Chapter 7 - The Hoodie
Dr. Ward did not treat Tommy’s statement as medical proof by itself.
She examined photographs from clinic.
Bruising had been documented on upper arms, thighs, and along one side of torso.
Some locations are common in active children.
Others less so depending pattern.
No single bruise screamed a conclusion.
But several oval marks on upper arms were consistent with forceful gripping.
Could they arise another way?
Yes.
Context.
Then foster parents turned over clothing from placement intake.
The gray hoodie smelled heavily of fabric softener and summer sweat.
No forensic miracle.
No hidden blood evidence.
Just clothing.
But school photographs became useful.
June:
hoodie.
May:
long sleeves.
April:
jacket.
March:
sweatshirt indoors.
Teachers remembered Richard insisting Tommy “runs cold because of bone condition.”
No medical record supported temperature dysregulation.
Again, narrative.
Then nurse Elena called me after work one evening.
“I keep thinking about how he trembled.”
“So do I.”
“Was he cold?”
“No.”
Fear.
We both knew.
Then clinic performed internal review.
Did we follow policy?
Blue-tray code.
Security.
Evidence preservation.
Medical stabilization.
Mandatory reporting.
Good.
Could we improve?
Yes.
We realized our intake allowed parent to answer almost every question before child.
New workflow for school-aged pediatric cast removals with concerning history:
At least a brief direct child engagement where appropriate.
Not secret interrogation.
Just space.
Then Elena said:
“What if we’d just cut it off?”
We might have found key/note anyway.
But perhaps Richard would grab.
The code helped.
Then police traced fundraiser.
Richard had raised money after claiming Tommy needed a $12,000 out-of-state genetic panel.
No such order existed.
He did request estimate from private lab.
Never paid.
Fundraiser collected $8,417.
Spent on rent, vehicle payment, groceries, and $2,000 cash withdrawal.
Fraud?
Donors could claim deception.
Prosecutors opened separate review.
Again, not proof he injured child for money.
Could simply exploit situation after injuries.
Motive remains layered.
Then Richard’s employer records.
He worked warehouse supervision.
Several disciplinary incidents for explosive anger.
Nothing violent criminal.
One memo:
Employee reacts poorly when decisions questioned.
Pattern, not proof.
Then his childhood.
Defense introduced later.
Richard and Susan grew up with father who used severe physical punishment and constantly called weakness “lying.”
Susan told investigators:
“Our dad used to say pain was manipulation.”
That sounded familiar.
Did Richard become father?
In some ways.
Not destiny.
Susan chose differently.
Again.
Then Richard told his attorney Tommy’s injuries resulted from “toughening exercises.”
That was a shift.
Previously all accidents.
Now:
He admitted making Tommy jump/stand after minor falls.
Said he was trying to combat fear and deconditioning because doctors told him fragile children need activity.
Doctors had indeed encouraged safe activity in general.
Not forced jumping on injured limb.
Could his actions accidentally cause current fracture?
Yes.
Then criminal liability could involve reckless/intentional harm even without purpose to break bone.
Important nuance.
Then prosecutor found text from Richard to Susan after current injury:
He landed wrong during drills. I’m not doing another ER lecture about parenting. I’ll wait until swelling settles.
That contradicted playground story directly.
Susan replied:
DRILLS?
No answer.
Timestamp two days before hospital visit.
There.
The current fracture story was false.
Then another text:
Susan:
Take him now.
Richard:
He can move toes. He’s fine.
Delayed care.
Potential medical neglect.
Then he eventually took Tommy when swelling worsened and invented playground accident.
Now case stronger.
What about older fractures?
Some may similarly stem from “drills.”
Tommy described:
Standing on one foot.
Jumping off low stool.
Wall sits.
Catching heavy medicine ball? Too much.
Let's keep age-appropriate but abusive "balance drills" designed by Richard.
Why?
He believed Tommy was weak and fearful.
Ironically while publicly claiming fragile bones, privately he insisted bones needed toughening.
Contradiction.
Then Dr. Wall’s note again:
Parent seemed frustrated by recommendation to avoid unsupervised conditioning until diagnosis established.
He was warned.
Then Richard’s own searches:
can exercise strengthen fragile child bones.
safe jumping kids with osteogenesis imperfecta.
He read warnings.
Continued.
Not necessarily intending fractures.
Recklessness.
Then why conceal bruises?
Because exercises involved grabbing/forcing.
Why basement?
“Training room.”
Tommy said.
Richard called it focus room.
He locked door sometimes?
Tommy:
“Only when I quit.”
That is false imprisonment of a child? Parents can use timeout, but locking child alone in unsafe basement may be neglect/abuse depending.
How long?
Tommy couldn't tell.
Maybe songs? “Until lantern got dark.” Could be minutes/hours.
No exaggerated certainty.
Then key.
Leah took key because she wanted room found.
Then her own lock-ins corroborated Richard's use of room as coercion.
Pattern.
Then one overlooked person:
Tommy’s pediatrician, Dr. Samuel Reed.
He had seen child throughout.
Why didn’t he catch?
Records show Richard frequently used urgent cares instead of pediatrician for injuries.
At well visits, casts explained.
Reed had requested full records twice.
Incomplete due fragmented systems.
He did refer to endocrinology after fourth fracture.
Richard never scheduled.
Reed called once.
Richard said another specialist already handling.
False.
Could Reed have reported?
Maybe suspicion threshold not reached.
This illustrated fragmentation.
Then health system created record-sharing alert after case? Later.
For now, Detective Chen mapped all injury visits on timeline.
Seven clinics.
No clinic saw more than two fractures.
Each story plausible alone.
Richard distributed injuries across institutions.
Was that intentional doctor shopping?
Texts suggested yes.
Leah:
Why do you keep taking him somewhere new?
Richard:
Because I’m tired of answering the same stupid questions.
That was almost admission.
Then another:
Fresh eyes don’t come with opinions.
There.
May you like
He knew continuity was danger.
Cliffhanger: Richard had deliberately rotated Tommy through different clinics because “fresh eyes don’t come with opinions,” allowing each fracture to look isolated instead of letting any one medical team see the full pattern.
