You are reading a rare, detailed account of everyday life in Stateville Prison.

Click to read Paul's blog quoted on:
To contact Paul, please email: paulmodrowski@gmail.com
or write him at the address shown in the right column. He will get your message personally.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Defending the Damned -- March 31, 2011

This week, I read the book Defending the Damned: Inside a Dark Corner of the Criminal Justice System, by Kevin Davis. It was sent to me earlier this month by a paralegal student who has taken an interest in my case. She was recommended the book by one of her teachers, who happens to be a former Cook County Public Defender, and more interestingly, my co-defendant Robert Faraci's counsel in the murder of Dean Fawcett. Apparently, the man wanted to give Laura an idea about what it was like to represent people facing the death penalty. Laura is considering a career as a criminal defense lawyer.

I appreciated being sent the book, but I did not initially plan on reading it. I have so many other books and magazines I have been trying to find time to read. I also have a few corporate reports I still have not read, and soon 1st quarter results and projections will be out. I read the back cover and intro and thought this book would be similar to the book I read called The Innocent Man. The Innocent Man was John Grisham's first work of nonfiction, and it was miserable to read the ugly realities of the criminal justice system I knew all too well about.

I flipped through the pages of Defending the Damned and noticed some parts had been highlighted. One caught my attention: "James 'Mad Dog' McKay," because he was the prosecutor in my case. I will never forget his unscrupulous and overly dramatic tactics used to gain my conviction. I was not surprised his nickname amongst lawyers was Mad Dog McKay, as it certainly fit the persona I witnessed in the courtroom. After I saw McKay's name and a few others I knew mentioned in the book, I changed my mind about reading it.

Defending the Damned was written by a Chicago Tribune reporter. The back cover describes the writing of Kevin Davis as a "powerful melding of courtroom drama and penetrating true crime journalism...a narrative nonfiction at its finest." Kevin Davis was better at writing nonfiction than John Grisham, but "riveting nonfiction at its finest" is certainly an exaggeration. I tend to believe the book will be interesting only to a limited audience.

The book is mainly about the public defenders who represent defendants facing the death penalty in Illinois' Cook County courtrooms. I was initially represented by two public defenders in the Capital Litigation Division. They were very good attorneys, and this book is a tribute to those who continue to work diligently at the office. While there are a number of bums who work at the Public Defenders' Office, most on Cook County's Murder Task Force are very good. If I had to do it all over again, I would not have allowed my parents to remove my public defenders Deborah Grohs and Dale Coventry. They were far superior than the attorneys retained for me from the firm of Jenner & Block.

Cook County's Murder Task Force was made up of 30 attorneys from the Public Defenders Office. These were usually the most competent and experienced lawyers. Not everyone could be promoted to this elite club. It took a special type of person to take on the most serious, high profile, and stressful cases. Furthermore, most of the people represented by these lawyers were obviously guilty, and were of the most loathsome character.

One chapter in the book is "How Can They Defend These People?" The public defenders usually represented low-lifes, gang bangers, and other miscreants from the ghettos of the inner city. They were poor, of little education, and of little aptitude or promise. All of the cases the M.T.F. took were murders, but many of them were of exceptional brutality and had heinous aggravating circumstances the public at large often found despicable. There were tortures, child killings, and homosexual, incestuous or pedophile rape-murders. This chapter opened up about a couple who choked their own one-year-old daughter when she would not quit crying. They then sliced the baby into pieces, battered the parts with flour, and fried them to feed to alley dogs.

The public defenders on the Murder Task Force were often not liked, despite the enormous effort and public service they performed. The chief of the group, Shelton Green, is quoted as saying you must have a "fuck you" attitude. It was important these lawyers were not timid, and were willing to take on figures of authority such as cops, prosecutors and judges, and also deal with public-social condemnation. The book says the attorneys are driven by various motivations. Some had a strong sense of justice, compassion, or left wing ideology, although Green would deny this. My direct appellate lawyer formerly worked as a P.D. and I sensed he was close to being a Marxist. My current lawyer is also liberal, and she came from the Cook County Public Defender's Office as well, before going into private practice. Although there may be some conservative criminal defense lawyers, by and large, it has been my experience they are from the left of the political spectrum.

Some lawyers at the Public Defender's Office were there for job security, and these are the worst kind to have represent you, even if you find your lawyer's politics terrible. These are the lawyers who just do their job, oftentimes at the bare minimum. The public defenders are unionized and they have great benefits; most senior attorneys are paid close to a hundred grand a year. As a juvenile, I had one of these PDs, and I would have been glad to trade him for a bleeding heart liberal who at least would have been motivated to help me.

The attorney who is the main focus of this book is Marijane Placek, and she seems motivated by a great sense of competition. She wants to win regardless of who her client is, or what she or he has done. She is also motivated by the thrill, drama, and intense nature of court proceedings where her clients face either the death penalty or a protracted death sentence in prison. Placek is described as a very flamboyant, tough, and tenacious public defender.

Defending the Damned describes a number of cases, but the one most focused on is the murder of Englewood Police Officer Eric Lee. In 2001, on the south side of Chicago, Eric Lee and several other cops were assisting in a drug surveillance and possible raid. When they noticed a drunk getting beat up in the alley, they ran to intervene. According to police, Aloysius Oliver reached into his pocket and shot Officer Lee twice in the head, instantly killing him. The murder was witnessed by a number of people and Oliver later gave a videotaped confession, but it was Marijane Placek's job to defend him and attempt to gain his acquittal. Initially, a reader may think his guilt was obvious, but certain circumstances, evidence, and arguments divulged in the book could cause some doubt.

One of the greatest improvements to the justice system in Illinois during the last decade is the videotaping of confessions or statements made by murder suspects. The police and prosecutor's office fought hard in opposition to the new law because they like to coerce suspects with threats, intimidation, and physical abuse to get them to talk. Many times they do not like it if a person "lawyers up" and demands their Miranda rights. When I was interrogated in 1993, police did not use a videotape. They did not obtain an audio tape, stenographer, written or signed statement from me. My interrogator did not even procure a signed waiver of Miranda, as was the rule at the Palatine Police Department. The reason for this, of course, was so I could be forced into making a confession or statement. When this did not occur, John Robertson could just falsify a police report. Suspected cop killer Oliver, however, was videotaped admitting to the murder, and also apologizing for it.

Despite the videotape, Public Defender Marijane Placek filed a suppression motion and argued Oliver's confession had been coerced. It is not unusual for defense attorneys to do this. A suppression motion was filed by my attorneys, and although they proved my claimed statements were done under violation of my Miranda rights, the judge denied it. I had numerous witnesses testify at the hearing on the motion, easily discrediting the crooked cop. I even had witnesses that heard me immediately demand a lawyer. None of this mattered, however. The judge was not going to throw out the prosecutor's main evidence and allow the person who was considered the perpetrator of the Palatine Brown's Chicken murders to be released. Even Dale Coventry told me on our first or second meeting that it was never going to happen. It would be political suicide for the judge.

Al Oliver was on videotape with bandages on his face. The bruises and scrapes were argued to be caused after his arrest and in an effort to "soften him up" for questioning. The police, of course, denied the accusations and testified the injuries were from struggles at the crime scene. I do not find it far-fetched that police would batter a suspect, especially a suspect in a police shooting. However, Oliver says on tape that he was not mistreated and was voluntarily giving his confession.

Interestingly, while reading this book, I came across a public defender's name with whom I had spoken. No, neither Dale Coventry nor Deborah Groh's names are mentioned and I believe they were no longer working on the Murder Task Force at the time this book was written. Allan Sincox, however, is mentioned several times, and was a public defender I was introduced to through a Stateville inmate. Sincox was an excellent lawyer who was especially knowledgeable about DNA evidence. Blood was found in my co-defendant Robert Faraci's car, and if I could identify the blood as the victim's, it would certainly be useful in proving that I did not lend him my car.

I called Allan Sincox a few times and spoke to him about the matter. He was gracious enough to accept my collect calls and tell me, in detail, how to raise the matter in court. He told me, however, the evidence could have long ago been destroyed, and I must first find out if the blood stain had been preserved.

During our talks, I learned that Sincox was one of the lawyers on Juan Luna's defense team. For a long time I have wanted to gain the police discovery in the Palatine Massacre files. There could be valuable evidence in there to help prove my innocence, or to give me investigative leads. He told me there was quite a lot of information about me, my investigation, and on the police on the Palatine Task Force who also worked on the Barrington murder, but the Palatine discovery was so massive, the information was put on a series of computer disks. Sincox could not send me the disks, but he said he would talk to my lawyer at that time and give it to him. However, Daniel Coyne was so slow, that by the time he got around to contacting Sincox, Juan Luna's case had been transferred to new lawyers at the Appellate Defenders' Office. They were not willing to give me the discovery, and I still have not been able to obtain it.

Another man I met who is mentioned in the book is Tom Melka. I first met the Cook County detainee on the bus while going to and from court. The man I did not know began talking to me about history, politics, and my case. He seemed to know more about my case than I did. It was odd for this stranger to be so fascinated about me. I had other people ask me for autographs before, but this man seemed to be a groupie of some sort. Years later, I met and came to know Tom better while at Pontiac C.C. I also learned his weird fascination.

In the book, Melka's case is told by his Cook County Public Defender, Woody Jordan. There was no question about Tom Melka's guilt. He had gone to a Christmas party in 1993, attended by his former girlfriend, and opened fire. Six people were shot and three people died, including his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. The task for Woody Jordan was to save Melka from capital punishment, despite the killing spree and crime scene photos of Christmas decorations splattered with blood and dead bodies. It was a difficult task, but not one unable to be overcome.

Tom was not your typical death penalty defendant. He had no previous criminal history, and was a student at the University of Illinois studying history and engineering. Tom was on the school's track team and won several awards. He immigrated from Czechoslovakia as a boy with his mother, and seemed to be successfully pursuing the American dream until succumbing to severe depression when his first love broke up with him. Melka's public defender presented a story to the jury that his client was truly a good man who just had a mental breakdown and snapped. His life was worth saving, and the jury, after deliberating for hours, agreed.

I seemed to think that Tom identified with me because he thought we were similar people. However, unlike Tom, I did not snap and commit a mass murder. I was innocent. At Pontiac, Tom tried to be my friend, but he was a nerd, and me and another jock made fun of him. Although Tom was a runner, he was not a true athlete like me and the person I often associated with. We wrestled, played football, and other sports. Running to us was not a valorous sport. And although I may have autism spectrum disorder, I was not an awkward geek or mentally disturbed person taking happy pills. We knew about Tom's case and ridiculed him for it. Tom would sometimes try to come back with an attack on my character for the Brown's chicken murders, but he was not witty. Despite all this, Tom was an educated and intelligent person I could have conversations with. Despite what he did, he is not a bad person, and I doubt he would ever commit another crime in his life. Jordy Nelson's argument to Tom's jury was well made, and I agree that his life was worth sparing.

The reason why I originally began to read Defending the Damned was to learn more about my trial prosecutor. I was pleased to learn that James McKay was assigned to help prosecute Oliver for the murder of Police Officer Lee. I knew McKay did not overstep the bounds of law in only my case. His bombastic, overzealous style was certain to lead to misconduct in other cases as well, and I was correct, if not necessarily in Oliver's trial.

In 1995, the same year James McKay prosecuted me in the murder of Dean Fawcett, he prosecuted Murray Blue in the murder of another police officer. Murray Blue was convicted and sentenced to death, but on appeal the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the verdict because of McKay's gross misconduct. The Court found the prosecution's methods highly overzealous and improper. He was described as playing on the emotions of jurors rather than making arguments based on the evidence, a strategy I personally was aware of. In the prosecution of Murray Blue, McKay placed a mannequin in the courtroom which was dressed in the dead officer's uniform, still stained with blood and brain matter. This antic was probably one of many just like at my trial. Not surprisingly, McKay stood by his actions, despite the rebuke by the state's highest court.

I was surprised to read that James McKay was purportedly held in high esteem by those in the Public Defenders Office. James "Mad Dog" McKay was thought of as the top prosecutor in Cook County. He is described as being a fierce fighter, driven, and unrelenting. One P.D. says McKay is a masterful Assistant States Attorney, and she respects him immensely. Even Marijane Placek is quoted as saying, although he is a sneaky prosecutor, she does not think he would lie. He is a warrior and she respects him as a lawyer because he is willing to show emotion and genuine passion. She goes on to say the cases that were sent back due to McKay's prosecutorial misconduct were not because he was hiding evidence or that they were innocent. It was "just that McKay went a bit too far."

Well, Marijane, I will tell you the prosecutor you seemingly respect so much is willing to lie, and even if those defendants where the courts remanded their convictions were guilty, what about those that were not sent back? I am innocent, and I know I was wrongfully convicted, due at least in part, to McKay's unscrupulous conduct. Although a defense attorney has no loyalty except to their client, a prosecutor has a duty to represent the people of the state and seek out truth and justice, not just his own ego or to boost his conviction rate. Possibly, it is better that America not have an adversarial system of criminal justice, like that which exists in England or other countries. I do not know how it serves society when the guilty go free, or even moreso when the innocent are convicted, and yet both occurred in my case.

The Chicago Sun-Times apparently described Oliver's murder trial as a "battle between two of Cook County's most aggressive, experienced, and colorful criminal lawyers. This seemed to remind me of my trial judge's statements just before the commencement of my trial. He compared it to a "boxing match", and may the best attorney win. Unfortunately, my lawyer from Jenner & Block was no match for James Mad Dog McKay. William Von Hoene practiced almost exclusively civil law, and although he was an intelligent, well educated and articulate partner from a prestigious law firm, he and his ridiculous trial strategy were eaten alive by Mad Dog McKay. Marijane Placek was a much better match for the prosecutor, however, there was only so much of an argument that can be made for a client who had a videotaped confession and several police officers as eye witnesses to the murder.

Al Oliver was convicted, but avoided the death penalty. To Marijane Placek, this was a victory, although I fail to see how. It seems public defenders on the Murder Task Force feel a heavy burden when a man's life is in their hands, and they will fight tooth and nail at a defendant's death sentence hearing to spare him capital punishment. However, natural life is a far worse punishment, and I would much prefer a quick execution than languishing in prison the rest of my life.

Recently, the Governor of Illinois signed a legislative bill ending the death penalty. I read newspaper articles that stated Pat Quinn abolished capital punishment mainly due to his faith. If people truly want to be compassionate, they will favor the death penalty over natural life and other similar harsh prison sentences. Democrats passed this bill during the lame duck session at the last hour just before they would need Republican support. They did this mostly thinking it will save the state some money. Now, because of this law, the strong defense and protections at trial and on appeal are no longer allowed defendants. Already, certain prosecutors are calling for a defunding of the Murder Task Force. Although most people who are represented by the MTF are low-lifes who are guilty, the State of Illinois needs to be certain those few who are innocent are not convicted and condemned to life in prison. Justice needs to be a priority when men and women face decades, or the rest of their lives, in prison.

Instead of abolishing the death penalty, the protections and rights of all class X felonies should be improved. Ironically, eliminating the death penalty will not save the state any money in the long run because all those who were to be executed will now be incarcerated for decades, requiring the state to pay for their medical, shelter, food, security, and other numerous expenses until their death. Those who were wrongfully convicted and ultimately exonerated will also sue the state for millions. If the legislature truly wanted to save costs and serve the interests of Illinois, they would improve the justice system, keep the death penalty, and eliminate sentences over 20 years.

Oliver now resides at Stateville, and he will most likely spend the rest of his life in maximum-security despite post trial developments. After his trial, federal prosecutors learned the cops in Officer Eric Lee's unit were corrupt. They had robbed drug dealers of narcotics, weapons and cash. They also worked with certain drug dealers and took out their competition. This, along with the fact that Eric Lee sustained two quick rapid fire shots to the head, an inch apart, purportedly from a drunk gangbanger who was some 15 feet away in the dark, using a crude weapon while running, calls suspicion into his conviction. At trial, a former military officer who now was a gun expert testified he could not shoot with such accuracy standing still and using both hands in daylight with such a weapon. Although the gun of Oliver is in custody, no ballistic evidence was ever found. Possibly, Oliver should gain a new trial where the defense can raise the possibility that Officer Lee was shot by a fellow police officer. However, with a natural life sentence, this is unlikely to occur. I can prove my innocence and still I remain in prison some 18 years later.

145 comments:

  1. Great post, Paul!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul are you a DNA expert that you can attest to a stain in your co defendants car. Wait which car did you allegedly use. Are you now saying you are rotting in jail because you lent your vehicle to a friend that wasn't even used in a crime... Which vehicle did you use? Paul lies are hard to keep straight, but the truth will set you free!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To April 29 Anonymous: The FBI found a human blood stain in Faraci's car, not Paul's. Back in 1993, DNA tests were not as sophisticated as they are today. IF this blood stained fabric has been properly stored, we hope to get it tested again.

      Paul's car was also confiscated when he was arrested. The FBI thoroughly searched it. The interior was tore up and ruined, but they found no blood stains.

      Why accuse Paul of not telling the truth? What part do you not understand? Yes, both cars were used by the 3 people who shared an apartment, but not on the day in question. And yes, Paul can prove he did not use Faraci's car on that day.

      Why do you accuse Paul of lying? Obviously, the truth did not set Paul free or he would not be in prison. Perhaps having a good trial lawyer would have changed the outcome. Sometimes old sayings are not true.

      Delete
  3. Editor Note: Paul did not lend his car to Rob Faraci on the day police say the crime took place. Paul was staying with the Faracis and so he sometimes lent his car. On the day in question, Paul had to attend a family event and he drove his car there. That is where Paul and his car were.

    Paul's car was thoroughly searched by the FBI and not a trace of any evidence of any sort was found. The only evidence that may or may not be of a crime was blood found in Rob Faraci's car.

    Rob Faraci's jury acquitted him, so yes, Paul is in prison for lending his car (which he did not do) to a man who was acquitted. Does this make sense? No. But it is not Paul's fault this makes no sense; Paul is the innocent victim of an improper prosecution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do we know that Dean was killed on that exact date though?

      Delete
    2. The date is not definitive in my opinion, however, there is a lot of evidence to suggest it occurred on 12/28/92.

      Delete
  4. Then he has an alibi and can prove where he was. Problem solved!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Not when your trial lawyer refuses to call your alibi witnesses to testify at trial ! Paul's jurors never got to learn of these alibi witnesses.

      Sometimes, trials are all about what the lawyers want, and what the judge allows the jury to hear.

      Delete
  5. The justice system unfortunately is not that simple a little research and education may help you make a better informed comment before you accuse Paul of lying.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whatever, he knows the truth and he's not telling it! You people are the fools for thinking that poor Paul is an innocent victim! If you really believe that then your all as stupid as he is! Big fun

    ReplyDelete
  7. personal opinion is really no opinion at all without knowledge and fact gotta love public forums

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well -- to whoever you are posting this -- if you know something, why don't you tell it? If you think Paul did something -- there was no evidence at his trial that even hinted that he did anything other than lend his car.

    And yes, Paul had 2 alibi witnesses all along, but Paul's trial lawyer made a bad decision to put on no defense, because the state had not proven its case, and so Paul's lawyer thought that since there was no evidence against Paul, the jury could not possibly convict him. BUT -- the prosecutor James Mckay lied to the jury about the law of accountability and got the jury to convict Paul based on that.

    No one that knows Paul thinks he is stupid. And neither are any of his supporters. The only stupid people in this situation are those keeping this innocent and good man in prison.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There were 3 people in the forest that day. One is dead and can't speak. The other 2 tell two completely different tales! One says he wasn't even there, on the day the police says it happened. Okay maybe the police have the date wrong. Maybe Paul if you could go back in time you'd do things differently. Maybe you wouldn't of killed him. Or maybe you would of just emptied Dean's pockets of that phone number. We will never now. The one fact we can all agree on is Dean's dead,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no evidence that "3 people were in the forest that day"! Why don't you reveal your source of this information? Were you one of those "3 people"? Maybe you should have been on trial too!

      And, one more thought: IF you have proof of this ridiculous statement, why didn't you tell the police? You are just lying--that's why!

      Delete
    2. Supporter of Paul's InnocenceMay 28, 2016 at 1:00 PM

      The blood stain found in Faraci's car is going to be tested again for DNA. When the results come in, I'm sure it will be reported on Paul's blog for all you accusers to read. I wonder if any of you will apologize....

      Delete
  10. Laura get you head out of your ass!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes Dean was murdered, it is horrible and extremely sad. I am sure his family and friends have suffered extreme pain and loss.I can not imagine. But anonymous is it not important that the correct person be held accountable??? Is it not important that a person accused of such a horrific crime have a fair trial, sufficient evidence, competent representation, a right to be heard on appeal? Does that matter? Or as long as someone is paying the price all that matters?

    ReplyDelete
  12. A person spending life in prison from a young age on an accountibility theory for anothers actions doesn't make a lot of sense to many many intelligent people. No one has been convicted of killing Dean.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To the person writing "There were three people in the forest that day.." WHO THE &$% are you, if not James McKay, who falsely prosecuted Paul? You are the ONLY person that benefits from continuing these lies! Mr. McKay, you have gotten away with this for all these years. But HELL is a long time and that is for sure where you are going for your lies, unless you straighten up and admit you created a false prosecution against this man. you are evil incarnate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Honestly you people get a life. Stop defending the damned!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right on! We hate the damned too and that's why we side with Paul Modrowski. He doesn't deserve the sentence he got and one defends the damned by not speaking out against gross injustice.

      Delete
  15. Thank GOD there are still people in this world who will stand up, right is right and wrong is wrong. I know that may be a hard concept for most.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I will not have childish debates with ignorance over something so serious. A chat room may be a better spot to tell people to get a life!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Laura post you email address, I'd be happy to e-mail you directly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hahahahhha, first you mention her ass, now you want her e-mail...maybe is you who need a life aka woman :)

      Delete
  18. Give my personal email to who? and to discuss what in particular? You do not even use a name on here? I have seen nothing but immaturity and ignorance on the side against him so far so why would I want to talk to you?

    ReplyDelete
  19. You go, Laura! Glad to see you standing up for what is right. You are brave and strong.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Amen to that one! Laura is brave!

    "3 people in that forest" is an odd thing to say in the comment above. Only Mad Dog McKay would say that, because that's what he tried to convince Paul's jury of--creepy that Mad Dog continues to follow Paul, isn't it?

    I hope the editors of this blog inform Paul of his vast viewing audience!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Supporter of Paul's InnocenceMay 28, 2016 at 1:03 PM

      All comments are printed and mailed to Paul. Sometimes it takes a month for him to receive them, and those he responds to will wait another month or two to read his responses!

      Delete
  21. You foolish people you think McKay gives a damn. Yes he lied at Paul's trial, he lied at Bob's too. OMG could it be? Wow wise up!

    ReplyDelete
  22. He also goes to his clemency hearings personally and makes a fool out of himself. So what? Do you have anything thing intelligent to say???

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes, Paul stood in that forest and point blank killed Dean because Dean stole 2,000 from Paul's family! What a price too pay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This doesn't make sense as Paul didn't give a damn about his family at the time.

      Delete
    2. Now I know you are James McKay!

      Both Faraci and Fawcett had many previous arrests for theft, including a few for forgery. Neither man was new to writing bad checks at the time of their Christmas shopping spree in 1992.

      Why don't you list ALL the crimes they were previously arrested for?

      Delete
  24. Anyway great Post Paul, I learned from this book how important public defenders are, imagine if nobody took up the task to defend the damned our system would be ran by the Mr. Mc Kay's. Who would make sure that the state is forced to prove their case. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around like in your case. Your posts show people a view that most would never ever see.

    ReplyDelete
  25. interesting anonymous yes you have it all figured out thank you for that intelligent insight

    ReplyDelete
  26. There are facts that just do not fit with that scenario but thank you for the effort

    ReplyDelete
  27. Definition of fact: truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
    Paul did not kill Dean, nor was he in the forest, do you not realize that Paul was convicted by accountability for the actions of another? Do you realize that the prosecution mistated the law on accountability to the jury. Do you not think if there was an ounce of evidence that Paul was there or committed that crime that he would not have been given the death penalty? Do you not realize that he was the main suspect for a mass murder where the police were under enourmous pressure to solve that crime. I do believe the prosecution believed he committed that crime. But that proof surfaced. Sad that our justice system refuses to admit error. But I guess that is why there are so many lawsuits with large awards of money for false imprisonment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point, Laura. I hope Paul gets the millions he deserves. To all Illinois taxpayers: You are the ones who pay. Write to your legislators and demand they investigate these bizarre convictions BEFORE this happens. There should be a state-run agency that investigates ALL claims of wrongful convictions. Also, write to your governor about this idea, and write him about Paul's plight too.

      Delete
    2. I just read these comments. Here's an update: Anita Alveraz, states attorney, formed a group to investigate wrongful convictions in 2012. Unfortunately, this new group has done nothing. They are fighting the exoneration of a man whose DNA did not match that found in a raped and dead woman. She thinks the woman could have been raped by another person who came upon her dead body! Gee, if DNA evidence doesn't get you freedom, I don't know what would!

      Delete
    3. Supporter of Paul's InnocenceMay 28, 2016 at 1:07 PM

      Anita Alveraz's new assignment is a joke. As far as I know, not one convict has been given assistance or been freed from prison. Read Paul's post about the "Integrity Unit" -- he appealed to them and NOTHING was done. Just another waste of taxpayer money, something Illinois can't afford.

      Delete
  28. A means to an end. Sometimes a bad person should go away by any means possible. I understand the accountabitilit conviction. That was a railroad. I also really know what happened on that day. Has Paul suffered enough, I think not. He took a life and he's paying with his life. Ask Paul he doesn't care about the truth he is hung up on the technicalities of the case. Isn't that right Paul?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ??? Paul took a life? Maybe he caused a life to be wasted but he didn't "take" it so life without parole doesn't apply here. I'm surprised you don't say anything about the guy who maybe took the life and walked...since you care about justice...Isn't that right...whomever you are?

      Delete
    2. How do you "know what happened" on that day? Your comment should not have been allowed to appear here because you are a liar or you were there to witness a murder and didn't have the balls to contact the police! The other alternative is that your name is Faraci and you got away with murder!

      Delete
  29. You know what happened that day you were there? You were involved then? So his sister and brother in law did not eat dinner with Paul and it wasn't his fathers birthday that day. The only persons story that hasn't changed from day one is Pauls. Do you find it interesting at all that the police followed procedure with everyone else but him? Are you even aware of the evidence and witnesses at court? Listen you are entitled to your opinion but many see things quite different.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You act like you know something but you refuse to say who you are and no matter how many times I ask for fact you insist on giving opinion. The debate with you bores me.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Since you want to talk in opinion I will give you mine you are correct about him being railroaded, but it wasn't over Dean it was because they believed they had the man who murdered 7 people at a BROWNS CHICKEN. I guess it is ok for the state to be the judge and jury when they believe with opinion like you that they have the answer. One thing is for sure there was not one thing fair in the trial and conviction of Paul Modrowski from the time he was arrested to his last appeal. "Everyone" be careful who you associate with, you may just get accused of wanting someone dead, then convicted of murder by supposedly loaning your car to help someone commit a crime,even though they had their own car, to spend the rest of your life in maximum security prison. Oh and lets not forget the state did not prove their case against the person who accused him of everything and who he supposedly loaned his car to.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Wake up! Is this justice system ok with everyone???? It is not with me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me either! The States Attorney of Illinois should be held accountable for all the wrongful convictions in his state.

      Delete
  33. Its not ok with me either....There are to many errors in this system...most due to the human equation..nicely said Laura.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You really do not know the truth! Paul on that Monday evening was not with his sister or brother in law! But it must be true because he said so and you know for a fact on december 28 of 1992 he was with his family! Really people? If the other man is guilty he will pay, but the other man did not kill poor Dean and Paul knows it! Sometimes u have to think outside of the box! Do u really think Paul will tell anyone the truth? Have him take a lie detector and show the public! He wont fools! He will say he will but won't!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The police gave Paul no rights as required by our laws, but they gave Faraci all of his rights. Faraci signed a miranda waiver. Faraci gave a written confession. Faraci gave a court reported statement. AND Faraci took a lie detector test and failed ! What's that tell you?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 5/7/11: You want to throw dirt and make up tales. If you're so interested in the truth, why haven't you asked one of Paul's many lawyers about the sworn statements made by Paul's family? Why do you falsely accuse when you are the one without knowledge of the truth? I can't believe your comment was even published here! Go back in your hole.

      Delete
  35. It is you that disputes testimony and fact. It is you that says you know that Paul was in the Forest and point blank killed Dean. And sorry to say the person who committed this crime will not pay, at least not in this lifetime. Do you know anything about law? Why don't you stop this game and tell us who you are and your association. Also lie detectors are a great idea and lets have Bob,Brian,Nadine,Rose,McKay, and the testifying detective take one also.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And yes he was with his sister and brother in law on that evening, and the reason Paul knows where he was exactly on that day is because it was his fathers birthday. Paul was not getting along with his father at that time, and his sister called to wish his father a happy birthday and told the mother Paul is here but he refuses to get on the phone. So I guess Paul and his sister and brother in law and his mother are lying to protect their son who commited a brutal murder right? Paul's family answers to a higher power above this evil world, as do I. How about you?

    ReplyDelete
  37. And how about a affidavit and lie detector test from you while were at it about all the little hidden secrets you know about this case?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Are you aware ANONOMOUS that the other man's wife confessed to an undercover agent that her husband came home with blood all over him, but she could not be forced to testify due to him being her husband. Did you know that there was blood in this other mans car and that this other man led the police to a saw in the forest months later. Are you aware that this other mans wife also came forward to detectives that they lied about Paul. So get out of here with your nonsense you do not have any idea what your talking about. I ask anyone who follows Paul's blog to do a little research into this case and come to your own conclusion. He needs the public to stand up! write a letter to Governor Quinn demanding this man be released.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If ANONYMOUS is Bob Faraci, then he should not insinuate that a lie detector test will add credibility to this matter. I happen to know (and have proof) that Faraci DID take a polygraph during his many days of interrogation by the Palatine Task Force. And he FAILED it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And to "Laura": I think you are correct about Paul being railroaded because the state/prosecution and even the judge thought he had something to do with the Brown's Chicken Murders in Palatine. Why do I think this? Because it was NOT the Barrington Police who interrogated Paul for 33 hours--it was the Palatine Task Force who did that. (The murder of Dean Fawcett occurred in Barrington, not Palatine.)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Please send me your proof the I failed a lie detector test. I never took one. Send it to
    Thruthseekerbobby@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yes there was a lot of things that the judge did, he allowed the lie that the officer told, in to court that absolutely should of been barred, and if you would like me to show you the exact law on it I can. He also erred when he sentenced Paul, he was able to give him the sentence he did due to supposedly saying their was a aggravating circumstance which was killing Dean over the check scheme to keep him from testifying, well guess what Paul never wrote any of those checks in fact the one thing his attorney did do was bring a expert in to testify to his handwriting. Sooooo that means he was not involved in the scheme sooo where is the intent. Which means that there was no aggravating circumstance on Pauls end. Sooo how could the judge give him life. Life for what? Prejudice and Error. Shall we go on ANONYMOUS?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Laura you just don't get nit. I already told you his motive!

    ReplyDelete
  44. I am talking about the aggravating circumstances as far as Paul's sentence not the checks that Dean and Brian stole from Paul's mother a long time before. So I suppose Paul must have wanted Brian dead too?, since they were both caught on camera at the bank trying to cash? Give me a break. Please try to keep up!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ok so now let's stop this silly game anonymous ...unless you have facts and are willing to supply these facts as well as your identity ...this is not a game like you seem to think... peoples lives are on the line so let's step up to the plate here and support these opinions with the facts..if you can't then back off ..nobody needs opinions not supported by fact ...that's how we've come to this point ...to many opinions not enough facts...

    ReplyDelete
  46. a aggravating circumstance on murder by accountability????
    1. not at the scene no proof of murder
    2. instead convicts on accountability of another who was aqquited not by excuse but by insufficient evidence
    3. Given a sentence based on murder with a aggravating circumstance?
    4. Murder? for supposedly saying he loaned his car on this day for another to murder? a lie that constitutionally should of been barred, a sentence of life on a aggravating circumstance that was not present???? Can we get more simple than this?
    5. Media frenzy on Paul being main suspect for the Brown's Chicken Massacre.
    The police, the state, the judge, knew exactly what their intention was before the trial even began against Paul Modrowski in my opinion. And they succeeded. Here we are 18 years later.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Good points Laura ....and again accountability doesn't exist if the principle isn't convicted of the crime don't forget that ....the has to be a conviction before one can be accountable ...correct me if im wrong ....and Bob wasn't convicted ...so where's the principle....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are wrong. An accomplice can be convicted even if the principal is not. And just in case you didn't realize it accountability is just another term for accomplice liability. If you know someone is going to use your car for a murder, lending it to them makes you an accomplice.

      Delete
  48. In Illinois a person can be convicted by accountability even if the principle is aqquited. But yes there must be a principle he can be aqquited with a excuse like; moment of insanity, or self defense etc. But to be aqquited by no proof to convict? No principle? Which means Paul can not be held accountable. The accountability theory is a little odd. But clearly the law was not meant to be used to convict someone like this! I believe the judge was not familiar with the law of accountability and neither was Mr McKay obviously since he misread (some say lie) the law to the jury and the jury followed. But remember that Paul was smeared all over in the newspaper as his trial was going on.

    ReplyDelete
  49. In Illinois, if using the law of accountability, the main crime itself must be proven; in the death of Dean Fawcett, it was not proven that Rob Faraci killed Dean Fawcett. In fact, Fawcett was acquitted. Yet Paul Modrowski is somehow accountable for ... what?

    If this law and the way this law has been applied in Paul Modrowski's case is allowed to stand, then everyone is in jeopardy of being tossed in prison for life on an imaginary crime.

    If you think it could not happen to you or to anyone in your family, think again.

    ReplyDelete
  50. ANONYMOUS SAID:
    Yes, Paul stood in that forest and point blank killed Dean because Dean stole 2,000 from Paul's family! What a price too pay.

    I SAY:
    Isn't that slightly ridiculous? Dean stole checks from the Modrowski's house and wrote bad ones long before he died. He made amends with Paul and his family. Yes, they were still wary of Dean, but held nothing against him.

    But -- Dean was still writing bad checks, right up until days before he died. In fact, just days before he died, Dean wrote a bad check to buy jewelry from some Mafia guys. Dean was also sleeping with the girlfriend of a Mafia person. Did the police look into whether these people killed Dean Fawcett? NO.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Yes its a scary world we live in ...let's find a way to stop this ...let's right this injustice ..before we hold this precedence as law ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need Jesus to come back to put an end to this evil world. The pre-tribulation rapture will happen soon..that is one way you tp escape from your unjust prison sentence. Give your life to Christ Paul and when the rapture takes place, you will be raptured up to heaven with all the saints. Meanwhile, Faraci and McKay will remain left behind and forced to suffer through the tribulation under the anti-christ.

      Delete
  52. This is not even a smidgen of the injustice here, it goes on and on. Paul's petitition has 900 signatures on it, 900 hundred letters to our Governor would be nice right now with his petition being on his desk at the moment. I do not understand how people can not get really pissed off about this. And yes this situation could easily happen to anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Would anyone like to tell what happened when the innocense project picked up Paul's case?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Laura or whatever your name is, this is Bob, I will never respond to this post again so your response will be meaningless to me by the way I'm leaving for cancun tomorrow! Do u really know the truth? How old are you that you blog about things you don't know! 1. You weren't part of anything and u claim to be an expert on the circumstances of this horrific crime! Were u there! No! Paul and I know what happened and u don't! Your not privy to any of the truth and u think u know! I failed a lie detector test! Really? Hey dumbass one was never taken so show me the proof! Who's the liar? Did u know Paul is in contact with me? No u don't do u? Get a life and stop believing in fairy tales! There's so much u do not know! Blame me if that makes u feel better but stop thinking your privy to anything pertaining to this case! You know nothing except what u heard from others! If your pauls family fine u have to think that he's innocent, fine I get it but if your not you have issues. Your forgetting the tragedy and that's DEAN not Anybody else! Yes I will have my face to face THE LORD! You do not know me or anything about me! It is people like u who fuel guys like McKay! Oh McKay only lied at pauls trial not at mine? Every cop lied to my jury EVERY one, I had a public defender not a billion dollar law firm so tell me Laura since u have all the answers how is it 12 jurors decided are fates? I know it was my fault that he lost! Bob F.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12 imbeciles found OJ not guilty if I remember so is easy...a little drama jurors will eat it up. I don't understand though what's with you and Paul...you are upset he didn't get enogh punishment or with us for siding with him? What upsets you?

      Delete
  55. Above comments are laced with lies! I had a clerical job in 1994 and recall making copies of many police reports -- and many were SIGNED by Robert Faraci as being accurate and true statements. If you really are Bob Faraci, you are a liar, or stupid to sign police reports and even handwrite your own statements as truth -- and now you want readers to think "every cop lied to my jury"!

    Faraci, you will never convince anyone that your acquittal was justice served. Your jurors must have slept through your trial because, from what I heard, your testimony was laughable and unbelievable.

    Faraci, you lied to police, you lied to your jury, you lied to your wife and begged her to lie for you, and you are still lying to this day.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Whoever just posted that nonsense you are a liar because there never were written statements! Your a fool to post matters like that on a blog! You recall signed statements, I worked for the p.d. Office and have great detail of this case and if you really were a clerk you would not be able to read anything of value! If u think he did it fine that's your right as an American citizen I guess it's also your right to lie also! People you don't seem to get it, only 2 people really know what happened that night and We do not! Clerk your a joke and you would never say that in any court case! Who did you clerk for? You won't say because what you wrote is laced with lies! I personally know both men do you? No! Your a dumbslut budding your nose into things you know nothing about! I bet you wouldn't say a thing to either men, your looking for attention probably because your so ugly you have to find it on here! Big fun

    ReplyDelete
  57. Faraci, I thought you said you were not going to post any more comments here?! You are such a liar, as I said before!

    I did not say I clerked for anyone, I said I did clerical work and made photocopies--big difference! You are a sick man.

    And for you to say you "worked for the pd office" is another big fat lie. Truth is that you "were represented by 2 pd's" ! lol Again, you are such a sick man. Get professional help.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dear Bob,
    I see that my last comment was a little upsetting to you, I understand why. But know this, my comments are not geared toward smearing you. I do not know you and my personal opinion of you does not matter. I am not privy to your trial nor am I concerned with it. I am concerned about a man that sits in prison who was wrongfully convicted and prosecuted,nor would I blog about something I was not personally knowledgeable about. I am not sure why you felt the need to single me out and write me directly, accept that I do speak truth. I will contact you personally through your email that you put up if it is correct? Every single person who knows me personally and professionally is following this case and blog. When I write on this blog I will always use my name and when I see lies I will dispute them.

    ReplyDelete
  59. This is not him, lol is right I will not engage in foolish dialogue with a person who knows neither of the men! ok pretend I'm Bob so be it but I am a friend of his and I don't believe he's losing any sleep over this, but maybe he is I can't go into people's minds like you! Lol! Pd's, million dollar attorney, who had the better attorney? Hold on let me text him and ask him! oh I think he's in Mexico right now clerk. But feel free to meet me and you could tell your story and I will laugh in your face:) meet me at wrigley tomorrow on Clark and Addison @ 6:00 pm, I will be wearing a cardinals hat and a jersey of Matt Holliday, I will wait 10 minutes and no longer it's in a public area! Since you have so much to do with this we can meet and then show me your proof! Lol! I promise we can call him too! And we will see who the joke is! Hey he just texted back! But i guess that's not true, right?

    ReplyDelete
  60. You all need to stop. Paul killed Dean. He's away for life on a technicality. Please move on!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. we are moving on, we will get Paul out! You wanted to say "let's not do a thing and leave things/injustice stay" not "move on." You like the status quo because your little mind can't accept such injustice could happen. I am sure you are very upset with this blog being public, right? Admit it...People like you oppose anything because they fear change and all human advancement happened despite of those like you. We always win my friend and we will change the world. Your comfortable, hear nothing, see nothing, know nothing little world...we'll change it and your kids will thank our kids.

      Delete
  61. Are the recent people posting on here grown ups?

    ReplyDelete
  62. A technicality???? please try to comment with some intelligence and respect. Many peoples lives have been destroyed. For the intelligent people who debate on here it is very irritating to read your nonsense and trash talk.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I will scan the police report that says Faraci failed the polygraph test--if this comment box allows "cut and paste". Also, I will need editors of this blog to allow it.

    I have many things to show Faraci is lying to everyone. Will editors allow proof to be posted?

    ReplyDelete
  64. No one is denying that lies were told in this case on all sides. Just like you are now lying about the polyGraph test!

    ReplyDelete
  65. EDITOR SAYS -- @ Anonymous about the polygraph -- That seems like posting such a thing might be some sort of legally bad idea, especially since Faraci was acquitted. He cannot be retried for same crime. Let's leave him alone to move on with his life.

    ReplyDelete
  66. To BOB F -- Have fun in Cancun!

    ReplyDelete
  67. @LAURA - The Innocence Project works only with cases where there is DNA that can be tested to prove innocence. In this case, there was blood in Faraci's car, which, if it was Dean's blood, tends to show Faraci drove his own car and not Paul's car. However, the car is probably long gone.

    By the way, the FBI tested Paul's car and found not a trace of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  68. IDIOTS! STOP! -- EVEN the Judge at the trial said Paul was not at the scene of the crime.

    There was NO evidence whatsoever of Paul being involved in this crime other than some faked -up confession that Paul lent his car to Rob Faraci to go kill Dean. And Paul did not do this and did not confess it.

    You can say whatever you want, but there was no such evidence presented at trial.

    ReplyDelete
  69. for Faraci: "Thou protests too loudly"

    Confess your sins to the Lord, and do what you can to make things right.

    Do you really think you've been forgiven?

    I ask you: "Are you feeling lucky?"

    ReplyDelete
  70. Bob has confessed his sins to the Lord and seeks forgiveness and redemption for his role in not stopping Paul from this tragic killing. It's nothing to do with luck, will Paul walk with Jesus.... That's right, Paul never has believed in the Lord. Bob doesn't protest to loudly, that would be Paul!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The flithy rich who never worked a day in their lives donate to church. The most-evil bastards are the first at church services and the sadistic monsters and degenerates are members in good standing with churches or synagoues or mosques. Religion is for the guilty who needs divine help against the law of the land while the non-guilty have nothing to fear or be fearful of. Believing in God is almost-imposible seeing those who do believe in God...Be smat and understand that is not "the Lord" who needs to hear Bob's sins, as It, as God, should know it already...is the human judges who need to hear everything because "The Lord" is more interested in the innocent being not abused than in jerks confessing sins, yet free from prosecution.

      Delete
    2. And "joliet cc" you know what God is interested in? How do you know? Very presumptious, in my opinion!

      Delete
  71. What is all this dribble....now this is just foolishness....let's post something of intelligence ..or not post at all....

    ReplyDelete
  72. Okay. I've read all these posts and each side is obviously very passionate regarding their stance on this matter. To all the disbelievers you have to admit. If true it would NOT be the first time an innocent man / woman would be accused,tried and sentenced for a crime they did not commit. Look at the case of Gary Dotson. It wasn't until Cathleen Crowell Webb recanted her story and admitted she was lying all along about the rape that Dotson was freed. To the Paul supporters you have to see the other side and realize how hard it is for us to digest the fact that Paul was sentenced to life in prison merely because he lent his car to a killer that turned out to NOT be the killer after all ? If this were modern day Libya I'd say well okay....however. It seems something may be left out in order to simply generate petition signatures. So the attorney's lied and that didn't help Paul. I can't believe that with such a high profile case and now so controversial that nobody has re-examined it? Also in this day and age with "reality" T.V. being so abundant and documentaries, and shows about life in prison. Someone hasn't chosen to investigate this further? I think that's an avenue Paul's family should explore. Again..it's hard to believe that everyone that had anything to do with this case / trial was corrupt. Casey Anthony didn 't report her daughter missing for over a month. Shows up at her mother's with a car trunk smelling like ( in her mom's own words ) "a dead body" and here it is two years later and they are still trying to pick a jury? Yet you claim Paul was sent to prison for life simply because he said "sure use my car"? There has got to be something else??Seriously to Paul's family I would start getting in touch with independent film makers. Authors. Crime story writers. Something. Too many Gov's have come and gone for this to matter to the current one. Being that you feel he was railroaded due to such a case as the Brown's murders would certainly be interesting to someone in that position.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I must say I enjoy reading Paul's blog. I do feel this is something that needs to be reopened. As far as evidence. Here's a thought that came to mind on the ride home. Whatever happened to Paul's car? I know it's been a long time maybe there is something there that could help?

    ReplyDelete
  74. To answer part of above comment from Alski: The police took Paul's car and searched it, finding nothing but a nice, clean car. Then the FBI tore apart the insides, and found nothing. Paul's lawyer got a court order for the car to be returned to his family, but it was ignored by prosecution/states attorney.

    Finally, about 7 YEARS later, Paul's mother was told she could come and get the car. It was in such horrible condition, it had to be towed away. The windows had been left open all those years, the tires were rotted, the exterior was rusted. The once beautiful car was worthless...both to Paul's family and the states attorney.

    There never was any evidence in the car. James McKay was just usurping his power, again, by not returning it to Paul's family and disobeying a court order.

    A wrongful conviction wasn't enough for McKay--

    ReplyDelete
  75. To "Family Friend"
    Very unfortunate. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he wasn't treated unfairly. Look at the case of Kevin Fox a father wrongly accused and imprisoned for the murder of his daughter. Then released. Ultimately the real killer is arrested. It does happen. Personally my opinion is someone familiar with the family needs to take on the role as well for lack of a better term "promoter" Web sites are great problem is you have to wait until the people come to you. This case needs to get back into the public's eye. Back into the media. I would contact Kathleen Zeller the attorney who helped Kevin Fox and in the end helped prove his innocence.
    If she can't help maybe she could recommend someone who might? Just a thought. In an article from April 28 1995 reporting on the trial and the results it states that "Fawcett's headless and handless body was found by hikers near the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway tracks in Barrington on Jan. 18, 1993. The cause of death was never determined." How do they know it wasn't suicide? Or maybe Fawcett was drunk, or on drugs tripped or passed out partially lying on the tracks? Personally I think Mr.Modrowski was the victim of a scared shitless community if you pardon my french. That had recently discovered 7 bodies in a Brown's Chicken cooler and a group of police, FBI, judges and attorneys who just wanted to make the whole thing go away and in the process make a name for themselves by implicating that we might just have the killer of those seven people here. And who knows what was going on in the jurors minds when deliberation time came. With mention of the BFCM during the trial maybe there were some who in their own minds thought
    " well he doesn't look anymore guilty than anyone else in this but he's probably connected to that Brown's thing so he should be in prison anyway" Just curious aside from the car what was the other evidence? Do you know. I mean this has all the makings of a very incredible book and/or movie. No evidence. No confession.
    No murder weapon Hell they aren't even sure how the victim died. Two suspects each pointing the finger at the other. One walks one doesn't. WTF did they flip a coin? Get all your ducks in a row. I would begin by trying to contact close surviving family members of the BFCM and appeal to them for support. Paul was the victim of an old fashioned 15th century witch hunt. They may as well have stoned him in the center of downtown Palatine.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Also maybe by contacting Ms.Zellner (typo above)
    history may repeat itself via some up and coming attorney looking for a feather in his/her cap by means of blowing the lid off this and getting Paul released. They may also have access to jurors
    and whatever else you might need. It would be interesting to interview some of them now and see what the determining factors were when they made their decision. I think Mr. Modrowski was accused of killing Dean Fawcett. However he was tried, convicted and sentenced based on the remote possibility ( that we now know is untrue) he may be connected to the BFCM. This would make a very interesting documentary and get people thinking and talking about Paul's situation.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Here's a link to something else that's very interesting. Testimony from a federal convict he supposedly heard from Faraci who remember at the time is a scared young man in federal prison who very well might be trying to present himself as somewhat of a bad ass to a prison full of hardened criminals who are known to prey on the weaker less "seasoned" individuals. Stories also state the body was found headless. Missing the left arm and right hand. Another stated he was shot then dismembered. Yet there is no gun. No large knife or saw. Were the body parts ever found? What did Faraci claim he/they did with them. Is it possible that as I mentioned in a previous post that a train was responsible for his death? That maybe they were never found due to the fact they were carried away on the undercarriage of the train? Could it be possible Fawcett was distraught over the possibility of being found out in this check writing scheme? Maybe he feared prison. The embarrassment to his family. Maybe he took his own life? I think Faraci was B.S'ing his cellmate in hopes of coming off as some "tough guy" and that his supposed nonchalant description of the alleged murder and appearing to almost take delight in reliving it would get him some preferential treatment with the other inmates.
    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-01-28/news/9501280041_1_drug-charges-marijuana-operation-bad-checks

    ReplyDelete
  78. Alski- I agree with everything you say, it is time for this case to be back in the public eye. Pauls side has nothing to hide, and needs people to take a interest and a stand in this injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  79. One needs to be slow to form convictions, but once formed they must be defended against the heaviest odds.”

    ReplyDelete
  80. Alski: I don't think Faraci was ever in federal prison. You must be mistaken. He has only been in state prisons, to the best of my knowledge. Do you know something to add here?

    It would not surprise anyone to learn that Faraci was bragging about the murder he got away with, especially to a fellow prisoner. He has done that many times before.

    Yes, the body was found without the head, and animals in the woods had eaten the arms and other parts, making identification difficult. You are correct that the cause of death was never determined, but the coroner testified that the death occurred BEFORE the mutiliation. Only one person knows for sure if Fawcett was shot in the head, or bludgeoned to death.

    Police never found clues at the crime scene (although they searched the area with metal detectors and dogs for 2 days) until many months later when Faraci led them back to the scene of the crime. Then, and only then, were bullet casings, a saw and a shovel handle found.

    Knowing this, I find it odd that so many police and newsmedia reported these things as proof of something, as if they were pieces of evidence attributable to this crime!

    ReplyDelete
  81. why do some comments just disappear after being posted..hmmm whats going on here..

    ReplyDelete
  82. Kind of odd that they searched for two days and found nothing. And he (Faraci) took them back and suddenly all these items showed up. I still think Mr. Modrowski didn't get a fair trial. Someone needs to look at this again. Please whomever is the keeper of this site. Please extend my well wishes to him. I hope that there is someone out there who is in a position to reopen this case and give him the "fair" trial that he deserves. He was convicted on assumption. Second and third hand information given by an ex-con and an ex-girlfriend. Did anyone ever analyze the voice on the recording? Shell casings yet no gun. No proof the victim was even shot. So how did any of that stand up in court?? No blood or hair from the victim in the car. Yet they are convinced it was used? What was that based on? I think he needed a better attorney. Maybe the Faraci family had some pretty deep pockets ? To anonymous I was speaking on what the paper read. It said Faraci told the whole story to a cellmate. Described as a federal convict. So I assumed he was being held in a federal prison. So I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  83. ALSKI,

    I agree with you, it scares me to think that a man sits in prison on the basis of no substancial evidence to convict. I hope that there is someone that can bring this case back to the light. I also pray that the corruption that took palce at this mans trial no longer exists. As I know that the corruption of that era. How else can this be explained. Just take a simple look at the two crooked govenors of this pathetic state. One of them is still on trial the other sits in Prison. Which I'd have to say is not of the same standard that Pauls serving his sentence in. What an injustice the system has... to keep this man behind bars for this amount of time on what i refer to as zero evidence and more hear say bull..t. A sad day in criminal justice.

    ReplyDelete
  84. ALSKI: Paul was convicted on under the law of accountability. The Illinois accountability law is odd and probably unconstitutional, but has not been challenged. Most states have abolished these laws. Florida still has an accountability law and there is a young man there in prison for life for lending his car. However, that situation is significantly different because that young man actually did lend his car, the car was actually used in a murder, the killers were actually convicted.

    Paul DOES have a lawyer who is trying to get the case reopened. That is extremely difficult to do and is rarely successful.

    ReplyDelete
  85. EDITOR TO ALSKI: If posts are made multiple times, the system reads them as spam and pops them all into the spam folder. After you post once, refresh your page and you should see your comment. Do not repost because that kicks off the auto-spam-deleter.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I truly believe a great injustice happened in this case!!! I am not a lawyer nor do I have any legal experience... I really don't think anyone would need to have any legal experience to see this case was not handled in the appropriate way of which our judicial system was set up to decide guilt or innocense. There are so many contradictions and none of them make sense to me. I consider myself to be of sound mind, educated and have commons sense. Nothing here adds up and I so agree with Alski that someone needs to open this case to find out if Paul Modrowski is really innocent. Someone needs to help him get a fair trial and this person could very well get notoriety from it. If this was my son, brother or even a friend I would hope to God that someone would be there who would care enought to help. To the person that seems absolutely positive that Paul is guilty and you have evidence to show that and not just your opinion.... then you should come forward with the information. It would seem to make sense if you are so certain, to present the evidence. I would love to have Laura on my side if this ever happened to me. She seems honest and just looking for justice for a man wrongfully imprisoned.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Sorry.I get carried away.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Is Faraci really in Cancun?

    ReplyDelete
  89. One thing is more clear to me now and that's realizing how much of an idiot Faraci seems to be. I can only imagine just how much of a dumb ass he was in 1992. Just reading his comments you can tell that this dipshit did more talking in his life than listening.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Lmao, well he claims that he is in cancun.. Take that for what the source is that it came from...I must say I find the conclusion of the previous post quite funny. I am just amazed at all the coclusions that people come to here...

    ReplyDelete
  91. I am amazed that this is the only blog post with 90 comments! I am happy to see that some people still get 'heated' when speaking of this case. I have stated in a couple other post-comment areas that the media who was SO quick to crucify Paul, may be the only loud voice he has right now. I hope that family members and supporters are continually sending this story to any news channel, radio station and website around. I have copied many of the letters, facts and other information and emailed as much as I can. I can say that I honestly do not know of Paul is completely innocent, BUT can say that there are way too many questions and unjust wrong-doings to NOT reopen this case. 'Even' IF there is a chance he was involved in th slightest way, he has served more time than most rapists, murders and admittedly bad-criminals. I tend to believe that he was, as stated many times, railroaded.
    I noticed that Paul is looking for transcripts and discoveries in the browns chicken massacre. He stated that palatine would not release those before Luna and degorski were convicted. Has anyone tried getting these files? I would ask the family to email or add a 'note' somewhere on here as to what other info he needs. I also can't help but think that because of SO many defense attorneys making 'mistakes', so many other crazy things that have happened with Pauls case; is it possible that there are people trying to hide the truth? Can you give us more information on Fawcets girlfriend who was tied to the mafia? I would really like to explore more of that also.
    Prayers are with all of you, always!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Fawcett ever had a girlfriend. Just before his death he was flirting with a Nadine Lenarczak who went shopping with him a few times. Fawcett bought her lots of stuff with his bad checks. She was not tied to the mafia from anything I've read on this blogsite. It was the Faraci's who had some kind of connections to organized crime.

      Delete
  92. I noticed a couple of my comments have been disappearing. Will they show up again?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They showed up in Pakistan and now everyone is rioting over there...What did you say?

      Delete
  93. I really do hope and pray that someone on the police force has a conscience. I would hope that one of the two arresting officers or even the states attorney would come forward with what they know. Even if they have to admit fault, it's nothing compared to the other headlines; and they may not even get the extent of reprimand they deserve. Either way, I do hope to see this case brought to a forefront again. Hopefully the new attorney has all avenues covered, and is able to get a list of employees working those days also.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Becca: Juan Luna and James Degorski's attorneys do not wish to share their discovery with me. I will, however, again request through the FOIA to have access to the Palatine files. If this is denied, I may petition the court to let my counsel review them when my successive post conviction petition is submitted.

    Dean Fawcett did not have a girlfriend that I am aware of. If you are confusing the victim with my co-defendant, he was married to Rosalia Rugo. Rose was born in or near Palermo, Sicily. She migrated to the U.S. with her parents in her early teens.

    ReplyDelete
  95. A Family Friend writes: The discovery that has been withheld all these years consists of files created by the Palatine Task Force. We have no idea what exactly is there, but whatever it is, the prosecutors obviously do not want anyone to see it. I can't go into any further detail here because some details you ask for have not been released publicly--yet. Paul has an attorney and it may not be prudent to respond at this time.

    Personally, I think the most helpful and powerful source of new information would come from any employee who was on duty at the Palatine Task Force headquarters during the 33 hours that Paul was being interrogated--the late afternoon of April 28, 1993 through 11 p.m. on April 29th. Clerical help, a janitor, or an honest cop would know what those two Task Force cops were doing to Paul.

    An eye witness with the courage to step up now would prove that the police lied in trial testimony. Certainly, someone working there saw that the 2-way mirror had been covered with a cloth or blanket so no one could see them slap and punch Paul.

    Perhaps one of the regular police on duty would recall that Paul asked them for help because he was denied a lawyer and a phone call. So far, none have stepped forward.

    ReplyDelete
  96. To Alski : You are correct about many things. Faraci's wife, Rose, testified at trial that she lied about everything she told police BECAUSE her husband begged her to. He didn't want to go back to prison.

    But Rose did NOT testify in front of Faraci's jury due to a law that a spouse cannot be forced to testify against their own wife or husband! She actually testified before Paul's jury, and apparently they were not paying close attention.

    ReplyDelete
  97. The problem I think is that when you play with fire you get burned, even if it isn't your fault. Mr. Modrowski was 18 years old and associated with some extremely 'shady' characters. Check kiters, criminals, people with violent tendencies, drugs, etc. Mr. Modrowski wasn't even using his own name and went by an alias Victor Himler. He and I are about the same age. In 1996 I was in college, paying my own way, working my butt off; and he was hanging with these criminals using an alias and kiting checks.

    That being said, there are a couple of other issues going on here. I read the appellate court opinion. Paul wasn't just convicted for lending his vehicle. That was just one of a number of pieces of evidence. The gun. Why did the FL shop owner testify that you tried to sell him the gun? Were you present during the conversations about killing Dean? Why were you hanging around these degenerates?

    You continually blame the judge, the court system, the prosecutor. You focus solely on the car, but that's not the only piece of evidence. What about the people who testified against you? What about your jerk off friends who told the grand jury you were involved? Then they changed their stories. Who knows what to believe now. I as an observer feel the same way, I could just imagine the jury during your trial. You weren't charged and convicted for killing Dean, but for having something to do with it. It's not just the car like you continually say.

    However, despite the above, LWOP is an awfully harsh punishment and cruel. This country just loves to lock people up, and IL being as dysfunctional of a state that it is, you got caught up in the system.

    In conclusion, I'm confused as to your role in this mess, in Dean's death, and it's a rather odd technicality that Faraci was acquitted of the murder for which you were convicted of being involved with. My suggestion would be 25 years.

    Faraci got a 'get out of jail free card' and the universe makes no sense like that. You didn't. That sucks for you.

    Nevertheless, I wish you the best of luck in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  98. TO CHICAGO LAWYER DUDE: THIS IS SOMETHING you should know as a lawyer. That appeal lists MANY things that were NEVER any part of Paul's trial. WHY? Because Paul's lawyer forgot to file affidavits with his appeal, and therefore, everything that the State wrote had to be taken as fact. MOST of what is in that appeal is not testimony from the trial, was not proven, or simply never happened. Some of it is stuff that was said or presented at Faraci's trial, but not at Paul's. That is the problem with reading things on the internet but actually reading the trial transcript or the whole case file. Yes, this is dirty play on the part of the State -- but they KNEW they could play dirty when the appeal was filed the way it was. But -- do not get the idea that the stuff you are reading the appeal is anything that happened in real life, or that was testified to in Paul's trial, or that is in the evidence, or that is in the trial record. It just isn't/

    for example, Paul did not use the name Viktor Himler, that was a name Faraci's wife wrote on a lease. And Paul was not kiting any checks and had plenty of his own money. Dean Fawcett, who died (or was possibly murdered), was kiting checks. He had kited checks to some Mafia/ jewelers just before disappearing.

    It is not even known if Fawcett was actually murdered, or if he died while jumping a train to try to get to California to escape the Mafia people to whom he had written bad checks.

    The State claimed Fawcett was shot, but there were no bullets found with his body -- the area was searched by 20 people using metal detectors and they found nothing. Bullet casings magically appeared on site 4 months later when Faraci was arrested. There were no bullets in the body. Also, some tools magically appeared 4 months later and the State said they were murder tools. They contained no DNA, no blood, no flesh.

    Paul's case has NEVER been fairly heard. Period.

    SECOND, the crime took place in 1993, not 1996. Paul was 18. He was not "hanging around" with these people. He had an argument with his father, left the house, had no place to stay, and was offered a place to stay with Rob Faraci. Rob was older and had his own place. Paul had no other offers. If it was 1996, Paul would have been in college, just like you were.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Paul graduated in 1992. Why wasn't he in college in 1993?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is my understanding he had an interesting job after graduation.

      Delete
    2. Is that a joke? Not funny at all.

      Delete
    3. Good questions

      Delete
  100. Who owned the Baretta handgun, mentioned in the appeal transcript and was it siezed by Authorities at some point? If so, whose person did they discover it on or take it from, and when?

    JD...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Testimony at trial was the the Baretta handgun belonged to the father of Brian Palasz. It was either stolen or taken by Brian and lent to his friend Bob Faraci. They were good friends for years, and had been arrested and convicted in other crimes together.

      This gun has never been found. The police only THINK it was the murder weapon because Bob Faraci told them it was. But you must remember that Bob also told police that Brian took it, and that it was Brian who lured the victim to the woods to kill him. Faraci later changed his story to police and said Brian wasn't with him that night and that it was Paul who was given the gun by Brian.

      Most of the things the police acted on were all Faraci's fabrications to throw blame off himself. He even had his wife confirm some of his lies, although she recanted them at the trial.

      Faraci even told the police that he had driven Paul Modrowski to the Brown's Chicken restaurant in Palatine and waited in the car while Paul went in and killed all the employees. This lie is what caused police to arrest Paul and name him as their primary suspect.

      Many years later when Juan Luna and James Degorski were convicted of the Brown's Chicken murders in Palatine, everyone knew they were duped by Faraci's lies. But before the truth came out, Faraci had been acquitted by a jury and 18-year-old Paul Modrowski was wrongly convicted for supposedly helping Bob Faraci by lending him his car.

      Knowing how often Faraci lied to the police, it sure makes me wonder how the States Attorney believes him now and refuses to exonerate Paul Modrowski. Perhaps the state just hates to be wrong again. Afterall, Illinois has already had to release over 100 wrongfully convicted men.

      Delete
    2. J.D.: Brian Palasz's father owned a heating & air conditioning business. In one of the offices he kept a 9mm Beretta. This weapon was reported missing by him a year before the murder of Dean Fawcett. In statements to police, Bob Faraci said it was the gun used and after he brought police back to the crime scene, 9mm casings were found. During my interrogation, police repeatedly questioned me about the guns Faraci owned. They said his wife was not helpful because she did not know the various types. I was not cooperating and kept demanding to see a lawyer. However, at one point I told police that when we moved to Florida we packed several handguns into a box which was loaded into a U-Haul truck. Bob wanted to put them in his Pontiac Firebird for the trip, but I thought it was foolish for him to drive half way across America with guns in his glove box, under his seat, or even in the trunk. The Beretta 9mm was never recovered and no one was ever charged with its theft. I am not certain what the murder weapon was, but I would be highly skeptical my co-defendant kept any weapons he used in a murder.

      Delete
  101. Thank you for your reply. Was there ever a "theft type" of charge levied against Paul, surrounding the the stolen gun?

    JD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not that I know of. How could anyone be charged? The gun was never found. At trial, Mr. Palasz testified that he kept the gun under the counter at his business. Many people had access to it, including his son and his employees.

      I do see your point though. The police believed many things Bob Faraci told them. There must be a reason they didn't believe him about this gun.

      Delete
  102. Did paul ever offer to reveal the location of the gun in exchange for a "Theft Type" charge against him, be dropped (perhaps involving stolen coins)?

    Also, does Paul acknowledge the gun found its way to the state of FL., perhaps in Faraci's posession ?

    Thank you in advance for any reply..

    JD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JD: The stolen coins: A small hot dog stand in Addison was burglarized and about $100 in coins were stolen. Brian Palasz's younger brother broke into the restaurant not far from his home and stole a bag of coins. The following day, when I visited Brian, Jeff repaid the money he owed me using these rolled coins which I did not question. When I left their house, I stopped at a gas station and paid using the coins.

      For reasons I still do not understand to this day, the cashier was suspicious and called the police. There was a miscommunication and the police were led to believe I was peddling gold "chains," not "change." Thus, I was pulled over by a police officer and searched. I did not have any gold chains and he let me go, but later I was charged with the theft.

      Jeff was seen the night of the break in and police wrote up a suspicious activity report. He later admitted to the theft and the charges against me were dropped. However, this was long after I was interrogated in the Barrington and Palatine murders. The police were more concerned with the murders and never mentioned the coins.

      As for the gun: It is possible the gun used to kill Dean Fawcett went to Florida when Bob, Rose and I moved to Clearwater. As I answered in a previous question of yours, I packed several handguns into a box which was loaded into a U-Haul truck I drove. The prosecutor made a big deal of this at trial, although I only did this because I thought my friend was a moron to want to drive with his weapons in his car. Furthermore, although it is possible one of those guns was the murder weapon, it is highly improbable. My co-defendant always disposed of any weapon he used in a crime as well as his clothing.

      Delete
  103. FROM AN EDITOR: TO THE PERSON WHO KEEPS WRITING IN GRAPHIC VIOLENT COMMENTS WITH A "QUESTION": Paul Modrowski does not have any information on the killing of Dean Fawcett or what happened, as he was not there and has no knowledge of what happened.

    Also keep in mind, this may not have been a murder at all. When the body was located, it was thought to be the body of a person who had tried to jump the train and gotten killed and lost a few body parts in the process. When the body was found, there were no bullets or shell casings. Shell casings showed up mysteriously in the woods months later when a suspect was located. And keep in mind, there were no bullets in the body.

    Dean Fawcett had said he was going to California to hide out and there is a good possibility he tried to jump the train to get there. There has never been any real evidence of a murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is true there was no evidence of a murder when Fawcett's body was first found, BUT after Faraci came back to the area and was arrested, he led police back to the scene and showed them bullet casings! Isn't that odd? I doubt Dean Fawcett got killed by a train. Check old issues of the Tribune from April 1993!

      Delete
  104. To Anonymous who has attempted to post many comments:
    The reason your comments were not published is because they are assinine and accusatory. The volunteers who help with my blog advise not posting them, but I will offer some answers. My mail can take two months round trip from Stateville, especially during holidays.

    The woman "Shelly 7277" who posted on Illinois Crime & Politics a long time ago claimed I kicked in the door to Fawcett's house and threatened to kill him is a liar. Never did I threaten Dean or break into his home. Her statements to police were so absurd even the prosecutor refused to allow her to testify, and this is very rare. Many people were at that party and no one else corroborated her account. However, there are certainly people who will say I knocked out Jeff, AKA The Beer King, because it is true. I had only met Jeff a couple of times and knew him only by his nickname which he was very proud of. He may be able to drink a lot of beer but he cannot fight. One punch sent him across the room into a wall and then to the floor. As for Shelly, I am not certain who she is. I was not a close acquaintance of Dean Fawcett and even less so of his friends. I dated a couple of girls from LaGrange, however so much time has passed I forgot their names. Do my answers satisfy your curiosity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Anonymous 1/12/13: Initially the body found in the woods of Barrington along some railroad tracks was not believed to be a homicide. However, since then, there is no doubt it was a murder. The evidence against Faraci is overwhelming despite his acquittal.

      Delete
  105. Well, this was an interesting saga to read.
    I challenge everyone to mail a copy of some of these blogposts to their senators and representatives , if they live in Illinois.

    ReplyDelete
  106. " No one has been convicted of killing Dean."

    Unfortunately someone HAS been convicted of killing Dean. Check Pauls mitimus on his IDOC webpage nothing is said about acccountablility..Paul Modrowski was convicted of Murdering Dean Fawcett he is serving life without parole for Murder not for loaning his car not for supposedly having knowledge of the crime before the fact..he was convicted of KILLING Dean Fawcett..this is how effed up the illinois criminal justice system is. Even Paul's judge said during his sentencing that Paul was not at the crime scene...yet he was still convicted of murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct. There are only a few states with accountability laws. Paul was convicted of murder "under the law of accountability." In essence, he did not kill anyone but was held accountable for Dean's death for allegedly lending his car to Faraci.
      It makes no sense to most of us because Faraci had his own car. The only person to testify that Paul lent his car to Faraci the night in question was a police officer who interrogated Paul. Had the jury paid attention to all testimony, they would have realized there was no lawyer present, there were no written or recorded statements made by Paul! They obviously relied on that one officer's testimony because no one else mentioned the lending of a car or what kind of car it was.
      The word of ONE police officer sent an 18 year old to prison for the rest of his life--I don't know how that man sleeps at night.

      Delete

If you choose Name / URL, you can write any name and you don't need a URL. Or you can choose Anonymous. Paul loves getting your Comments. They are all mailed to him.