witnesses, excuses for delayed forensics; but with outright prounoucements of my guilt without proof or public inspection.
So, I say to you here, emphatically, I did not murder my attorney, Mr. Clark and have no knowledge who did.With the systematic change that has overwhelmingly swept the country, what with the election of Barack Obama as president, the shift to the left with both houses of Congress; state and local officials being voted out of office and new faces being voted in, our county like our nation itself has an opportunity for true political systemic change.
It is hoped, not feared, that this letter creates a situation, that it opens a door to negotiation and creates an opportunity for dialogue.
I was arrested on February 6th 2008, at 5:30 pm and read my miranda rights. Next, the subtle prosaic manipulations of the facts by specific police officers distorted the public record. The timeframe of the events of that evening were purposely flipped. The press were utilized in spreading the falsehoods – told that I was sought for questioning at my apartment and my landlord questioned. This has been repeated over and over until thought to be true. But even as those words were being spread and my landlord’s door was approached – I had already been in police custody for over an hour. To create a reason to seach and obtain a warrant certain police claimed that my landlord lied to them, thus giving cause before a judge for their warrant. Too bad it was a wasted effort and nothing was found there – just an innocent woman’s life ruined.
Over the next few days of early February of 2008, the spin to the media solidified. Someone was being detained, questioned by police. The truth is: speciffic police seemed to have no need to question me. Did not want to. Felt no need to. Just wanted to hold me. I requested an attorney and was jokingly told, “you’ve killed your attorney…you only get one!” Being so blatantly and insensitively denied counsel – I remained silent. For a year now. Since then, for a year no police have sought to question me with counsel present. Plant informants in my cells, berate, interrogate and intimidate anyone I’ve come in contact with while at Winnebago County Jail; plant false information with the media; put words in others mouths; wiretap my friends and family’s phones; intercept my legal mail…but not question me. Hasn’t happened.
Excuses, silence, promises, wait you’ll see statements have replaced inquiry. Has the foresic evidence been lost? Tampered with? Tainted? Come back negative? Have the witnesses recanted? Changed their identification? Were there ever witnesses? Were they even needed? Evidence?
Mr. Buscato, when you first took office, I am certain that you were brought-up-to-speed on pending cases. Both under investigations and charged through indictment. I can only imagine the sheer magnitude and weight of casework which had to be summarized for you by your staff and officers. The Greg Clark murder would have been one that bore special attention; because of its’s open status, public prosecution by the Nicolosi office (in naming a person-of-interest) and importance in protecting the sanctity of the officers of the court.
The supervising officer in the Greg Clark murder is Deputy Chief of Police, Greg Lindmark. We attended high school together. Throughout those school years we had a history. He was a jock – I was a longhair. I regard him then and now as a bully. He has brought his Javertian intensity to this Victor Hugoesque melodrama in his pursuit of his – Jean Valjean. “…the poor are crushed by the prejudices of organized society.” In this inquiry, Mr. Lindmark’s sanguinary intent has been to “lock you up however possible” despite the facts of evidence. I took this direct threat seriously, as I have before.
You see, he may not have appraised you adequately of his motivation when briefing you on the Greg Clark murder; but I have sued Mr. Lindmark in Federal Court (filed Oct. 29, 1993, Case #93C20298) for previous civil rights violations.
True to his nature, Mr. Lindmark has in these sequestered investigations repeated his prior threats and extended them to include my neighbors, landlord, acquaintances, friends and family. he’s made clear he will get me. In this portentous inquiry he warned me, as before when I’ve complained of his prejudices, with a helpful, smiling semblence, for me to not make more problems for myself – to keep my opinions to myself – warning: “who ever would believe you?” To make his point ever clearer and to further exemplify, to underscore his power to injury me at will, with or without evidence and just on his word; you must vet his absurd, self-serving, timely recollected, undocumented statements in court during my sentencing hearing. He testified that I somehow spontaneously and for no apparent reason boasted of multiple burglaries and aspired…”to be known as the Ted Bundy of burglaries…” This is a total fabrication.
By conjuring up such an opportune statement while investigating the murder of my attorney, Deputy chief Lindmark makes good on his threats. While avoiding to mention any conflicts of interest or personal motivation for payback.
Infusing an infamous mass-murderer into a burglary sentencing hearing and at the same time contradicting prosecuting attorney Margie O’Connor’s assurances to the McGraw Court that she was “…not going to bring out evidence regarding the death of Greg Clark…”at the hearing.
She technically kept her word? Or, are these unwarranted comingling tactics of police and prosecutor one of the reasons for her dismissal from your office? Political expediency? Economic downturn? Did Mr. Lindwmark get what he wanted. Was I really under investigation for the murder of Greg Clark?
You have a choice. Admittedly not a desirable choice. Will you take the word of a decorated senior officer who kept his conflicts of interest from your office? Who kept his conflicts secret from the sitting judge at trial who revoked my bond? Who kept his conflicts secret from the presiding judge who sentenced me to 14 years for an attempted burglary? In a burglary where key 911 calls for the case were “lost”? Where the victim could not identify his face-to-face assaliant, both in a photo lineup or at trial? Where the only witness, with a few seconds view described the burglar suspect as a stocky 250 lb. man, with long grey hair and a grey beard? Where I am 180 lbs, with brown hair, no beard and glasses? Or will you listen to a convicted criminal profess his innocence.
Is it coincidence that Deputy Chief Lindmark is the senior supervising officer on the Greg Clark murder? And a key spokeman with the press?
I need either your help or your strength of resolve. I am reminded of a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. when seeking understanding of white ministers into the struggles for equality. “Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
Finally, I regret the manner with which this correspondence has been conducted. if given a choice, I would have chosen a better, more private, less public manner. But given the public nature that certain police and prosecutors have chosen from the beginning of this investigation to take it to the media, I must play by the rules Deputy Chief Lindmark has enacted.
I have implicit trust in the government, the courts and law enforcement despite what has been reported and thus far experienced. I have faith you will do the appropriate thing. Peace
Sincerely, Richard Wanke, Jr.
Anonymous said
Richard does not mention another instance in his letter:
Subsequent to his previous trial in DeKalb county, it was pointed out to that court at the time that then Detective, Greg Lindmark, from the Rockford Police Department, had incorrectly testified under oath during Richard’s trial that he personally “Mirandized” Richard during his 1991 arrest. The Dekalb prosecution was then forced to recall Mr. Lindmark back to the stand to correct his testimony, as it found that he could not have Mirandized Richard after all, since records showed that Lindmark had been called away at the time from Richard’s arrest for other business.
Mr. Lindmark’s “Ted Bundy” reference claim is incredibly farcical to anyone acquainted with Richard Wanke. Quick online research on Ted Bundy also shows little behavioral similarity to Richard’s background and activities. But “Ted Bundy” is certainly a “buzz” reference and admirably suited to influencing a judge and a legal audience, particularly in the context of being mentioned at the moment of sentencing.