An ex-girlfriend who was with him at the time, testified today that David Milgaard raped her. Then came tape of a hypnosis[1] session in which she recalled witnessing an extremely disturbing violent incident – though she can’t remember who committed it.
At the rate things are going, they’re probably going to reconvict him.
Damn the torpedos. I’ll be perfectly honest about my feelings on this.
By their own admission, Milgaard and his crew were driving around Saskatoon the night Gail Miller was murdered in 1969, looking for someone to rob. It is not by coincidence that in wrongful conviction cases, the accused nearly always has a criminal record, or criminal associates. Being arrested and convicted for a crime you didn’t yet get the chance to commit is one of the occupational risks of the industry.
That’s one of the findings that should come out of this inquiry. But it won’t.
Yes, I feel badly that it took 23 years to get Milgaard out of jail – that’s too long a sentence for a petty criminal. Nor should anyone dismiss the possibility that members of the justice system went out of their way to keep him there, even as doubts surfaced – that’s a broader issue that affects us all. So I feel sorry for him in the usual sense? About as much as I do someone who jumps head first from a bridge and ends up in a wheelchair.
Footnote:
[1] Yes, I know recovering memery through hypnosis is crap. It’s astonishing that the inquiry even allowed it.
Was Milgaard a low life,with a record of petty crimes? Or was he just liquored up on a joyride spree?
Wow. That’s a pretty interesting statement Kate…Especially considering the revisionist history that has taken place over the last 15 years.
Interesting take on the situation…
“Being arrested and convicted for a crime you didn’t yet get the chance to commit is one of the occupational risks of the industry.”
Are you serious?? Wow.. Kate.. I’m surprised.
The rest of your post seems to indicate that you’re not really all that concerned?
Wow..
One of the reasons I left the whole law enforcement thing was exactly because of attitudes like this. It’s sickening, really. I’m sorry you think like this, in the same way as some evil cops that are supposed to uphold the law, be honest, and act always with integrity, think like this.
How is justice served by convicting people, no matter how nasty they are, of things they haven’t done? And while the genuine criminal goes free? The idea that people deserve punishment for what they might have done is a license for the police to go after whoever they don’t like regardless of actual wrongdoing. It’s a slippery slope to thought control — you better not just walk the straight and narrow path, you’d better appear to be doing so as well. I’m sure there’s a good Orwell quote somewhere here …
Yes – the seldom repeated background is that their “joyride” was a cruise for unsuspecting robbery targets. He also had a history of arson, from what I gather – his mother turned him over to social services when he was a teen as she couldn’t deal with his delinquency/erratic behaviors.
I didn’t say that “justice was served”, nor did I intend to belittle the fact that he served time for an offense he was later cleared of.
Let’s remember he’s recieved his 10 million $$ settlement and his name has been cleared.
But here is the bottom line – when one chooses to enter into the world of petty crime, drugs, etc… you are going to find yourself in an environment where you are rubbing shoulders with others of your kind – some of them worse. Milgaard was hardly railroaded – his buddies took the stand and testified against him.
That’s risk taking behavior and it comes with unintended consequences. It’s like hanging around in known biker bars, getting pissed to the gills and then crying foul that you accidentaly get knifed in a fight. Not quite the same level of victim as the kid in the convenience store who’se assaulted during a robbery.
That said, if Milgaard had committed a robbery that night, then throw the book at him. But make sure you’re throwing the right book at him — I realize the police have a difficult job, but rounding up the local sleaze and picking a scapegoat just to “solve” the case doesn’t do the police any credit either. In the long run, it’s not going to make their job any easier. A hatred of the criminal class is easy to understand — but an irrational hatred is not going to serve a society by making the pursuit of criminal behaviour an irrational pursuit. I prefer my police to be rational, thank you.
Yes, Kate, I agree with you — if you enter that world, there are “occupational hazards.” So my sympathy is not an issue. I guess I didn’t take that as your point right away.
I dont’ think there’s any evidence that the police were irrational at the time. Larry Fischer lived in the basement suite of the house one of his buddies was staying in. There was no DNA. Fischer wasn’t charged with his first rape until after the Miller murder.
It was after the arrest that things took a weird turn – when they did stumble on Fischer, it was as though individuals in the justice system went out of their way to deny that the two cases were related.
Getting arrested and convicted – based on what was available to police and jury at the time, I dont’ think you could blame anyone at all for finding him guilty.
Kate, our Justice system is not supposed to about risk taking behaviour. As much as you might want to say that you have no sympathy for the suspect, the fact of the matter is, it’s not just that someone got done for something that, if, upon the preponderance of real evedince, jurors that are supposed to be able to make a reasonable decision, get’s done.. especially when the evidence has been doctored to suit the case.
The problem with our justice system is that it’s all about “winning.” The crown wants to “win” just as much as the defence does… and it becomes a competition..instead of a court of justice. Who’s better than who at presenting evidence? What can we find to or who can we find to say such and such, in order to win?
But face it Kate, your statements really don’t indicate you’re interested in real justice, nor do es it appear you’ve rationally thought about justice. It appears by your statements in this post that justice is just a side dish for you.
And that disturbs me. It’s the same attitude I saw in 15 years of my life.. that sickened me.
Whether you could “blame” anyone for finding him guilty is not the point, Kate. The point is your idea that it might go with the territory that is disturbing to me.
Are we even talking about the same thing, Ian? Why wouldn’t it be part of the territory? He wasn’t convicted for “taking risks”. His risk taking moved him into a sub-culture where he was more likely to be “at the wrong place, at the wrong time.” Sometimes that happens by sheer accident, sometimes by sheer stupidity, sometimes by conscious choice. Milgaard made a conscious choice.
I’m reminded of a friend who thought it was important for government to get information out to IV drug users that AIDS could be transmitted via sharing needles. I commented that this was hardly a new discovery. She countered that there were “many people” who were still unaware of the “risk”.
I asked, “What… did they miss the day in grade 6 when we learned that shooting drugs into your veins was _bad_ for you?”
Milgaard wasn’t the “local sleeze”. They were passing through Saskatoon, and one of the people in the car lived in the same house as Larry Fischer – the murder weapon was found just outside.
The friends then gave “eyewitness” testimony to Milgaard re-enacting the crime in a hotel room, etc. etc.
I guess I don’t know what you are talking about Kate, and can only assume by what you have written, and the meanings that I commonly would ascribe to those words you have written.
I for one find it a travesty for any individual to have time taken away from them.. whether it was through sheer incompetence, mistake, or otherwise. I don’t find it worthy of sarcasm either. Or even some sort of attempt at justification regarding our justice system and compared to someone’s experiences in the past with that justice system.
Your post is all to telling of what many law enforcement types think.. and believe me, I’ve seen it. Let’s be sloppy with our evidence, becasue we know he’s done something that we couldn’t prove, but if we can get him on this, then.. let’s just do it.
That ain’t justice.. and it has nothing to do with hazards of the occupation, Kate. Justice has nothing to do with occupations, or past actions, in determining the guilt or truthfulness of another action you are accussed of.
Justice has nothing to do with risk regard to your occupation, or occupational hazards.
To suggest so only gives those that disagree with what justice has meted out, their excuse to by pass justice, just because justice meted wasn’t what their values thought it should be.
And believe me.. I’ve seen an awful lot of that sort of justice. When one starts excusing unlawful justice, you end up going down a very slippery slope.
Ian, I don’t think there’s a very strong argument that his arrest and conviction was the result of “sloppy” police work.
The questions about where justice failed came after the fact, as new evidence came to light. I acknowledged in the original post that this is a concern to us all.
Your personal experience may be reading more into my words than they merit. That said, there was no sarcasm intended. It was meant to be a straight up opinion on how Milgaard first found himself a suspect. Was it fair? No. Was it justice? I didn’t say it was. Was it a foreseeable consequence of his lifestyle choices. Yes.
Foreseeable consequence of his lifestyle choices to be convicted of a crime he likely didn’t commit? You say that is a foreseeable consequence??
So the kid goes out and robs people, or thinks about going out to rob people, and you say that is foreseeable of being convicted of murder?
Umm.. we’re totally on a different wave length that’s for sure. Being a suspect is one thing, Kate. I was once a suspect in something as well. But thank God, I wasn’t a serious suspect for very long.
You’re lifestyle choices could also make you a suspect in something. All of our lifestyle choices could make us “suspect.”
But that ain’t what justice is all about. Go back and read your post, Kate.
Then come and discuss your premises about justice, and what it really means. Is justice important to you? And if so, important how? What’s your premises with regard to justice, Kate?
Maye this discussion is clouded by personal experience.. but I don’t find it very funny for anyone to make the assertions you seem to be making. when I know it happens all the time, when evidence gets twisted, or things get changed around, just in order to get someone.
And then take it lightly when someone has been “punished” for something he didn’t do.
Kate, this is the only life you have. It ain’t a dress rehearsal for something else. Regardless of what you believe about an afterlife, this is it. As far as you know. This is it, as far as Milgaard knows. And to be put behind bars for 26 years, while you have been able to choose to live your life the way you want, painting, photographing, or whatever.. and sit there and and by induction, claim that you’ve been so perfect, and never done anything that would ever bring suspicion upon you, is just downright irrational and insane.
I once had an instructor.. who asked everyone in the class, “why” were in the class.. folks that never had a criminal record.. how come?
And everyone went around the room, talking about their parents, or their background, or their values.. blah blah blah. When it came to my turn, I simply said, “I never got caught.”
I bet Kate, you’ve never been caught either.
I dunno Ian. If you feel so strongly that you “just never got caught”, maybe you should turn yourself in… I know why I’ve never been caught: because I’ve never driven around on a joyride looking for someone to rob.
I have WAY more sympathy for Milgaard’s real/potential victims, since I’m more likely to be in there shoes than his.
I’m with Kate.
And frankly, what surprises me most is that ANYBODY spent 29 years in jail in this country for doing (or not doing) anything. Long sentences — those were the days.
Kate:
First of all, I love SDA.
That being said, I think you are confusing karma with justice.
If Milgaard was guilty of serious crimes there may be a certain moral harmony in his having ended up in jail, but to have a functioning legal system, justice must not only be done in the sense of the consequences of a persons crimes being visited upon his own head. Justice must also be seen to be done. One crime, one punishment. To do otherwise is to open the system to an arbitrariness that will eventully see it either collapse completely, or worse, become merely a tool of oligarchs.
I don’t think anything I’ve written suggests the justice system should be left off the hook for their errors and possibly intentional ommissions. Different issue.
I can see Kate’s point. And sorry Ian, but like Kathy, I’ve never driven around looking for someone to rob. I guess the way I end up looking at it is if Mother Theresa were falsely accused and jailed for 29 years vs. David Milgaard. I’d feel horrible if a good person (not sinless, but good) like her spent that time in jail whereas someone like David (although he definitely didn’t deserve it) ends up getting caught. A good friend of mine has a lengthy criminal record (which he has repented of). The last crime he was convicted of he didn’t commit, but the cop lied on the stand. He still dislikes the cop, but says that he got caught on one offence that he didn’t do which makes up for all the other crimes he did commit but never got caught for. I’m not suggesting that D Milgaard has done other crimes that he hasn’t gotten caught for, but he was in that “lifestyle”.
Kate,
What you’ve said is crystal clear. There is no further need to defend yourself against the moral preening of some people.
Ian (I, by the way, worked in LAW ENFORCEMENT) Scott reminds me of John (I fought in Vietnam) Kerry.
Given the fact that I agree with OC’s comment above, and MapMaster’s original one, I’ve gone back and reread the post a couple of times now. I think you can accuse Kate of being insensitive if you want, but not much more.
Ian, look again at what Kate actually said here: certain behaviour will put a person into greater jeopardy of suffering a miscarriage of justice. That statement doesn’t excuse or condone the miscarriage. It’s simply that her sympathies are more restrained as a result of Milgaard’s admitted intentions that night.
I’m concerned that you’re misinterpreting Kate’s words here because of your own very personal, and probably justifiable disgust at malleable police ethics. That’s a different battle.
Here is an incomplete list of the dangers a criminal risks:
1. He gets caught and spends time in jail for the crimes he commits. He may lose certain rights enjoyed by non-convicts, such as the ability to hold certain jobs, to vote, etc. This is good because, among other things, the criminal cannot commit other crimes while in jail and may be dissuaded from committing crimes in the future.
2. He gets injured committing the crime � by his intended victim.
3. He gets injured committing the crime � by accident.
4. He gets injured committing the crime � by law enforcement.
5. He gets killed committing the crime � by their intended victim.
6. He gets killed committing the crime � by accident.
7. He gets killed committing the crime � by law enforcement.
8. He gets caught for one crime and is found out to be a perpetrator of another crime, in which case, see 1 above.
9. He gets caught for and convicted of a crime he did not commit because (a) he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and perhaps acting suspiciously (for good reason: he sought to commit a different crime or was actually guilty of another crime) and/or (b) a jury understandably believes that a previously convicted criminal may more likely be guilty of the crime of which he is charged because recidivism explains most criminal activity.
What Ian does not understand is that these are facts of life. Call it Criminal-Justice Karma. There is no moral component to them. It�s the way things are.
Now, we can add a �(c)� to number nine above: The cops fabricate evidence. They have been known to do this in cases where they screwed up their case against the alleged perp, where evidence is lacking but the cops knew the guy was guilty of the crime, or where evidence was lacking because the criminal was innocent of this particular crime but the cops knew or thought they knew that the criminal was a bad guy and wanted him off the streets. Or they just hate the criminal. You can more or less substitute �jury� for cops in this example and you would get the same result: a wrongful conviction of a criminal for a crime he did not commit. Of course, with (c) there is a moral component involved. It is wrong to punish a man for a crime he did not commit. Nevertheless, Kate�s feeling not so sorry for such a wrongly convicted criminal is understandable and perfectly normal, as a general rule. Ian may feel he cannot distinguish between (a) the lack of feeling sorry for the wrongly-convicted ne�er do well loser and (b) the support of bearing false witness against your neighbor, but I think most sophisticated (I mean, adult) thinkers know the difference. The reason not to feel sorry for these criminals is that they are CRIMINALS. A case where a seller of a dime-bag of pot is falsely convicted of capital murder is one thing. The good that is done in such a case (no more dope dealing by that guy) is far, far outweighed by his unjust death. I am sure than Kate or any rational human would be appalled by such a case. But the feelings of disgust would be tempered by thoughts of “he really shouldn’t have been playing with fire.”
But look at what Kate said in the case that this post is about, a case that little like my dope-dealer example:
�Yes, I feel badly that it took 23 years to get Milgaard out of jail – that’s too long a sentence for a petty criminal. Nor should anyone dismiss the possibility that members of the justice system went out of their way to keep him there, even as doubts surfaced – that’s a broader issue that affects us all. So I feel sorry for him in the usual sense? About as much as I do someone who jumps head first from a bridge and ends up in a wheelchair.�
That�s it: Yes, it�s not good that there are these facts of life and it�s not good that cops and juries sometimes do the wrong thing, but when you undertake a life or crime, you also undertake certain risks. Do you expect me to feel the same way about a serial rapist and sadistic woman-beater who is falsely convicted of some other crime that I do about a newborn baby thrown out an apartment window? If you do, you are morally retarded.
For those of you who cannot, or refuse to, understand the facts of life: I suggest you get one.
“I dunno Ian. If you feel so strongly that you “just never got caught”, maybe you should turn yourself in… I know why I’ve never been caught: because I’ve never driven around on a joyride looking for someone to rob.”
Sure, Kathy. I’ll head right over there to the local police station and let ’em know that when I was a kid, I possessed pot a couple of times. Once, I think I stole a 2.00 bill (remember those?) from my Mom, as well.
Obviously, you missed the point. Think about Jesus, Kathy.. and what he said to the Pharisees when they were about to stone the adulterous woman. I always wonder why good Christians seem to forget that lesson Jesus was trying to teach. Perhaps we can have your views on that some day.
“I have WAY more sympathy for Milgaard’s real/potential victims, since I’m more likely to be in there shoes than his.”
Yeah, I do realize lots of folks have feelings for fantasies. Fantasies are those things that haven’t happened, may never happen, probably won’t happen, but it’s possible. Seems to me that having sympathy for a potential victim is kinda weird. I’d prefer to spend my empathies and sympathies on real victims.
“And frankly, what surprises me most is that ANYBODY spent 29 years in jail in this country for doing (or not doing) anything. Long sentences — those were the days.”
Yeah, and don’t you agree that it’s a miscarriage of justice that the wrong guy did that time?
New Name.. or in your case, No Name.. I see we meet again 🙂 I also see you are continuing to post in the same style that you are critical of others when directed to you.
Moral retard.. hmmm.. mind letting me know what you base morality on? What’s your guide, nomennovum?
Understanding your premise in the first place might be helpful.
Eh.. Ian.. that’s a quality group you’re attracting over at your blog and you’re approving those comments? I thought better of you than that, and all things considered, your comments here about my post ring somewhat hollow.
You seem like a genuinely nice guy. So some genuine advice – your reading comprehension skills leave a little to be desired. As others have pointed out, you’ve been hard at work in rebuttal of something that wasn’t stated, or implied.
Yeah, my blog is free speech, Kate. Doesn’t mean I agree with them all. The only ones I need to “approve” are those that contain URL’s.. to help me with spam control. If it ain’t spam, it gets approved.
My reading comprehension skills, according to standard tests I’ve taken, are above normal, Kate. Perhaps it’s not my comprehension skills, but in this particular post, your choice of words. You seem like a genuinely nice gal generally speaking, at least from what I can know of you – perhaps you might want to take a look at the words you use.
You’re little HTML trick of crossing out words but leaving them up to be readable is something I was able to comprehend. I’ll repeat them for you, without the cross outs, and in context:
“Being arrested and convicted for a crime you didn’t yet get the chance to commit is one of the occupational risks of the industry.”
In the rational world, something that has not yet happened is merely a fantasy. Justice isn’t supposed to deal with fantasies, Kate. Hazardous occupations or not. Your implication that your assertion in this regard should come out in the inquiry speaks volumes.
Thankfully, there is still some rationality left with regard to inquiries, demanding that evidence be real… and not just fantasy suppositions.
Yes, I think you’re a nice gal probably, and have to admit I think you have really sexy legs.. and often good posts, but not this one. And of course, I leave myself open to the same criticism from you in any of my posts.
My legs aren’t as sexy as yours though 🙂
oh.. and another thing.. that link in this article about John testifying Milgaard raped her.. I guess I need glasses or something – but I can’t find the word ‘rape’ in the article at all, referring to Milgaard. The word rape appears once, referring to the fact that Larry Fisher has now been convicted of raping and killing Miller.
Would you provide a better citation for John’s accusation of being raped by Milgaard?
Thanks!
The testimony was reported on local radio, by a reporter at the inquiry, as was a portion of the taped hypnosis session, in which she was screaming about seeing someone stabbed, but couldn’t remember who was doing it.
Remember that this is a Saskatchewan case, and every two years or so, it resurfaces in the news for one reason or another. (Much of it remains local.) Over the years, a good deal of background info has been made public about Milgaard – but the inquiry has been quite an eye opener for some people.
It’s really quite odd – the woman testifies that he raped her, and it got only a brief mention locally.
A note on the “free speech” thing. I’ve banned a total of 3 people from this site in a year, and deleted precious few comments, usually for unacceptable use of profanity, etc.
This blog is private property – it’s not a place for drunks to come puke, nor is it a mental health facility.
Removing graffiti, evicting drunks and nutcases isn’t stifling free speech – it’s good property management. I like people to come back, whether they agree or don’t. Opening comments and seeing juvenile name calling and obsessive compulsive serial posting doens’t do much to encourage rational discussion.
Kate, I respect your property, and what you want to do with it, and your values of what “good property management” mean to you.
As for me, I quite often find drunks to be entertaining. Now, I do have some properties where drunks are not welcome – and they’d be tossed out faster than two shakes of a lamb’s tail.
I manage the property of my blog somewhat differently than other properties I have, and I have my own “reasons” for doing so. You might not “agree” with my reasons, like my reasons, or even need to acknowledge my reasons. “Good property management” means different things to different folks.
As far as “name calling” goes, I’m not sure you are referring to me? Yeah, I’ve stooped to that a few times – I’ll admit – but I imagine we have different thoughts on that as well. Calling someone morally retarded for not sharing the same values isn’t exactly what most would call rational dialogue, huh? And in Latin, Nomen Novum does mean “New Name.”
Serial posting? Again, not sure what you mean. Would you point to something that would show me what you mean? Are you saying that I have obsessively compulsively serial posted here on this thread?
Thanks, Kate.
I wasn’t referring to you. I’m talking about the blog infection known as MWW. Obsessive compulsive, irrational, and when pushed, she issues threats (I’ll call your ISP! I’ll file hate crimes charges!”). Just a heads up. She’s got hallmark traits of someone who is mentally disturbed.
Well, I am my own ISP 🙂 So no worries on that front.
Ok.. this thread is dying or getting tired. Time to move on. I’ll keep an eye on your posts.. you feel free to take me to task when you want as well.