Welcome To This Blog

Posted: February 27, 2015 by parchangelo in Uncategorized

If you are interested in learning more about Richard’s case, then pull down the tab above labelled “Who is Richard Wanke” and click on the “Greg Clark Murder” tab beneath it to read more about Richard’s murder case and predicament. The page is updated as the case progresses with court filings, transcripts, and explanations of events as they unfold. Please feel free to add your comments as you read. If you wish to help out, please attend the court dates as they are announced. If you are media, we hope your coverage will be balanced in it’s approach. If you are an interested defense attorney and will consider either pro bono assistance or court appointment, please call (779) 348 – 2487, anytime to prevent further injustice. Anyone is also welcome to contact us via freerichardwanke@gmail.com and we also welcome Facebook readers of richardwanke and injustice everywhere to this site.


By Jeff Kolkey Staff writer

Posted Jun. 24, 2016 at 12:14 PM
Updated Jun 24, 2016 at 5:37 PM

ROCKFORD — Digital scanners tuned to Rockford police channels will fall silent Aug. 1.

Rockford Police Chief Dan O’Shea is ordering all digital radio communications to be transmitted over only encrypted channels starting in August, preventing members of the public and news organizations from listening to police radio traffic. O’Shea said he is concerned about officer safety and individuals’ privacy rights and worries that open communication tips off criminals to police movements.

The Winnebago County Sheriff’s Department may follow suit next year.”I’m not trying to hide anything,” O’Shea said today. “It’s not about cutting off the media or the public.”

O’Shea said technology had made it easier for criminals to glean information from police radio traffic that can thwart law enforcement, give suspects advanced notice of imminent law enforcement activity and compromise investigations.

The change to encrypted channels involves reprogramming police radios at virtually no cost, O’Shea said.Plans are for the department to continue keeping a police blotter, Facebook page and Twitter feed to disseminate information to the public.

O’Shea said the department plans to establish a dedicated news media hotline and create a 911 call log that journalists and the public can use to monitor criminal and police activity.It has not been determined how often the log will be updated and published. And O’Shea said it will be scrubbed of calls, such as child sex crimes and “certain domestics,” the police department determines are inappropriate to publish.

“With what we are putting in place, I feel very comfortable it won’t decrease our transparency,” O’Shea said.Don Craven, an attorney for the Illinois Press Association, said the shift to encrypted police communications is becoming more common in the state and in jurisdictions across the country. Police encryption raises the chance that the police department itself becomes the sole source of news and information about crime, he said.

“It’s going to make it very difficult to have immediate knowledge of what’s going on,” Craven said. “I’m not sure if this was designed to keep nosy reporters from knowing what’s going on, or if that’s an aftereffect.”

Source: Rockford to scramble all police radio communication – News – Rockford Register Star – Rockford, IL


http://www.rrstar.com/news/20160430/exclusive-rockford-cops-firing-over-dui-arrest-entangles-three-other-officers

“…Eventually, the investigation of Hedges mushroomed until three more officers whom police commanders said had appeared to protect Hedges became the subject of internal investigations….”

Mentioned in the RRSTAR investigation about just one fellow-police officer response and incident by the Rockford Police Department are three other officers: Bruce Brannum, Rosemary Matthews and Leann Ness, who became the subjects of investigations by police Internal Affairs for their actions in possibly covering up alleged misconduct by officer Jonathan Hedges. The RRSTAR had to review hundreds of pages it obtained by FOIA from the police to piece together what happened when Hedges was found asleep or passed out in front of his house.

It is extraordinary and indicative of just how bad internal practices must be in the Rockford Police Department that head commanders have to force the issue in order to ensure that police officers are investigated and treated like ordinary citizens when they do wrong.

Bruce Brannum was one of the first responders to the Greg Clark murder scene in 2008. He reported to Greg Lindmark at the time. He may play a tangential role in Richard Wanke’s case and trial. However, his actions regarding the Hedges incident seem to indicate that his 35 years on the police force not only made him possibly susceptible to maintaining the “thin blue line” of silence about wrong-doing of fellow officers, but well-versed in taking the easy option out when under scrutiny; just retire to stop the questions. He allegedly smelled alcohol on Hedge’s breath. That should have sufficed to follow normal protocol. Instead he reached for the union first for Hedge’s benefit. It’s too bad that “retiring out”of  investigations is still allowed other places as well as locally. Police officer investigations should not be closed when officers retire. Any potential misconduct committed on the job should follow officers into private life same as holds true for the rest of us.

 


http://www.rrstar.com/news/20160404/diane-chavez-files-10-million-suit-against-rockford-and-police-department

Sometimes, when someone is treated unfairly, you just have to make a statement. Diane Chavez, is suing the City of Rockford and individual police staff from the Rockford Police Department for just compensation for their alleged wrongdoing and the harm she suffered. She’s not expecting to receive $10 million dollars; but the figure is a statement regarding their conduct.

Sunshine Week

Posted: March 16, 2016 by scaryhouse in Uncategorized

Open government is good government March 13-19, 2016
Join ASNE and the Reporters Committee in the annual nationwide celebration of access to public information and what it means for you and your community. Find all the free resources you need to get started

Source: http://www.sunshineweek.org/


By Georgette Braun Staff writer
Posted Mar. 1, 2016 at 8:31 PM Updated at 8:30 AM ROCKFORD —

Public defender Nick Zimmerman asked to withdraw as attorney for Richard E. Wanke Jr., who is charged with murder in the 2008 death of attorney Gregory H. Clark, but Judge Rosemary Collins said today he couldn’t. Collins said Zimmerman’s assertion that there could be a conflict of interest if he were to call a colleague to testify wasn’t at issue. That’s because the colleague’s involvement with Wanke revolved around a separate burglary case against him, Collins said. “There is no conflict,” she said.

Zimmerman is the fourth lawyer for Wanke in the case. Wanke has contended at previous hearings that Winnebago County public defenders could not adequately represent him because of conflicts of interest. Zimmerman continued to defend Wanke in the Winnebago County courtroom today, where he sought to have certain evidence suppressed in the case that will go to trial on May 2.

Clark was fatally shot Feb. 6, 2008, while clearing snow from a sidewalk outside his Rockford home in the 1700 block of Oakforest Drive. Police said a gunman jumped out of a vehicle and shot Clark in the back.

Clark had defended Wanke on a 2006 burglary charge involving a computer, and Wanke was upset with the outcome. That’s what Rockford Police Department officers said Bart Henbest, Clark’s son-in-law and business partner, told them at the time.

Wanke was serving prison time at Stateville Correctional Center and was weeks away from being released when he was charged in 2014 with killing Clark. He has previously said he had nothing to do with Clark’s death.

In Collins’ courtroom, Zimmerman said that Rockford police in 2008 “arrested my client at gunpoint, without a warrant or probable cause.” And he asked that items Wanke had on him when he was detained not be admitted as evidence at trial. Those items included business cards, a driver’s license, keys, a cellphone and a flash drive. The significance of those items in the case was unclear.

Wanke, wearing a lime green Winnebago County Jail jumpsuit, ankle shackles, a ponytail and an audio headset to aid hearing, often leaned closer to Zimmerman and whispered to him as Zimmerman was about to address the court.

Marilyn Hite Ross, chief of the criminal bureau for the Winnebago County state’s attorney office, said there was probable cause for police to detain Wanke. “Probable cause exists when they have articulative facts that led them to believe that a crime had been committed and this defendant committed that crime.”

Sgt. David Lee of the Rockford Police Department testified today that he and other officers were sent to a duplex in the 1100 block of Grant Street to do surveillance within a few hours after Clark was shot. That’s where they saw Wanke shoveling snow. He matched the description witnesses gave of a suspect at the shooting scene: a white male in his 40s or 50s, with glasses and long, straggly hair. A blue minivan with gold rims was parked near Wanke.

Source: Richard Wanke, accused of killing Rockford lawyer Gregory Clark, seeks to suppress evidence – News – Rockford Register Star – Rockford, IL

…AND WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS HEARING & ARTICLE:

First off, background about what an IL “Suppression” hearing is and what it is supposed to accomplish

A motion to suppress evidence is an objection over evidence generally presented to court before trial begins. The motion challenges evidence on constitutional grounds. Generally a motion to suppress is based on:
Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure
Fifth Amendment limitations of self-incrimination
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment safeguards for due process

Generally, the purpose of a suppression hearing is to examine whether or not the police had sufficient probable cause to either arrest, search, or seize persons or property at a specific time.

The US Supreme Court has left probable cause open to interpretation by US courts with such guidance as, …”Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.” (Brinegar v. U.S.)

A look at the probable cause in a criminal case may be warranted based on the circumstances of the case. In Richard Wanke’s instance, there are indications that the police in February 2008, may have had little more than suspicion that Wanke was involved in Greg Clark’s murder; that is, no forensic evidence or only circumstantial linkages. Richard Wanke was not arrested in 2008, but his bond was revoked and he was jailed. The State is trying to justify the factual basis on why he was imprisoned based on what the police knew at the time they acted against him. If the actions taken in 2008 were not based on sufficient probable cause of his involvement in the murder, then whatever was collected by police in 2008 may not be usable today by the State. Bottom-line, in 2008, the police needed to be able to have reasonably connected Richard Wanke to the murder.

Richard’s case is almost a double situation of probable cause because he was charged with the murder in April 2014, after it went cold in 2010. Cold cases are usually re-opened and charged after the police discover new evidence that links a suspect to the crime. This does not appear to have happened in Richard’s case, so if sufficient probable cause is not found in the actions of 2008, then there may be further issues of legitimacy in his 2014 charges.

Now, will Judge Collins find the police had “probable cause” against Richard Wanke in 2008? She will issue her decision next Monday on March 7, 2016. But, yeah; we anticipate that she will find that the police did have probable cause to act against Richard, and that she will deny defense’s motion to suppress any evidence.

We anticipate this decision based on how she handled and disposed the first motion defense submitted just before the suppression hearing began.

The RRSTAR article above is a garbled account and explanation of what actually took place in the courtroom on March 1, 2016. The RRSTAR reporters have only the limited opportunity while reporting to learn how to interpret courtroom actions and their significance.

Georgette Braun writes: “… Collins said Zimmerman’s assertion that there could be a conflict of interest if he were to call a colleague to testify wasn’t at issue. That’s because the colleague’s involvement with Wanke revolved around a separate burglary case against him, Collins said. “There is no conflict,” she said…”

Well, this is not quite what happened. Derrick Schmidt, one of Richard’s prior Public Defender’s warned Judge Collins during argument over his past motion to withdraw the Public Defender’s office from representing Richard that the issue of conflict-of-interest regarding the Winnebago County’s Public Defender’s office was going to rear it’s ugly head repeatedly through Richard’s case if Judge Collins did not remove the office from the case.

Yesterday, Nick Zimmerman, Richard’s current Public Defender said that he and Robert Simmons, (his co-counsel) were reviewing case materials early Monday morning when they came upon an issue with the way in which Richard’s bond was revoked on February 6, 2008. Basically, Zimmerman maintained that Richard’s bond was illegally revoked because the police and the State agent at the time failed to follow proper procedures when they revoked his bond.

Generally bond is revoked in court. The State presents facts to the judge about why the bond should be revoked; the defense has the opportunity to challenge the reasons, the judge decides if the revocation is merited and then signs an order which is officially recorded in the record by the Circuit Clerks’ office.

None of that happened in Richard’s situation in 2008. On February 6, 2008, a police officer knocked on Judge Truitt’s door at home about 11pm at night; told Judge Truitt god knows what about Richard and the Clark murder; got the judge to sign the revocation order and then the order ended up in the court record much later. Problem is, again, no one knows what information was presented to Judge Truitt to persuade him that Richard was such a danger that his liberty should be revoked, and no one was there on Richard’s behalf to challenge the information presented. It was all done improperly and ex-parte. Plus, at 11pm, the police had already picked up Richard and he was already in their custody, so they had jumped the gun on picking him up.

You see, the police had a choice on February 6, 2008, if they believed that Richard was a danger and needed to be in custody. The police could have gone to a judge earlier that afternoon and obtained an arrest warrant for Richard and then picked him up and arrested him. This is what they do for most people they arrest.  Instead, the police apparently felt that Richard had no legal rights because he was already out on bond, so they could just go and pick him up between 5 – 6 pm.

In February 2008, however, the police did not charge Richard Wanke with the murder of Greg Clark. Instead, they waited till April 2014 to do that. Meantime, in 2008, they held Richard in jail under questionable authority for about 4 months before he was sentenced in his laptop burglary case and sent off to IDOC.

So, Nick Zimmerman maintained to Judge Collins, on March 1, 2016, that the whole issue of how Richard Wanke was seized by the police in 2008, has to be examined because a bond revocation and not an arrest was used to justify holding him and then seizing evidence against him at the time, and he ended up not being charged with anything at the time.

It is a fair issue to consider because without protections, the police can then pick up and detain indefinitely people out on bond without charging them with anything.

Zimmerman’s problem however is that the State agent who acted against Richard on February 6, 2008, is now a public defender of some repute who many people in the Public Defender’s office consult with on a regular basis, including himself. Zimmerman notified Judge Collins that, in order to examine the issue of the bond revocation on Richard’s behalf, he and Simmons had a conflict-of-interest in that they would be divided between their allegiance to Richard and their allegiance to the public defenders office when cross-examining Margie O’Conner; who might also hedge in answering truthfully simply because she was being questioned by colleagues.

Judge Collins, in the morning first heard arguments on both sides; from the defense that the bond revocation was illegal because procedures were not properly followed, and from the State, who claimed that it was legal and justified holding Richard Wanke indefinitely. Collins then adjurned the case upon 1:30 pm for her decision on the issue.

During the noon break, Collins used her time to review first the electronic docket on Richard’s laptop burglary case 06-CF-405. Then she pulled the casefile and reviewed the court transcript for 2/15/08, where a motion by Attorney Brown to reinstate Richard’s bond was heard by Truitt.

Brown complained at that hearing that the State (Margie O’Conner) presented some information as to why Richard’s bond was revoked, but that it was conclusionary information and not the underlying factual basis: for example, that Richard fit the shooter’s description, but the description itself was not presented. Brown complained then that the State was not providing sufficient information for him to be able to sufficiently represent Richard. Also, the procedural manner in which the bond was revoked was not discussed then before Judge Truitt.

Collins also reviewed the 6/11/08 court transcript where attorney Glenn Jazciew refiled the motion for bond and argued that it was due reconsideration since it had been four months since the first motion was argued and Richard’s situation still had not changed in that he still had not been charged. Judge McGraw refused to allow the issue to be reheard at that time.

So, Collins basically, marched back into court yesterday afternoon and said “the bond revocation issue was raised and litigated in 06 CF 405 and we are not going to revisit it. And, because, we don’t need to revisit it, the PD does not need to call Margie O’Conner as witness, so we don’t have a conflict-of-interest situation here. So, lets go on and do the suppression hearing now.

Georgette Braun makes it sound as if Collins found that the issue Zimmerman raised only pertained to Richard’s prior laptop burglary case. It does not, and that is not what Collins said. Collins simply found a way to avoid having to deal with the entire issue and refused to allow it to be considered on March 1, 2016. That it was raised to be considered in an entirely different manner than in 2008, with new facts available to the defense who now knows what it did not know in 2008, that is the flimsy basis of the evidence the police had against Richard in 2008, and how they did not follow procedure is irrelevant to Judge Collins. On March 1, 2016, she is happy to ignore all improprieties that happened in 2008; just to ensure that Richard still remains representing in this murder case by the Public Defender’s office.

So, we hardly find Judge Collins action on March 1, 2016, to be an impartial consideration and ruling on an important issue raised by the defense. She basically heard both sides then went and scouted out support to just toss the issue away. This is hardly the sort of action one hopes for in a judge who is considering the outcome of the remainder of your life.

Judge Collins’s actions and rulings so far in Richard’s case may just be a total waste of all our time and public money.  By continuing to be adamant regarding keeping the public defender’s office on Richard’s case, Judge Collins is setting this case up for the Illinois Appellate Court to just toss the case back to the County several years from now when it ends up reviewing the case. The trouble is that not only does it waste all our time and money, but it means Richard Wanke may be subjected to several years of additional unjustified incarceration while he goes through the process of trial all over again.

How does this appeal to your sense of humanity?

 

 


By Michelle ShermanOf GateHouse Media Illinois

Posted Feb. 29, 2016 at 5:24 PM CANTON — The Illinois budget crisis continues to hit home as Canton officials recently learned the state owes $674,000 for various services at Illinois River Correctional Center.

Finance Committee Chairman Jim Nelson said Monday he learned last week the state is that far in arrears to the city for three different services — water and sewer services to Illinois River, bulk sewer bills and two quarters of payments on an annual intergovernmental agreement for maintenance on shared roadways.

He was unsure how long it has been since the city received a payment, but asked that a discussion item be added to the City Council’s agenda for Tuesday’s meeting.“That’s a good portion of our bond payment” for water and sewer, he said. “It’s a very big number.”

LouAnn Armstrong, an accountant with Clifton Larson Allen who serves as comptroller and budget director for the city, says the Illinois Department of Corrections last received a bill on Feb. 23, but was unsure how far behind it is on payments.Because of the state budget impasse, vouchers requesting payment of bills cannot be released by the IDOC to Comptroller Leslie Munger’s office, said Rich Carter, Munger’s press secretary.

“We physically make the payment, but we can’t do that without a voucher,” and vouchers cannot be sent without a state budget, Carter said.

Source: Illinois owes $674,000 for services at Canton correctional center – News – Journal Star – Peoria, IL


BY GEORGE PAWLACZYK –  EAST ST. LOUIS

Inmates know them as “Orange Crush.” They are an elite, mobile Illinois Department of Corrections tactical unit, which civil rights lawyers say regularly humiliated and terrorized more than a thousand Illinois inmates on various occasions using tactics such as forcing them to march naked in single-file, tight formations, causing men’s genitals to press against the buttocks of men in front of them.

The special squad calls the exercise “nuts-to-butts,” according to a civil rights class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in East St. Louis, and state prison officials aren’t commenting on it.

Members of the tactical unit begin the tactic by running onto a prison tier when female guards are sometimes also present, “whooping,” banging on metal tables and shouting to prisoners: “Get butt-naked.”

The guards do this, according to the lawsuit, while dressed in orange fatigues, wearing helmets, carrying clubs and chanting “Punish the inmate. Punish the inmate.”

Hundreds of prisoners at a time were marched in this way in April of 2014 at four Southern Illinois prisons while being threatened by laughing guards who shouted they would be taken immediately to solitary confinement if they allowed any daylight between themselves and the man in front of them, the plaintiffs’ lawyers allege. Prisoners were eventually led to an exercise area and made to stand for hours with their faces pressed against a wall while their hands were cuffed behind them in a “stress” position. During this time, other members of the guard unit searched the prisoners’ cells for contraband.

“This is above and beyond what I’ve seen ever in the 35 years I’ve been doing this kind of work,” said civil rights attorney Alan Mills of the Chicago-based Uptown People’s Law Center, one of two law firms pressing the lawsuit. “This is part of some official policy. Higher-ups in IDOC will have to explain what in the world they were thinking when they gave these people this kind of direction and leeway.”

Alan Mills, attorney for inmates Mills said the practice continued on at least a few occasions after the lawsuit was filed in 2015.

Source: Lawsuit: ‘Orange Crush’ guard unit terrorized, humiliated Southern Illinois inmates | Belleville News-Democrat


Five books you should read, now that you’ve watched Making A Murderer and have no idea what to do.

1. The Innocent Killer: A True Story of a Wrongful Conviction and its Astonishing Aftermath by Michael Griesbach is a true crime book about Steven Avery’s case, which looks ultimately frustrating to read after watching Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi’s documentary series. Written by a Manitowoc county prosecutor, the book tells what was until recently the prevailing story about Steven Avery: that of a man wrongfully convicted for rape, who went on to commit murder. Although the book was controversial for being “overly critical of the authorities” when it came out, Griesbach argues that “the authorities got it right this time.”

2. Essentials Of The Reid Technique: Criminal Interrogation and Confessions by Fred E. Inbau, John E. Reid, Joseph P. Buckley, Brian C. Jayne. This manual describes the interview method widely used by police in the United States—a method that is thought to be particularly effective at “extracting the truth from those who are often unwilling to provide it.” In 2012, the president of John E. Reid and Associates posted a document responding to defense expert Richard Leo’s criticisms of the way the technique was used to elicit a confession from Brendan Dassey. Douglas Starr’s 2013 New Yorker article on police interrogation reports that Saul Kassin, a legal scholar widely regarded as a leading expert on false confessions, “believes that the Reid Technique is inherently coercive.”

3. Worse than the Devil: Anarchists, Clarence Darrow, and Justice in a Time of Terror Paperback by Dean A. Strang. One half of Steven Avery’s defense team wrote his own true crime book about anarchists and a miscarriage of justice that took place in Wisconsin in 1917.

4. False Justice: Eight Myths That Convict the Innocent by Jim Petro and Nancy Petro is listed as recommended reading by the Innocence Project. It presents in detail the many assumptions at work in the justice system, which can lead to a wrongful conviction.

5. The Innocents by Taryn Simon is a powerful selection of portraits of men who were wrongfully convicted of serious crimes and later exonerated by DNA evidence. The mugshot-style photographs are accompanied by commentary from Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, the lawyers who founded the Innocence Project.

Source: Five books you should read, now that you’ve watched Making A Murderer and have no idea what to do. | New Republic


SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois Department of Corrections has increased staffing levels by 468 correctional officers during the past calendar year, helping to drive down excessive overtime costs, an agency spokeswoman said.

IDOC spokeswoman Nicole Wilson said that between Dec. 31, 2014, and Nov. 30, 2015, IDOC has hired 1,114 new trainees who graduated from IDOC training academies. After accounting for attrition via resignation, retirements and dismissals, the net increase is 468 correctional officers, she said.

But while Gov. Bruce Rauner’s administration applauded its efforts to increase staffing levels, Anders Lindall, spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said that even with the increase, staffing levels are far short of where they need to be. Lindall said IDOC employees are down to fewer than 11,000 at the start of 2015, compared to 17,000 employees in 2002.

Source: IDOC increases number of guards by 468 | Local News | thesouthern.com


Employees at a state-run correctional facility neglected an inmate’s medical needs by delaying his access to medication, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday.

Daniel R. Haney is suing the Illinois Department of Corrections and four employees for negligence and misconduct in handling a medical emergency while he was an inmate at the Crossroads Adult Transition Center at 3210 W. Arthington St., according to the lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court. Haney suffered from intestinal illness for days because he could not obtain a prescription.

On July 18, Haney was taken to Stroger Hospital with symptoms of excessive diarrhea and vomiting, where he was diagnosed with gastritis, according to the suit. He was prescribed an acid blocker to take before his evening meal the next day and was discharged just after 7:30 p.m.

Starting at 11:45 a.m. the next morning, Haney repeatedly asked employees if his prescription had been filled. Haney began to get sick again that afternoon, according to the suit.

By 8 p.m., Haney was told that his prescription had been dropped off, but that the staff had been too busy to pick it up, and his medicine was still not available on July 21 when inmates were called to take medications, according to the suit. He remained sick with excessive diarrhea and vomiting from July 20 through July 23.

Haney requested to be taken again to the hospital early July 23, and was eventually taken to Stroger Hospital that afternoon, according to the suit. The doctor who saw him was the same one who saw him a few days earlier, so the doctor filled Haney’s prescription before he left the hospital.

Although Haney recovered from his illness after that, he received a bill Aug. 8 from Cook County Hospital for more than $2,000 for the July 23 services, according to the lawsuit. Haney is suing for up to $100,000 in damages, claiming that he would not have had to go to the hospital the second time if not for the negligence of the facility employees. He also claims their conduct was deliberate and malicious, according to the suit.

Source: Suit: IDOC employees left sick inmate without medication | Chicago Sun-Times