A SATURDAY AFTERNOON ON ILLINOIS’ FOX RIVER ENDED IN HORROR — AND WHEN PROSECUTORS REVEALED THE ALLEGED DRIVER’S HISTORY IN COURT, THE QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THE DEADLY COLLISION BECAME EVEN MORE DISTURBING.

A 45-year-old Illinois man is facing serious felony charges after prosecutors say a pontoon boat he was operating at extraordinary speed slammed into another vessel on the Fox River, killing a woman and injuring her husband.

Richard Stevenson appeared in court following the July 25 collision near McHenry, northwest of Chicago, where prosecutors laid out a disturbing sequence of allegations.

Stevenson faces three felony charges, including reckless homicide and aggravated driving under the influence. A judge ordered him detained while the criminal case proceeds.

But what prosecutors revealed about the hours before the collision—and Stevenson’s previous driving record—has placed even greater scrutiny on the case.

According to prosecutors, Stevenson was operating a 30-foot pontoon boat on the Fox River after drinking alcohol.

They alleged the vessel was travelling at approximately 80 miles per hour before the crash.

That figure becomes particularly alarming when combined with what happened next.

Prosecutors said Stevenson’s pontoon entered a no-wake zone and struck the rear of a green Crownline boat carrying a married couple.

The woman aboard the Crownline was killed in the collision, while her husband survived and was transported to hospital.

The nature of the woman’s fatal injuries was particularly severe, underscoring the extraordinary violence of the impact.

What should have been a peaceful summer afternoon on the river had become a major emergency in seconds.

Nearby residents were left shaken.

Jane Sexton, a neighbor quoted by ABC7, called the incident horrific and emphasized that its impact stretched beyond the people directly aboard the boats.

But investigators were already beginning the difficult task of reconstructing exactly what happened.

Video evidence may become important.

Security footage obtained from a home along the river allegedly captured Stevenson’s pontoon travelling south before later returning north.

According to the family who supplied the footage, the boat passed their property again approximately an hour and 45 minutes later.

Roughly one minute after that, they heard the collision.

Another recording, captured while a child was playing nearby, reportedly showed the pontoon passing at approximately 12:40 p.m.—almost two hours before the fatal impact.

Those recordings could help investigators establish the boat’s movements before the crash.

But prosecutors say testimony from people actually aboard Stevenson’s pontoon may be even more significant.

Two other people were reportedly riding with him.

Although both allegedly left the scene on Saturday, authorities later interviewed them.

According to prosecutors, both told investigators that Stevenson had consumed multiple shots of Fireball whiskey that day.

One passenger allegedly told investigators the pontoon was travelling approximately 80 mph before the collision.

Then came another allegation.

After the crash, prosecutors said Stevenson’s pontoon ended up on a riverbank, where a witness encountered him.

Stevenson was subsequently taken to hospital.

There, according to prosecutors, a blood test allegedly showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.20.

Prosecutors described that as approximately two-and-a-half times the applicable legal limit.

Those allegations alone would make the case extraordinarily serious.

But during arguments over whether Stevenson should remain detained, prosecutors introduced another element that immediately intensified attention around him:

His previous record.

According to the prosecution, Stevenson accumulated a series of traffic-related offenses between 1997 and 2005.

They cited three DUI arrests, four misdemeanor speeding offenses, three reckless-driving offenses and an incident involving fleeing and eluding police.

Prosecutors also pointed to a much more recent incident.

In 2023, Stevenson had a misdemeanor speeding violation involving driving between 26 and 34 mph above the speed limit.

That history does not establish his guilt in the current case.

Stevenson is accused, and the allegations against him must be tested through the legal process.

But the record presented by prosecutors helps explain why they argued that he should remain detained while the case moves forward.

It also creates an unavoidable question surrounding the tragedy.

If the prosecution’s account is proven, how did an afternoon on the Fox River escalate to the point where a large pontoon boat was allegedly travelling at extreme speed after its operator had been drinking?

Investigators will have to establish the complete timeline.

They will examine physical evidence from the boats.

They can analyze video footage and witness accounts.

And prosecutors will ultimately have to demonstrate that the evidence supports the criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt if the case reaches trial.

Meanwhile, the human consequences cannot be separated from those legal questions.

One woman left for a day on the river and never returned home.

Her husband survived a collision that killed his wife beside him.

Witnesses were confronted by the immediate aftermath.

And a community accustomed to seeing recreational boats travelling the Fox River suddenly found itself looking at the scene of a fatal criminal investigation.

The tragedy also highlights why boating under the influence can be every bit as dangerous as impaired driving on a roadway.

A boat travelling at high speed has enormous destructive potential.

Unlike a highway, waterways can also contain vessels travelling in different directions, people swimming or fishing, docks and zones where operators are required to dramatically reduce their speed.

A no-wake zone exists precisely because high-speed operation can create serious danger.

Prosecutors’ allegation that the pontoon entered such a zone before striking the Crownline will therefore be a crucial part of the case.

So too will Stevenson’s alleged intoxication.

Yet there is another important distinction.

The dramatic allegations presented at a detention hearing are not the same thing as a conviction.

The state will have to prove its case.

Stevenson will have the opportunity to challenge the evidence and the prosecution’s reconstruction of events.

Until that process is complete, claims about precisely what happened must remain attributed to prosecutors and investigators.

What is already beyond dispute is the scale of the tragedy.

A recreational outing ended with one person dead, another hospitalized and a 45-year-old man facing felony charges.

The boats can eventually be removed.

The physical evidence can be catalogued.

The river will return to appearing peaceful.

But for the family whose life was shattered that Saturday, there is no comparable return to normal.

And as prosecutors examine Stevenson’s alleged actions alongside the history they presented in court, the central question will only become more urgent:

Was this an unforeseeable accident—or a deadly collision that should never have been allowed to happen?

That answer will now be fought over in court.