Is This Justice?

Read Ricky's Story and Decide for Yourself.

Ricky's story - in Ricky's words.

Tracey Crossett and Ricky Federmann were both drug addicts, they knew each other and had mutual acquaintances through their shared life choices.

On April 11th 2004, Ricky was with a fellow addict called Travis, when Travis took a mobile phone call from Tracey.

Shortly after, Travis and Ricky met Tracey in Travis’s car and she purchased a small amount of heroin from Travis.  It is important to note here that at that time, Ricky had NO money to supply drug transactions; he also had NO car and NO phone.  These are undisputed facts.

At around midnight on April 11th 2004, Tracey overdosed on heroin, alone at her home. At which point, Tracey had been unaccompanied and her whereabouts unknown by anyone for several hours.

Tracey joined some of her friends early that evening but her activities for the majority of the 7 hours following her encounter with Travis and Ricky are largely unaccounted for. 

Soon after Tracey’s death, an ‘anonymous’ phone tip to police named Ricky Federmann as the supplier of the heroin to Tracey.

Naturally, the expected and correct course of investigations meant that the police quickly caught up with Travis, who swiftly pointed the finger at Ricky, coincidentally reinforcing the ‘anonymous’ phone tip . .  

Contrary to impartiality, ‘self-interested’ parties made all the statements against Ricky; individuals that cannot be identified as independent witnesses as it was clear that their motive was evasion of responsibility.

Ricky was never spoken to about the actual circumstances of Tracey’s overdose by the investigators, there was a huge media frenzy due Tracey being 17 and coming from an affluent family.

During the investigation, it was alleged that drugs found on Tracey’s body were supplied by Ricky. However, the police report listing ‘property found on the victim’s body’ is ‘missing’ from the disclosed/ discovery paperwork. So how can this legally be entered into evidence?

In addition to this, the lab report relating to the drug analysis linking Ricky’s heroin to Tracey’s death was also ‘lost’ . . . a lab report for a high profile case, where SURELY the lab would be able to produce a copy?  So HOW can this be entered as evidence, either?

Presumably, Ricky’s assigned defence knew about this, but Ricky was still convinced to plead guilty to supplying Tracey the heroin by his own attorney in order, Ricky was told at the time, to cut a deal for a lesser sentence.

Remember – Ricky was very scared, bewildered and on addiction medication while making the decisions on advice given from those he thought he could trust.

Why would Ricky have been counselled into pleading guilty when the evidence against him was vaguely circumstantial at best?

So – I’ll recap . .

  • Travis and Ricky met Tracey Crossett after a telephone request, and Travis supplied her with drugs.

  • Ricky had NO money for supply, NO phone and NO means of transport. The calls were to/from Travis’s phone and the meeting was made via Travis’s car.

  • The police were quick to trace the deal to Travis, who, along with ‘an anonymous phone tip’, pointed the finger at Ricky.

  • The lab report on the drugs was not presented to court and ‘lost’ despite the fact that there would have been many copies.

  • The police property report identifying the heroin as being at the crime scene was also ‘lost’ and not presented at trial but taken into evidential consideration.

  • Tracey’s activities in the 7 hours leading up to her death were largely unaccounted for.

  • Tracey may have had more than one source for her heroin addiction.

  • There was no proof of what cocktail of drugs killed Tracey that night or where she obtained them.

There was no irrefutable proof that Ricky had anything to do with Tracey’s death.

Yet – at the 11th hour of a case filled with a frenzy of local media, a terrified and bewildered (then) 20 year old Ricky was counselled to plead guilty to supplying heroin.

At 21 years of age, Ricky was sentenced to 47 years in a federal prison, with a 12-year parole following release.

This reads like some unbelievable and crazy horror nightmare . .  except every word of it, as recounted by Ricky, has been lived as a life of torment for the past 17 years.

HOW CAN POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION FIRST OFFENCE = 59 YEARS UNDER US JUDICIAL CUSTODY?

What a waste of the life of a brilliant young man.

59 years for Ricky for possession - but 12 years less for the known and established drug dealer???

SENTENCED FOR LONGER THAN MURDER FOR POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION?