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:
or write him at the address shown in the right column. He will get your message personally.

Monday, June 18, 2012

A Letter to Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez--June 7, 2012

Yesterday, I spent part of my day writing Anita Alvarez, the State's Attorney of Cook County. A couple of months ago, I was sent a newspaper clipping from the Chicago Sun Times through the mail. In the article, the State's Attorney was reported to have created an independent 6 person unit to investigate wrongful conviction claims. The investigative panel was said to be made in response to the many high profile murder cases from prior administrations which have fallen apart during her administration. At the end of the editorial, the author speculates the internal unit may have difficulty criticizing the same department and it was important for Alvarez to make sure outside pressures were not put on it. The author also speculated the group may become little more than a public relations arm of the police and prosecutor's office. This was my thinking exactly, and thus I never bothered to write the State's Attorney. However, since then, I have begun to think...what do I have to lose?

A few weeks ago, I spoke with my appellate attorney. She is always friendly, although I often become frustrated with her lack of progress. I told her I am going to write the Cook County State's Attorney with the evidence I already have which I believe amply proves my innocence. Like me, she has serious doubts about the effectiveness of this unit. Perhaps Alvarez wants to create the illusion to the public she is actually concerned about the numerous men who have been found innocent after being wrongly convicted. If the States Attorney's Office was truly concerned about justice, they would not have held up and fought James Kluppelberg and other prisoners' appeals for years despite having evidence of their innocence. However, with Governor Quinn slowly ruling on a backlog of over a thousand petitions for Executive Clemency, I refuse to passively languish in prison. Action of any type is better than no action, and for a man trapped in a coffin for 19 years, it is better to kick, beat walls, and attempt to scratch my way out than slowly suffocate to death. Possibly, someone will hear my screams in the cemetery and come to my rescue.

The prison went on lockdown momentarily today while I was sorting the documents to send along with my letter to Anita Alvarez. I overheard cell house workers who remained out in C House say a shot was fired in the Roundhouse. Later, I was informed two Hispanic prisoners were fighting and when guards intervened, one was swung at. Staff has occasionally commented there is too much going on in F House and this is the cause of repeated incidents. The ground floor is segregation and the upper three floors are general population except for about 15 cells which are protective custody. Each of these groups of prisoners must be isolated and regulated differently. The different classifications of inmates probably does cause more work, complications, and confusion for staff. However, I have heard stories about the Roundhouse when it was all general population, and it was still the most violent and disruptive cell house.
I had to complement my letter to the State's Attorney with various documents and affidavits. I am certain many prisoners have already contacted her office claiming to be innocent. There is no shortage of men claiming innocence despite how overwhelming the evidence is against them. Today, my cellmate showed me another newspaper article from another publication about the panel set up by Anita Alvarez to investigate claims of wrongful convictions. This was a copy and is apparently being passed amongst prisoners here. I do not want my letter to be thrown in a stack of piles like all the others possibly never to be reviewed. I must distinguish my case convincingly and provide proof. Unfortunately, some of my affidavits and documents are not in my possession. Tomorrow, I will have to call my family to send the additional papers including my Petition for Executive Clemency.

The following is my letter to Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez. If I receive a response, I will have it printed here at such time it occurs. The investigative unit is probably a facade, but I will see and so will readers of my blog. I am intentionally printing my letter openly because I want the public to be able to scrutinize the correspondence. I remain skeptical about whether the investigative unit will be effective but will see what happens as will the readers of my blog. Here is my letter:

June 6, 2012

Anita Alvarez, Cook County State's Attorney
69 West Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60602

Dear Ms. Alvarez:

Not long ago, I read an article in the Chicago Sun Times reporting you created a 6 person unit to investigate claims of wrongful conviction. I tend to believe your announcement is purely a public relations move to give the appearance your office actually cares about justice. I spoke to my attorney about the matter and she is of the same opinion. I was told not to bother writing you because it would be a waste of time. However, I have been incarcerated over 19 years for a murder I did not commit nor had anything to do with. Attorney after attorney, court after court, and governor after governor have already wasted most of my life. I have nothing to lose by contacting your office and offering the enclosed proof of my innocence.

My arrest occurred in 1993 after my co-defendant Robert Faraci and his wife, Rose, told police I committed the mass murder of seven people at a Brown's Chicken and Pasta restaurant in Palatine, as well as another person in a wooded area of Barrington. Although police and the State's Attorney's Office inferred to the public the mass murder was solved, I was only charged and prosecuted for the latter crime. In 1995, Robert Faraci and I were tried simultaneously but by separate juries for the murder of Dean Fawcett. Before the trial began, Rose Faraci came forward to admit she conspired with her husband to lie and frame me of the murders to prevent Robert from going back to prison. Despite this revelation, prosecutors refused to drop the charges against me and instead proceeded with a case via a theory of accountability.

At trial, the state's case was based on the testimony of John Robertson, an investigator from the Cook County State's Attorney's Office who had been assigned to the Palatine Task Force. He claimed that during his interrogation of me I admitted Robert Faraci told me he was going to kill the victim and I thereafter lent him my car. This is absolutely false, but my defense attorney refused to contest Robertson's lies. I vehemently argued with my lawyer's trial strategy and demanded he critically cross examine Robertson's testimony. I, furthermore, demanded that I and others testify how glaringly false and incredible his testimony was. However, lead attorney Bill Von Hoene threatened to quit in the middle of my trial, and continued to do things his way.

My attorney argued to the jury that although Robertson's testimony was true, it did not make me accountable for the actions of my co-defendant. The argument was undermined by the prosecutors who lied and convoluted the law during closing arguments. Von Hoene requested a mistrial, but at the minimum asked for the jury to receive curative instructions about the statute as ruled by Illinois' courts. This motion was denied and after several days of sequestered deliberations, my jury found me guilty, not knowing the man they held me accountable for was acquitted. Judge Sam Amirante, noting there was no evidence to demonstrate I was at the crime scene, still sentenced me to natural life without the possibility of parole.

In December 1992, I lived with Robert and Rose Faraci at their Schiller Park apartment. On the 28th, the day prosecutors contend Dean Fawcett was killed in Barrington, I was at my sister's home in Thornton until after midnight. Before I left the apartment, Robert Faraci never said anything about killing the victim. I also never saw him with a gun on that day nor did I lend him my vehicle. In fact, I used my car to travel to the S.E. suburb. When I returned to the apartment, the Faracis seemed normal and I did not notice anything irregular. I had no idea Robert had killed Fawcett earlier and came back with blood on his clothes which were disposed of by his wife.

These are not simply self-serving statements which lack corroboration. Both my sister and brother-in-law informed my trial attorneys that I and my Ford Mustang were at their home which is close to 50 miles away from the crime scene. They are absolutely certain of the date, despite my arrest months later, because December 28th is our father's birthday. My sister had called him to wish him a happy birthday and urged me to talk to him also. She thought this was an opportune time for us to make up for an argument which led to me moving out. Rose Faraci admitted to seeing her husband come home covered in blood and although she denied at trial destroying his clothes, she told Richard Lantini earlier that she had destroyed them. Before the Grand Jury, Rose also testified I left on the 28th in my own car, but this, like the blood evidence found in Faraci's Pontiac Firebird, was intentionally not brought to the attention of my jury. Even Robert Faraci, since my conviction, has given an affidavit stating he did not use my car on the 28th of December. He still will not admit to killing Fawcett, however, I think it is obvious from evidence available at trial, and the various people he has confessed to since and have provided affidavits which are enclosed.

My defense attorney, William Von Hoene, was a very good lawyer at the law firm of Jenner & Block, but he lacked criminal trial experience. In my opinion, he made a colossal blunder in trial strategy not contesting the testimony of the interrogating officer. Earlier at a pre-trial suppression motion, John Robertson's credibility was obliterated and although the judge denied the motion, I request your office and/or the independent panel to review it. It is obvious my Miranda rights were violated and I was abused by the interrogating officers. The lack of any corroboration of my alleged statements also I believe makes Robertson's claims highly questionable. My co-defendant and many other people questioned by him and other members of the Palatine Task Force signed waivers of Miranda. They also were asked to sign or make written statements. Robert Faraci gave various signed, written, stenographed, and audio recorded statements all with waivers of Miranda included. There were witnesses to my arrest who testified I immediately asked for a lawyer upon my arrest and I continued to do so throughout the hours and hours of my two day interrogation. These requests were ignored and at times when I continued, I was struck or kicked. Because I refused to answer questions, I was intimidated, threatened, and assaulted. A blue sheet was placed over the two-way mirror so no one could see into the interrogation room. This was not taken down until Asst. State's Attorney Pat O'Brien visited me and I told him of the abuse. He denied this later, but nevertheless, it is true. I was not tortured like some suspects claim they were by Commander Jon Burge. However, my Miranda rights were clearly violated and I was coerced to make statements. Most importantly, these statements were in part fabricated or manipulated by John Robertson.

The reason why there is no corroboration to the interrogating officer's testimony is because I never waived my Miranda rights and what I said was falsified. Yes, both Rose and Robert Faraci borrowed my car on occasion while we lived together, but not on the 28th of December 1992. Yes, Robert Faraci possessed guns and sometimes carried them, but I never saw him with one on the day he killed Fawcett. Robert Faraci even talked about shooting, killing, whacking, and making people disappear. I have even heard a story about how he put a man in a meat grinder, but never did he tell me he was going to kill Fawcett. I have wrongfully been held accountable for the actions of my co-defendant and despite the prosecutor's arguments, I should not be guilty by association.

The prosecution theorized Fawcett was killed to prevent him from possibly talking to police. This was based on the very incredible testimony of Nadine Lenarczyk who was already working with police in another fraud case to lessen her punishment. Regardless, it was the victim who devised the check scam. It was he who opened up the bank account, deposited phony checks to deceive the bank, and wrote all the checks except for a few which were forged by Robert and Rose Faraci. I do not deny receiving any merchandise purchased by Fawcett with bounced checks. However, I did not coerce or encourage him to do so as Brian Palasz and others testified or can tell you. Your office can also see a few of the checks say "gift for Paul". The idea I would kill or abet Faraci in a murder because I was his "good buddy," "partner," or etc., is absurd. Unfortunately, I made a terrible mistake having Robert as a friend and moving in with him, but I had nothing to do with the murder of Fawcett.

After my conviction, members of my jury were interviewed. A few stated they would not have voted guilty had they been aware my co-defendant was acquitted. From interviews, I also learned the jury convicted me more so for allowing Fawcett to go off to his death with Faraci than for lending my car. The judge also said before sentencing me to life in prison that he was giving me the same hope I left Fawcett: no hope. This is simply not true and my attorney knew it was false, but as a matter of trial strategy he told the jury Robertson's testimony was accurate. My attorney knew that although such inaction may be deemed morally reprehensible, it did not constitute criminal liability. Possibly, if Cook County Asst. States Attorney's Paul Tsukuno and James McKay did not lie about or manipulate the laws of accountability, I would not be at Stateville 17 years later.

I am enclosing a number of documents, transcripts, and affidavits to collaborate what I have written in this letter. I will also have my family send your office my Petition for Executive Clemency with its vast documentation as well as other evidence I do not currently have in my cell. I believe the Clemency Petition will answer any question you or the panel reviewing claims of wrongful convictions will have. However, if there is other information I may provide, I am willing to answer any questions in person, provided my attorney or an independent third party is present. My attorney's name is Jennifer xxxxxx and you may reach her at xxx-xxx-xxx. She will be filing a successive post conviction petition later this year based in part on actual innocence.

From my understanding of the law, the State's Attorney's Office cannot unilaterally release a prisoner. However, you may petition the court or Governor's office. Asst. State's Attorney James McKay has already argued against my Clemency Petition which is pending, but you can overrule him and tell Governor Quinn you agree to my release. When my appeal is before the court, you also have the power not to contest it. At the very least, I should hope you will allow my appeal to be heard on its merits and not attempt to have it dismissed on some technicality of law. You claim to be interested in justice and not merely maintaining convictions. I would like to believe this is true.


Paul Modrowski


Update: January 28, 2013

I never thought I would receive a response from the state's attorneys office but today I was surprised to be handed a letter that read:   "This letter is to confirm that the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Conviction Integrity Unit has received your request to review your conviction. This case is in the process of being reviewed. If you have any additional information that will assist the Office in reviewing this case, please send it as soon as possible. The information should be sent to the postal address below."  It was signed by Shelley Keane, Assistant State's Attorney, Conviction Integrity Unit.

It is a very brief letter and I tend to believe it is the standard reply sent to all prisoners asking for their case to be reviewed. Hopefully, this Conviction Integrity Unit is authentic and not a farce. I still believe it is a public relations arm of the IL State's Attorney's office and has no independence or authority.

I will update as things occur.

Update: January 4, 2015 

After sending huge amounts of evidence to substantiate my claims, and receiving the above acceptance letter from the Conviction Integrity Unit, I was dismayed to receive a one paragraph letter today.  My original thoughts that this was merely a publicity stunt to make people believe Anita Alvarez was truly interested in justice were correct. 

The one paragraph reads:

"I am in receipt of your inquiry letter requesting that the Conviction Integrity Unit review your case. Pursuant to your claim of wrongful conviction, we have examined your case. Based upon our review, we have determined that your claim is without merit and does not warrant any further investigation on our part at this time."  

(Signed on December 23, 2014 by Susan Caraher who works for the Office of the State's Attorney)  

Update:  January 15, 2015

Blog helpers advised not to publish my entire letter because it "names names".  So here is part of my response to Susan Caraher at the Conviction Integrity Unit:

Dear Ms. Caraher:

I am in receipt of your letter where you claim to have reviewed my murder conviction and have determined there is no doubt that I am guilty. May I inquire how you came to this conclusion? What evidence did you specifically examine? There was no evidence presented at my trial that I killed Dean Fawcett or was even at the crime scene. Judge Sam Amirante precluded the death penalty based upon this finding. My conviction was based exclusively on the dubious theory that I was accountable for the actions of my roommate Robert Faraci despite his acquittal by a separate jury. Furthermore, although my attorney chose not to contest the statements made by the investigator from your office, there was ample evidence he falsely testified that I admitted lending my car to Robert Faraci on the day he allegedly killed the victim. Since Anita Alvarez created the Conviction Integirtyy Unit, I knew it was a farce to dupe the public to believe the Cook County States Attorney's Office believed in truth and justice. It believes in neither and its refusal to consider any of the following evidence is testament to that.

(A list of 12 people along with portions of their affidavits or testimony supporting Paul's innocence has been omitted here.)

For 22 years, I have been incarcerated in maximum security facilities for a crime I had no involvement in nor was even aware occurred until months later. I will spend the rest of my life in prison although the actual killer was acquitted. I made a simple request that my conviction be reviewed and not a single person was contacted. Not one inquiry was made to my knowledge, yet you determined there was no merit to my claim of innocence. The Cook County States Attorney's Office is already fully aware I am innocent but will never admit to fault. The purpose of the Conviction Integrity Unit is not the integrity of convictions but to maintain convictions whenever possible. You, Susan Caraher, should be ashamed to be a part of this fraud committed against the people of Illinois.

Paul Modrowski


  1. I am not a legal type person at all, but wanted to give a couple comments. First of all, if Faraci was found innocent, that should mean, that in the eyes of the law, he is innocent. Your letter spends a lot of time trying to show that Faraci is guilty, when at this point, it seems like it would help you more showing that he is innocent. After all, if you were truly convicted of lending your car to Faraci, and he is innocent under the eyes of the law, then what did you do wrong? Even if you told the officer that you lent your car to Faraci, it shouldn't matter at this point, since under the eyes of the law he was found not guilty, which should mean, you could have lent him your car without any issue. Like I said, I am no law expert, it just seemed like you spend a lot of time in this letter trying to prove Faraci's guilt instead of showing he was found innocent and therefor even lending your car to him would not be a crime.

    1. To Anonymous above: Prison mail, in and outgoing, is greatly delayed, thus this late response:
      Yes, it would be nice if it was so easy if I could argue my innocence based on Faraci's acquittal. However, I think you fail to understand just how overwhelming the evidence against Faraci is. He has admitted to wanting to kill, participating in or killing Fawcett to over 10 people that I know of. After his arrest, he led the police to the crime scene and pointed out to them exactly where the victim's body was found. He also pointed to where evidence was, evidence that only the killer could have known even existed.

      Faraci grew up less than a mile from where the victim was found and happened to walk this path along some railroad tracks every day on his way to school.

      There was a blood stain found in Faraci's car, and his wife who was only permitted to testify at my trial spoke of seeing him come home covered in blood.

      Although Faraci was acquitted, he is not innocent and I would look foolish attempting to prove to the state's attorney that he was. My argument to the prosecutor would be just as compelling as John Wayne Gacy arguing before his execution that he did not place all those bodies in his crawl space.

    2. Above advice is right on the money: forget Faraci and his guilt. courts found him not guilty, let it be. Your problem is your sentence not Faraci's so spend time on that including in your correspondence to officials. You want them to concentrate on you not on Faraci. Sure, mention he was found not guilty but stop there as Court's verdict is in, Faraci not guilty. You might try to give the state the real murderer in the case but you are wasting your time-if they let you go, they will re-open everything again and might go after Faraci if need be, or anyone else but that's not your fight-your sentence is as it is unfair beyond comprehension. I get mad reading you, and every day you are in prison is proof the system is unjus and that I do not like so I hate you and I will, every day until they release you and I get to trust the system again. I need to trust the system...I like civilization. I need you free, for my peace of mind. We all need you free, we all want justice and a well-oiled fair system of justice or we will collapse morally.

    3. WOW! Joliet CC you really hit on the core of this: WE, THE PEOPLE, NEED TO TRUST THE SYSTEM ! and, like you, we like civilization. I totally agree that we ALL want justice and a system of justice ! Well said!

      I would add that we all like Paul and hate to learn of innocent people behind bars. That is not the "American way" but what seems to happen in communist countries.

  2. When Paul's jury convicted him, they didn't know that faraci's jury would acquit him. It's pretty messed up and I still can't believe that this case hasn't been reopened for that fact, alone.

    1. Faraci's jury only deliberated about 3 hours before sending a note to the judge that they had reached a decision. They were sent home in time for dinner.

      In stark contrast, Paul's jury was out for 3 DAYS! Those jurors sent many notes asking questions to the judge during that time or asking to read transcripts of specific testimony. The prosecutor would have a fit and argue about giving more information to the jurors. So each time, the judge would send back a note saying "You must rely on your own memory."

      We'll never know if there was a different judge or different jurors what the outcome would have been. I think both would have produced a different outcome.

    2. My jury asked only two questions while deliberating, if I recall correctly: Could they read Brian Palasz's grand jury testimony? and What if we cannot come to an unanimous decision?

      The most important information you failed to mention is my jury was unaware the person whose actions they were considering holding me accountable for was acquitted, and the judge refused to give them curative instructions about the law of accountability after the prosecutor misled them in his closing arguments.

    3. I'd like to add to what Paul wrote above: the jury sent many notes during those 3 days of deliberation. Each time, the judge told the sheriff to go tell them they had to rely on their own memories and he would not be giving them any transcripts. At the end of the third day, the judge sent a note about calling it a hung jury if they didn't decide by the end of the day. Within an hour, the jury came in with the verdict. That haunts me because I thought the judge was more or less threatening them to make a decision quickly. Your trial dragged on for at least 3 weeks and the jurors did not want the judge to make that call. I'd bet the still undecided jurors were kinda pushed into voting. That seems illegal or unethical to me, but I'm not a lawyer.

  3. Paul,

    Thanks for sharing your story with us. I had a question about the testimony of Nadine Lenarczak. Here are excerpts from a Chicago Tribune article:

    "Dean ended up getting into Bob (Faraci's) car. . . . They were going to take him home," she said in response to McKay's questions.

    "Paul put his hand on the back of Dean's shoulder and slightly pushed him into the back seat," she said.

    "They would go into stores, find merchandise they wanted, then come out and demand that Dean write a check for them," Lenarczyk testified. "If Dean didn't want to write a check, Paul would walk up and say `Do it, now,' in a very threatening way," she said.

    Was Nadine Lenarczak lying on the witness stand? She also admitted to being a cocaine user and being involved in mail fraud case. In another post, you write she was an alleged prostitute and girlfriend of a mobster. Why was she a credible witness?

    Thank you,

    1. To Kat: You would have to be at the trial to understand how the states attorney would word questions in such a way that Nadine (and others) had to respond or else be perjuring themselves. Sometimes, his questions were very long and confusing and people would just not answer until he reworded the question to somehow force the answer he wanted!

      With Nadine, it was really tricky because she was in a federal witness protection program and used many different names. She had lived out of hotels and rented many cars in fake names. No one, not even reporters knew all this, nor did anyone else. The prosecutors were careful not to say things that would blow her cover or anything about the matter the feds were handling.

      Back to your comment: Nadine was so stoned on drugs that she did not even know everyone's names. Not helping matters was that some players went by fake names. The only person she really knew was Rose Faraci, and Rose went along with whatever her husband told her to do.

      The Tribune omits the parts where she couldn't remember WHO picked Dean up, WHAT kind of car it was, or even the COLOR of the car. She told police it was a white car. Then she told prosecutors it was red. By the time of trial, she said it was BLUE and had "vanity plates."

      Both Paul and Bob had blue cars, and neither had vanity plates.

      When the police arrested Nadine, cuffed her and put her in the back of the squad car, she flipped out, screaming, kicking, frothing at the mouth. She was taken to a hospital ER instead of a police station.

      I would agree with Paul: Nadine was NOT a credible witness!

    2. TO KAT: It is my understanding that Nadine Lenarczyk did not testify at all at Paul Modrowski's trial. Let's wait and see what Paul says -- mail in and out of the prison is slow now. There may be confusion because Nadine was a friend of Robert Faraci's who testified at Faraci's trial trying to throw the blame onto Paul Modrowski. Note that the news article does not state which trial she was testifying at.

    3. Kat: I was with Brian Palasz, Bob Faraci, Nadine Lenarczak and Dean Fawcett on the 27th of December. At no point was Dean scared, threatened, or coerced. Contrarily, Dean was more than happy to buy his friends gifts especially his new friend, Nadine, at the Riverside Mall. Nadine's testimony was not believed by the jury nor I think by anyone in the court room. Her statements to police changed multiple times, as lawyers pointed out. She had severe psychological and drug problems. Plus, she faced years in prison for being involved in an insurance scam and had become an informant to prevent being punished. Her memory could not be trusted and she had a motive to lie or cooperate with the states attorney's office. I appreciate your interest in my case and have written an entire post about Nadine. I hope it answers all of your questions.

  4. Thanks for the information. I look forward to Paul's input. After the description of Nadine Lenarczak, it seems reasonable to wonder why she wasn't also suspected of being involved in the murder.


    1. Sex. The dumb mases want their criminals male and so females get an easier treatment unless evidence is sky-high. Remember your history...leaders give the masses what they need: bread and distraction aka sentences that make animals happy they are not humans and thus subject to be made "distraction" for the masses. Give them exciting 10 o'clock news and they will not riot for another week...While I am not religious by any means I can't help notice the travesty in Jesus' case who too because "distraction" and the main attraction for the masses who wanted someone's blood spilled just for the hell of it. Unlike Paul though...Jesus knew human pshychology but then again, Jesus was already 30ish while Paul was just 18 when the law came looking for sheep to be sacrificed on the news and entertainment altar that needs to be well-stocked 24 out of 24. Beware not of the law which is slave to the masses, but of crazy humans who want to feel good seeing someone else suffering. Commies gave us stories about floodings in Louisiana to make us happy while Capitalists give you stories about blacks wiping each other up over a pair of shoes...It has nothing to do with feeling "sorry" but rather feeling happy it is not you they have on the news.

  5. I am surprised the Tribune chose to report on what Nadine had to say rather than on how the state's attorneys lied to the jury in their closing arguments. Or how they placed their story on Rose Faraci's testimony further back than page 15. I followed your trial, Paul, and noticed very biased reporting, especially in the local rags. I'm no expert, but the media was very biased against YOU because the bungling Palatine Task Force cops named you as their primary suspect when they couldn't solve the Brown's Chicken murders! Egg on all their faces now! Too bad they didn't solve those horrific murders BEFORE your trial began.

    And its sad that to learn the only "evidence" to name you the primary suspect was a lie told them by Faraci. Seems he told a lot of lies to throw blame off himself.

    I tell everyone not to believe all they read in the newspapers! Police lie. States attorneys lie. They all want themselves to look good and don't care who they frame. I wonder if they all get raises based on convictions. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

    1. To Anonymous above: Television news was the most inflammatory, biased, and sensationalistic reporting in my case. I do not believe the transcripts or videos of this can be found on the Internet.

      Many people do not understand how much the mass media can affect a criminal prosecution or taint a jury pool. I am glad you can see through this veneer, however, and I appreciate your comments.

  6. Paul,

    One of your previous post says there was an entire post about Nadine Lenarczyk. Can you provide a link to it? And, what exactly were her psychological problems? With someone so unstable, I'm still not clear why she was not a suspect?


    1. Kat, you will find Paul's blog post about Nadine posted above. Nadine probably was not a suspect because no one told the police that she was! My understanding is that when Bob and Rose Faraci were arrested and questioned about the murder of Dean Fawcett and his check cashing scheme, they told police that Paul was the perpetrator, not them. When that didn't seem to work, they told police that Paul was also the infamous Brown's Chicken murderer. That got the immediate attention of the Palatine Task Force, the Cook County States Attorney, and the local police who had arrested the Faraci's. Immediately, a warrant was issued and Paul was arrested.

      At trial, Rose Faraci admitted that she lied about everything to protect her husband because he asked her to and didn't want to go back to prison. She even admitted that Bob came home that night (alone) with his clothes soaked in blood and asked her to burn them while he showered. Apparently, Paul's jurors weren't listening.

    2. Kat,
      Post #183 is about Nadine and what Paul knew of her.

  7. Smells like Rick Lantini had some involvement? FARACI AND LANTINI .. What an interesting crew to say the least. Good luck young man.

    1. Thanks - care to elaborate?

    2. Rose Faraci forged one of Fawcett's checks and passed it to a mafia member a few days after Fawcett was murdered. Of course it bounced and she was afraid of what would happen to her. So she sought out Rick Lantini for advice. Guess they were old friends!

      During their conversation, Rose asked if the man learned that Fawcett had been killed whether it then would be OK between them!!

      Trial testimony--no kidding! And yet Faraci's jury acquitted him. Go figure.

    3. When Lantini testified, many police guarded the locked doors of the courtroom. News media were not allowed in. There was some mention of this in a local newspaper. It makes sense that Rose went to him for help. She used to work at a place run by the mafia and the owner cashed one of Fawcett's bad checks for her.

  8. They cant go after Faraci again for the murder he has been found not guilty , Double Jeopardy

    1. That's true, but certainly the State's Attorney should push Governor Quinn to grant clemency to Paul. See Paul's post 164 -- a letter he sent to SA Anita Alvarez's Conviction Integrity Unit. (By the way, good job, Paul!)

      and it wouldn't hurt for more blog readers to write to Gov. Quinn while he's still the governor.

    2. I just read the update (above). Sadly, no politician wants to help convicts, innocent or not. I am so sorry for you Paul. You deserve better. Maybe the new governor will help.

    3. The new governor will not waste political capital helping me. The Cook County States Attorneys Office is also bound by politics. Anita Alvarez's Conviction Integrity Unit was only created to boost her political career and she cares nothing about truth or justice. The only prisoners except Alstory Simon she has dropped charges against are those whose convictions were close to being overturned anyway.

      Despite this, I responded to Asst. States Atty. Susan Caraher simply to expose the fraud being committed against the public. It will be printed here if it has not already.

  9. The advice is very exciting.What's up, excellent web-site you
    possess right now.


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.