To Recall or Not to Recall
Understandably, memory and recollection of events are turning out to be a big problem in the Milgaard Inquiry. I can hardly remember what I did yesterday so I find it perfectly legitimate when many witnesses say that they have difficulty remembering things that happened 30 years ago. However, in the Milgaard case, it's difficult to ascertain who really can't remember what happened and who just finds it more convenient to say that they didn't remember.
Retired detective Raymond Mackie finished testifying on Thursday. According to Jamie Komarnicki of the Star Phoenix, Mackie stated that he didn't know if he had written a summary of the case that implicated Milgaard in Gail Miller's death.
"I'm not even sure that I authored it, even now," Mackie told Catherine Knox, who represents Milgaard prosecutor T.D.R. Caldwell.
This is problematic because Mackie was the one who took Nichol John's statement where she said that she had seen David kill Gail Miller. Nichol has never repeated that assertion since. As I said, I can understand how someone might not remember doing something decades ago. But what I don't comprehend is why there wasn't a signature on that summary. Didn't someone have to sign off on it? Wouldn't that have been a legal requirement?
Moreover, a retired sergeant by the name of Passet also took the stand Thursday. He said that he was called into the crime scene with his tracking dog. The Star Phoenix reported that Passet claimed, "The dog ran straight to an indentation in the snow in front of a funeral chapel where officers on the scene told him Miller's body had been found. The dog then went to an alleyway entrance where it appeared a car had been stuck in the snow. Passet said he filed a report, but no record of that exists today. Assistant commission lawyer Jordan Hardy pointed out that Miller's body was actually found in a different location."
In an earlier post, I'd made a joke about Watergate because so much stuff has disappeared from the Milgaard file. Of course, we can expect these kinds of things to happen when so many years have elapsed since the time of the original crime. Just because things are missing, doesn't mean that they were deliberately removed from the file. After all, the police did think that they had their killer and the man spent 23 years behind bars. That notwithstanding, it certainly does make things difficult now to go back and look at the evidence when it's not there!
The inquiry has taken another break and will not resume until August 15.
Sigrid Macdonald
Retired detective Raymond Mackie finished testifying on Thursday. According to Jamie Komarnicki of the Star Phoenix, Mackie stated that he didn't know if he had written a summary of the case that implicated Milgaard in Gail Miller's death.
"I'm not even sure that I authored it, even now," Mackie told Catherine Knox, who represents Milgaard prosecutor T.D.R. Caldwell.
This is problematic because Mackie was the one who took Nichol John's statement where she said that she had seen David kill Gail Miller. Nichol has never repeated that assertion since. As I said, I can understand how someone might not remember doing something decades ago. But what I don't comprehend is why there wasn't a signature on that summary. Didn't someone have to sign off on it? Wouldn't that have been a legal requirement?
Moreover, a retired sergeant by the name of Passet also took the stand Thursday. He said that he was called into the crime scene with his tracking dog. The Star Phoenix reported that Passet claimed, "The dog ran straight to an indentation in the snow in front of a funeral chapel where officers on the scene told him Miller's body had been found. The dog then went to an alleyway entrance where it appeared a car had been stuck in the snow. Passet said he filed a report, but no record of that exists today. Assistant commission lawyer Jordan Hardy pointed out that Miller's body was actually found in a different location."
In an earlier post, I'd made a joke about Watergate because so much stuff has disappeared from the Milgaard file. Of course, we can expect these kinds of things to happen when so many years have elapsed since the time of the original crime. Just because things are missing, doesn't mean that they were deliberately removed from the file. After all, the police did think that they had their killer and the man spent 23 years behind bars. That notwithstanding, it certainly does make things difficult now to go back and look at the evidence when it's not there!
The inquiry has taken another break and will not resume until August 15.
Sigrid Macdonald
posted by Sigrid Macdonald @ 3:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home