The scenario on Wednesday, February 8, 2008, about 1:50 pm in the afternoon:

The snow fall in Rockford, Illinois began the evening before and continued throughout the day. The snow accumulation was the heaviest experienced by the city in 10 years. The snowfall was so heavy that most businesses and all offices closed early or never opened, and for the first time in memory mail delivery did not even occur. At 1:50 pm, snow on the streets reached above car bumper level and visibility was poor.

What happened: News media report that at 1:50 pm, attorney Greg Clark was home at his house in a quiet neighborhood on the east side of Rockford. According to the RRSTAR’s latest summation of events from 2008: “A gunman springs from a van and opens fire, killing Gregory Clark, a Rockford attorney, who is clearing snow from his sidewalk.” Clark was brutally shot in the back three times by an unknown shooter. He was pronounced dead at the hospital a short time later.

News accounts and subsequent police action show that more than one perpetrator actively participated at Clark’s shooting.  Media reports show the police immediately focused upon Richard Wanke because of what they thought of him and not because of any of the evidence found at the murder site.

The news reporter was told the next day that the police did not believe he shot Clark, but just that he was somehow involved. Subsequent questioning of Richard’s acquaintances showed the police asking questions indicating they sought information about at least one other person other than Richard.

The police had all the information related to Richard’s whereabouts on the northwest side of Rockford at the time of the murder by Feb 7, 2008. The distance between Richard’s media account of his whereabouts plus the difficulty of travel on Feb 6, 2008, and the shortness of time intervals should have caused police to question their assumptions placing him near or at the murder scene. A privately obtained (which police must also have) land phone record lends credence to Richard’s account and not to that of the police.

The accuracy of any “witness” sightings placing Richard in a vehicle near or at the murder scene is questionable given the weather conditions and the visual distances at the murder scene. This appears to perhaps be the only so-called claimed “fact” basis so far for the police insistence that Richard Wanke must have shot Greg Clark.

This initial assumption that Richard Wanke is the culprit remains the biggest obstruction to the police’s investigation into Greg Clark’s murder.

This bias caused the police to fail to solicit the assistance of the public (through use of “CrimeStoppers”) in 2008, in solving Greg Clark’s murder. Much helpful information could have been gleaned while the murder was still fresh.

Bias and over-confidence caused the police to fail to  question, Diane Chavez, while in custody regarding her whereabouts on the day and at the time she was allegedly seen in a vehicle at or near to Greg Clark’s house. The police could easily have determined that her alleged sighting was wrong. They would have found her movements recorded on their own police video on the other side of town at that exact time and day driving a sedan, not a van! The police verified her presence at work on the other side of town the whole day of the murder. The police have nothing to assert that she had any connection to the murder.

The police could have known this by midnight on Feb 6, 2008. Since then, authorities have had plenty of time to reexamine the accuracy of Richard’s alleged “sighting” as reported by the media and perhaps follow-up other leads. Instead, the police and media action whipped up public sentiment against two individuals with drastic effect.

Richard Wanke was seized and held with “questionable” legality on the sole basis of being ” a person of interest” for over 6 months in the county jail on the mere suspicion of some involvement in the murder. His attorneys were not permitted to examine or dispute any of the claimed connections used to justify revoking his bond when he would otherwise have been free pending a sentencing hearing. Lots of legal confusion ensued. Richard’s defense was inadequately prepared for and presented at his sentencing hearing. Richard was given the maximum term of imprisonment for 14 years for a relatively light infraction (which he disputed involvement in from the first).

You can view Richard Wanke’s criminal record at the state of Illinois Department of Corrections inmate website information, by inputting his inmate number, K77902, into their inmate record search function at: http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/search/default.asp

Compare his record and 14 year sentence to the records of most offenders and remember that this 14 year sentence is for the non-violent, alleged theft of a laptop computer.

Richard’s personal legal papers were seized and have not been acknowledged or returned to him by police to this day despite his need of them in appeal of his case. What legal authority does the state have to deprive any inmate or individual of access to their personal legal correspondence and documents which they need to file appeals?

IDOC has correctly recognized that Richard Wanke does not need to be in a maximum security facility with criminals with violent backgrounds and serious crimes. IDOC has transferred Richard from the high-security Western Correctional to the minimum security facility at Vienna Correctional because he has no violent background.

Diane Chavez knows nothing concerning Greg Clark’s murder, yet she has been deprived of her reputation, property, and financial well-being.  Police actions indicate that charging her was a ploy to put pressure on Richard Wanke. But, the ploy only works if either of them knows anything regarding Greg Clark’s murder. Any examination of her past history as a hard-working environmental and community activist shows she always resolved issues by working through the accepted legal channels. If the Rockford Register-Star took the time to examine their own archives; they could easily have come up with a more accurate portrayal of her community activities. She has no criminal or violent past. At age 53, she remains single and self-supporting, and was a state government social worker. On October 12, 2011, she won acquittal from all charges of tampering with public documents.

The authorities continue to pursue a questionable prosecution against her for an alleged obstruction of justice. The state is required to disclose all exculpatory as well as incriminating evidence, and we will see what it provides.

The police are spinning their wheels and we all are getting nowhere. Greg Clark’s murder was a brutal murder; one obviously perpetrated by someone with violence in their past who was assisted by at least one other similarly-minded person. After an exhaustive search of someone (Richard Wanke) who lacked financial means and whose movements had already been pretty closely followed by police for the past 17 years; the police have been unable to find any link to the violent individual (s) required to fit this profile. That’s why they are so focused on trying to dig up jailhouse “snitches”. That will be tough, since Richard did not associate with criminals.

It is easy to label a person a “Ted Bundy” wannabee; but in the end Ted Bundy was a serial murderer and actual bodies turned up left and right over the course of years because in the end, violence precedes premeditated violence. The police also probably found some interesting reading materials Bundy stocked for research or enjoyment. Richard Wanke has no such background. That is perhaps why all his previous attorneys, who antagonized him more than Clark ever did, are still walking around in good health.

We invite you to read this blog and read further about the fallacies of “eyewitness testimony”, and the causes of wrongful convictions. Perhaps it will cause you to question, as we do, the state’s “rush to judgment” regarding Richard Wanke.