Chapter 5 - Aunt Susan Was Not an Accomplice
Investigators moved carefully with Susan Hale.
No dramatic arrest.
No assumption.
She was Richard’s older sister, forty-four, elementary-school speech therapist, divorced, no criminal record.
She had occasionally cared for Tommy.
She did possess a basement key.
Why?
Because Richard had given her one after a pipe leak two years earlier so she could let plumbers in while he worked.
That could explain Tommy’s “other key” completely.
When police asked whether she knew the room could lock from outside, her face changed.
“Yes.”
Had she ever seen anyone locked inside?
“No.”
Had Tommy?
“No.”
Then:
“Did Richard ever ask you to lock it?”
“No.”
So not accomplice.
But Susan knew more than she had said.
She admitted Tommy once told her:
“Dad makes me practice not crying downstairs.”
When?
Eight months earlier.
What did Susan do?
She confronted Richard.
He said Tommy had tantrums and sometimes went into basement “calm-down space” voluntarily.
Susan believed enough.
Why?
Because Richard told her Tommy’s therapist recommended low-stimulation timeout.
Was there therapist?
There had been one behavioral consultation after school anxiety.
The therapist had recommended a quiet corner, not locked basement.
Richard exaggerated.
Did Susan verify?
No.
She felt guilty.
But guilt is not conspiracy.
Then another event.
At Christmas, Susan saw Tommy wearing a wrist brace.
Richard said he had tripped.
Tommy whispered:
“I didn’t fall.”
Susan asked later.
Richard became furious.
“You always undermine me because you don’t have a family.”
Cruel.
She backed off.
Why not report?
She said she did not have enough.
Maybe she should have.
Mandatory reporter status complicates. As a speech therapist, depending jurisdiction, suspected child abuse must be reported if reasonable suspicion. Did she have reasonable suspicion? Her professional duty might have required report. She had not been in professional capacity? Mandatory reporter duties can apply anytime depending state. Since no state specified, avoid legal conclusion. Investigators referred her conduct for review, but no criminal complicity evidence.
Then Susan turned over texts.
Richard:
Tommy fractures because of condition. Stop interrogating him.
Susan:
What condition? What's it called?
Richard:
Osteogenesis problem.
Susan:
Osteogenesis imperfecta?
Richard:
Something like that.
A father claiming rare diagnosed disorder but not knowing name.
Suspicious.
Then:
Susan:
Which specialist?
Richard:
Enough.
Another text months later:
Susan:
Send me the genetic test.
Richard:
Why are you obsessed?
No test.
Susan had doubts.
Then she revealed Richard had asked for money repeatedly.
Medical expenses.
Special casting materials.
Specialist copays.
She sent nearly $18,000 over two years.
Where did money go?
Some medical bills.
Much ordinary expenses.
No huge fraud scheme.
But Richard used Tommy’s supposed disorder to obtain sympathy and support.
Could motive for continued injury be financial?
Possible, but $18k over two years unlikely sufficient explanation alone.
Investigators resisted premature motive.
Then insurance claims showed repeated clinic visits, but Richard was not profiting significantly.
No child disability benefits yet.
He had applied once for supplemental assistance citing “probable brittle-bone disease.”
Application denied pending diagnosis.
He never followed specialist referral.
Interesting.
Perhaps maintaining ambiguity benefited him socially even if not financially.
Then child-abuse pediatric team reached a significant conclusion.
Bone fragility testing remained normal.
Further genetic evaluation did not support common forms of osteogenesis imperfecta, though medicine rarely gives absolute “impossible.”
More importantly, several injuries were mechanically inconsistent with routine low-energy falls described.
Dr. Ward documented:
The injury pattern and changing histories raise substantial concern for inflicted trauma.
Not:
Father definitely did it.
Medical language precise.
Then Tommy’s second forensic interview occurred because he spontaneously disclosed more to foster-placement nurse.
Again, trained interviewer.
Tommy said his father had a “strong game.”
What?
“If I cried when I fell, he made me prove I could stand.”
Sometimes Richard squeezed or twisted limb to make him “stop pretending.”
One injury:
Richard pushed him against basement wall.
Another:
Richard made him jump from a chair repeatedly because he said Tommy had to learn bones were “not glass.”
That is chilling but plausible abuse mechanism.
Did Tommy know which fractures happened how?
Not always.
Children may not map medical diagnoses to events.
Then:
“Why does Dad say you have weak bones?”
“Because he says doctors like sick kids better than bad dads.”
There.
Was that coached by Leah?
Potential defense argument.
Need corroboration.
Leah denied telling phrase.
No recording.
Tommy said father himself said it.
Then investigators found voice memo on Richard’s phone from an argument with Leah:
LEAH: You’re hurting him and then telling everyone his bones are bad.
RICHARD: Nobody is going to believe you over seven medical records.
LEAH: Those records say what you told them.
RICHARD: Exactly.
Silence in investigation room after that.
Not confession to breaking bones.
But explicit acknowledgment he controlled histories.
Then:
LEAH: He needs an endocrinologist.
RICHARD: He needs to learn not to embarrass me.
Stronger.
Date?
Nine months earlier.
Why did Leah still stay?
She addressed in interview.
Fear.
Attachment.
No safe housing initially.
Then when she finally left, she took key.
Richard had another.
Susan had one.
No mystery conspiracy.
Then investigators reexamined basement door.
Inside scratches contained paint and traces? Could be from objects.
But one low scratch contained cotton fibers consistent with Tommy’s gray hoodie? Too specific and likely no. Avoid.
Instead, forensic examination found a child’s crayon wax in grooves and a small sticker from Tommy’s favorite cartoon stuck behind chair.
Could place him in room, not prove locking.
Then Susan remembered buying that sticker pack.
He kept them in backpack.
Context.
Then agency recommended Tommy remain in foster placement with supervised contact restrictions pending family court.
Richard requested visitation.
Court allowed professionally supervised visits initially because allegations pending and child welfare procedures require calibrated response.
At first visit, Tommy refused to enter.
Can child be forced? Staff did not physically force. Visit ended.
Richard complained alienation.
Second:
Tommy entered with therapist nearby.
Richard said:
“Tell them you miss home.”
Supervisor intervened:
“Please don’t coach.”
Then:
“Tell them Leah made you say this.”
Visit terminated.
The behavior documented.
Then Richard’s attorney filed motion accusing investigators of contaminating Tommy’s memory through repeated questioning.
A legitimate defense concern.
Reviewers examined interview methods.
No obvious leading.
Still, jury/court would eventually decide weight.
Then police found a second hidden object.
Not in basement.
In Richard’s garage workbench.
A child-sized cast mold with a date carved into plaster.
The date was three days before the medical record said Tommy broke his leg.
May you like
Why would a cast be made before the fracture supposedly occurred?
Cliffhanger: Investigators found a homemade cast mold dated three days before Richard claimed Tommy’s latest accident happened—raising the possibility that the injury and the story around it had been planned before Tommy was ever taken to the hospital.
