The prosecution in this case wants the public and jury to find that a defendant’s disagreements with his attorney are sufficient motivation for him to kill his attorney. This is what their case against Richard Wanke boils down to regarding the murder of attorney Greg Clark.

The defense says that disagreements between criminal defense attorneys and their clients are pretty common and no reason to find a defendant guilty of murder since few defendants kill their attorneys. Those that do are quick-tempered, violent, and have violence in their past. Richard Wanke, is not a violent or angry defendant, and the State has no evidence showing that Richard was involved, let alone present at Greg Clark’s murder scene.  Attorney Clark was shot on 2/6/08, but no gun has ever been recovered. Richard’s never owned a weapon, and there still are no fingerprints, no DNA, in fact, no physical evidence linking Richard to the Clark murder

Richard had, in fact, amicable relations with Clark, for over six years prior to 2008. Their relationship, even then, was no different than that of most defendants and criminal defense attorneys. Public Defender Zimmerman stated forthrightly that Richard Wanke did not kill Greg Clark. Richard, Zimmerman declares, had nothing to gain from the death of Greg Clark.

Richard Wanke, and Deputy Chief Greg Lindmark, were not friends when they attended Guilford High School together. Deputy Chief Greg Lindmark was later sued by Richard, and in 2/08 he was put in charge of the Clark murder investigation. Lindmark’s direction of the Clark murder investigation was the reason why Richard became it’s suspect.

The prosecution is presenting it’s evidence in trial now. They’ve presented photographs and testimony and maps and Power Point charts and 911 audio. A full hour and a half of presentation has shown that Greg Clark was killed on a snowy day in 2008, but does not identify who might have committed this act. My impression is that they are trying to sway the jury with an avalanche of testimony and graphics. The sheer mass of evidence, although not relevant to who did the act, is impressive, but this investigation has been 9 years in the making.

More notes to follow; thank you for taking interest in Richard’s fate.

On day two, the prosecutors soft-balled questions to various witnesses about conversations between Richard and Greg Clark. Defendants disagree with their lawyers, which leads both sides often making their arguments in court and in court filings. No revelation about that. There were no public arguments between Greg Clark and Richard Wanke. They were very civil to each other outside of court no matter what they each said before the judge. Had anyone of the court; the judge, the attorneys, the bailiff’s etc., seen threats or true anger exchanged between Clark and Richard, the Court would have immediately stepped in and intervened.Violence of any sort is not tolerated in Courts. Richard Wanke was out on bond in 2/08; something few defendants who lose jury trials are allowed. This is due in large part to the length of time he complied with all court rules. The state has no witnesses who saw or heard anything negative between Richard and Clark. Richard had nothing to gain from Clark’s death, but everything to lose once he became the murder suspect.

There were some fireworks on day two when a detective admitted that he neglected, or maybe decided not to write his report on the crime scene until March 31. He had been the top ranking officer at the February 6 murder scene until others, including Deputy Chief Greg Lindmark, arrived. Regulations “require” that officers write reports before their shifts end. His shift lasted 53 days. Additionally, the detective conveniently made no mention of a conversation he allegedly had with the officer who had surveyed the neighborhood, and who had interviewed important witnesses. There was also testimony about the detective’s demotion from detective status, and then his subsequent promotion, at later date. The date of that promotion was not revealed in Wednesday’s testimony.

  1. Jan Thurston says:

    Thank you for the update. Prayers are continuing.

    *Jan Thurston* *702.498.4134* * *

    20+ Years Experience serving Henderson, Boulder City, Las Vegas

    On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 6:40 AM, RichardWanke.Com wrote:

    > cworboy1493 posted: “Opening statement for the prosecution emphasized an > alleged tumultuous relationship between Richard and his lawyer. The state > will argue that Richard’s state of mind was such that he murdered his Greg > Clark. The defense countered that the prosecutors h” >


  2. Terry Rutz says:

    Someone commented on your Facebook page the other day that he felt it too contrived to believe that yeah, Richard just happened to know when Greg Clark would be out snowblowing his driveway during the afternoon of the snowfall and so timed his arrival so conveniently. I agree with the guy that it was more likely some family or friend of Clark’s who knew him and his habits more personally who more likely killed him.


  3. M. Jones says:

    Get mad & kill the attorney? Stupid claim. If I’d shot every attorney I’ve argued with or been mad at, I’d be in for life. Attorneys are pain-in-the asses who suck all your money to do little and then discard you. Criminal defense attorneys r the worst of the lot and we let em live. Stuff they get away with is criminal. All who I know knows this too.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s