Chapter 6 - The Date on the Plaster
The prosecution almost overreached.
At first glance, the carved date looked devastating.
July 3.
Richard reported Tommy’s playground fracture occurred July 6.
Therefore:
Premeditation?
Not so fast.
Forensic review determined the plaster mold was not necessarily made July 3.
The date could have been written later.
No reliable way to establish exact creation solely from handwriting.
Then Susan provided context.
July 3 was Melissa’s birthday.
Tommy’s late mother.
Richard sometimes marked objects with meaningful dates.
The “smoking gun” weakened immediately.
Good.
Cases become stronger when investigators allow evidence to disappoint them.
Then what was cast mold?
Richard said he practiced reinforcing casts after prior breaks.
Could be true.
Plaster residue matched supplies.
No proof of planned fracture.
The defense would use this to argue investigators saw abuse everywhere because they decided guilt first.
That criticism had force.
So Captain? Police detective, Detective Lena Ortiz? Let's name investigator Detective Marisol Chen maybe. She instructed team to separate confirmed facts from interpretation.
Confirmed:
Richard altered current cast at home.
Hidden key/note inside.
Repeated injury histories inconsistent.
Canceled specialist evaluation.
Basement room could lock.
Child disclosed coercive punishment.
Leah documented concerns.
Richard controlled narratives.
Unconfirmed:
He deliberately broke every fracture.
He preplanned latest injury.
He confined Tommy in basement for long periods.
He caused Leah’s injuries.
Good.
Then biological/medical history.
Tommy’s maternal medical records showed no known brittle-bone disorder.
Paternal family no known history.
Genetic testing did not reveal common causative variants.
Still, not absolute.
Then expert radiologists reviewed injury mechanisms.
Current tibial fracture showed a pattern more consistent with twisting force than simple forward playground fall? Need be careful: specific fracture mechanics can be variable. We can say "not well explained by the described low-energy fall" rather than definitive.
Older rib injury especially concerning because Richard had described a short fall onto carpet.
Not impossible.
Unusual.
Metatarsal fracture could be accidental.
Forearm could be common fall.
The case would not rely on “seven fractures = seven assaults.”
Maybe only two/three could support inflicted trauma strongly.
Then Tommy told foster caregiver one night:
“Dad didn’t break all of them.”
That became important.
Which ones?
“He says I’m clumsy too.”
This child was not building a total accusation.
He remembered some genuine accidents.
Swing? Maybe one actually real.
Bike? Real.
That increased credibility.
Then forensic interview:
Which injury did Dad cause?
Tommy pointed to current leg.
How?
“He made me do the jump until I landed wrong.”
What jump?
From basement storage crate to floor.
Why?
“He said I needed strong legs.”
How many times?
“I don’t know.”
Did Richard push him?
“Not that time.”
So current fracture might result from forced repeated jumping, not direct bone-breaking.
That is still abuse/endangerment.
Then when Tommy cried, Richard called him liar and initially did not seek care.
How long before hospital?
“Two sleeps.”
This supported Leah’s altered timeline.
School absence records showed Tommy missed two days before reported accident.
Richard told school stomach bug.
Then hospital date.
There.
Fracture likely predated story.
Leah had contact at school after cast, inserted key/note.
Richard later added heavy plaster layers because Tommy picked at cast.
Why so thick?
Tommy said father wanted “nothing to fall out.”
Wait, did Richard know objects inside?
Maybe he discovered something? If he knew, he'd remove. Instead maybe he suspected Leah had tampered but didn't know exactly and overwrapped to prevent access. Could be.
Investigators asked Richard why he added industrial resin.
“Tommy destroys casts.”
Any photos of destroyed prior casts?
Yes, one cracked edge.
Could justify reinforcement.
But why not return clinic?
“Too expensive.”
Insurance covered repair.
He didn't know? Maybe.
Then the note Richard said “don’t read” proves he recognized it when it fell.
How?
He later claimed he thought Leah planted something because Tommy told him she touched cast at school.
Ah.
Tommy must have said.
Richard suspected.
He overwrapped instead of opening because?
He said he wanted preserve? No.
He said he wanted keep Leah from “playing games” and planned remove at next appointment? Nonsense.
More likely he knew there might be note and tried burying it.
But no direct proof.
Then police searched Richard’s trash archive? No.
Digital messages to Leah after school encounter:
I KNOW YOU PUT SOMETHING ON HIM.
Leah:
Then let a doctor find it.
Richard:
You stay away from my son.
Leah:
Let them take the cast off.
Richard:
Not until I decide.
That was devastating.
He knew something had been inserted.
He deliberately delayed cast removal.
Then:
Richard:
You think a piece of paper changes anything?
So he knew note, perhaps not key.
He had not read because buried.
Maybe Tommy told.
Then defense argued Leah threatened to frame him.
Leah message:
The truth is already inside that cast.
Very theatrical but plausible.
Could be staged.
Still.
Then one new person entered case.
Dr. Peter Wall, a pediatric endocrinologist whom Richard actually saw once—not with Tommy, but alone.
Appointment record:
Parent consultation.
Why?
Richard attended without child eight months earlier asking questions about “possible osteogenesis imperfecta.”
Dr. Wall told him diagnosis required evaluation/testing.
Richard asked:
“If a child fractures often, doctors will assume disease, right?”
Wall remembered because question struck him oddly.
He responded:
“No. Recurrent fractures require broad evaluation, including accident history and nonaccidental trauma concerns.”
Richard never brought Tommy.
Then office note:
Father appeared frustrated when informed diagnosis cannot be made from fracture count alone.
That undermined claim he desperately sought diagnosis.
Then financial records showed he paid cash for consult so it would not appear on Tommy’s insurance explanation? Maybe too sinister. Could simply be self-pay because child absent. Don't overstate.
Then prosecutor asked motive.
Why hurt Tommy?
Control?
Anger?
Sympathy?
Financial?
There may not be one clean motive.
Leah said Richard hated being embarrassed by Tommy’s crying and disobedience.
He also enjoyed attention as devoted father of medically fragile child.
People praised him.
Fundraisers? No huge.
School accommodations reduced scrutiny.
Medical narrative made injuries self-explaining.
So “fragile bones” served several functions without being a grand scheme.
Then investigators found social media.
Richard posted:
Another fracture. My little warrior keeps fighting this cruel condition.
Hundreds of sympathetic comments.
One:
You’re an amazing dad.
Richard replied:
I’d trade places with him in a heartbeat.
Leah had commented privately? Not public.
No need.
Then a donor fundraiser raised $8,400 for travel to “specialist appointments.”
No specialist trips occurred.
Money went to household expenses.
Potential fraud case.
But prosecution careful: donors may have given generally for family support. Page wording promised medical travel.
Could become separate financial allegation.
Not central.
Then Tommy's temporary foster parents noticed he stopped wearing hoodie once Richard visits paused.
Heat wave still severe.
He wore T-shirts.
Why hoodie before?
He said:
“Dad says sleeves keep people from counting.”
Counting what?
May you like
“Marks.”
Cliffhanger: Tommy’s oversized hoodie was not simply a frightened child’s comfort item—he said Richard made him wear long sleeves so doctors and teachers could not “count” the bruises that had appeared between the fractures.
