Fact-Check: No evidence that U.S. Citizen Lucas Richards was Charged with Rape
Claim: U.S. citizen Lucas Richard raped and nearly killed a Liberian woman.
Verdict: Misleading
Full Text: On February 17, 2026, human rights advocate Titus Pakalah took to social media, claiming that U.S. citizen Lucas Richard had raped and nearly killed a Liberian woman.
He further alleged that the victim’s family turned down an offer to withdraw the case, that the matter went to Criminal Court, and that the accused was ultimately acquitted. At the time of this fact-check, the post had racked up 245 reactions, 159 comments, and 57 shares.
Verification: The Stage Media Liberia reviewed court records and reports from the Liberian Daily Observer, which covered the entire trial of Lucas K. Richards from beginning to end.
On December 14, 2023, the Government of Liberia indicted Richards on two second-degree felony charges: aggravated assault and criminal attempt to commit murder. The indictment alleged that on September 14, 2023, around 3 p.m. near the Palm Farm community in the Township of Dixville, Richards injected his wife, Jessica Lloyd, with an unknown substance in an attempt to abort her pregnancy.
The indictment further alleged that Richards, with criminal intent, struck Lloyd on the forehead, causing her to fall unconscious. He then got on top of her body and began slashing her throat with a knife in an attempt to kill her.
On February 20, 2025, Judge Nelson Chinneh acquitted Richards, ruling that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient corroborating evidence to sustain either charge.
The judge pointed to two critical failings in the prosecution’s case: key physical evidence, including the alleged knife and iron said to have been used in the attack, was never produced in court, and no crime scene photographs were presented. He also flagged sharp inconsistencies in the testimonies, particularly those of the private prosecutrix.
The court noted that Lloyd’s account changed significantly from one stage of the proceedings to the next. Before eyewitnesses at Palm Farm Dixville, she stated that Richards had done nothing to her. On the general witness stand, she said she did not realize she was injured or bleeding until a woman at the scene tied a cloth around her neck to stop the bleeding. Then, as a rebuttal witness, she told the court, "It was only Lucas and me in the car, and he asked me to help him fix the back tire; while helping him, he hit me from the back of my head and I fell to the ground. Trying to wake up, Richards pushed me back to the ground, and he started to slay my neck.”
Judge Chinneh said the variance in her testimonies was glaring. The court defined variance as a disagreement between two parts of the same proceeding that ought to be consistent. While no one disputed that Lloyd was injured or where and when those injuries occurred, the court found no reliable evidence establishing who inflicted them.
“It is the holding of this court, considering the facts, circumstances, and laws controlling, that the defendant is hereby adjudged not guilty of the crimes,” Judge Chinneh ruled.
According to Judicial Reporter Richards Watson, the prosecution presented nine witnesses, including the alleged victim. Several of those witnesses gave court testimony that directly contradicted earlier statements they had given to police investigators.
Following the ruling, the state prosecutor announced plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, a move that was denied. Under Liberian law, the state cannot appeal an acquittal in a criminal proceeding to the Supreme Court.
As for the claim of an alleged US$10,000 offer to drop the case, Lloyd did publicly reference such an offer during proceedings. However, no court ruling substantiated it as bribery, and no credible evidence was produced to support Pakalah’s additional allegation that money was directed to the judge.
Conclusion: Richards was not charged with rape. The indictment carried charges of aggravated assault and criminal attempt to commit murder, on which he was ultimately acquitted by Criminal Court B due to insufficient and inconsistent evidence. The claim as stated is misleading.
