More on Karst
Betty Ann Adam of the Star Phoenix wrote that Eddy Karst doubted Albert Cadrain's statements when he began to embellish his story. At first, Cadrain's allegation that Milgaard had blood on his clothes seemed plausible. But later on, Cadrain said that Milgaard was a member of the Mafia and that David had asked Albert to kill Ron and Nicole because they "knew too much." In fact, the Mafia comments seemed so strange to Karst -- and rightly so! -- that he did not incorporate them into any written documents until a month after David had been charged with murder.
At the same time that Albert "Shorty" Cadrain was making such nonsensical claims, Ron Wilson and Nichol John continued to maintain that Milgaard had never been out of their sight long enough to have committed a murder. These two key pieces of information should have been enough to have created doubt in Karst's mind; however, Karst chose to believe Shorty's remark about the blood on David's clothes and to dismiss the crazy comments about the Mob.
Karst also indicated that Shorty's allegation was confirmed by his five-year-old brother Kenneth, but this does not appear to be on record anywhere. Moreover, as we all know now, Shorty not only collected $2000 reward money for providing the police with info about his "friend", but he was also institutionalized for hallucinations and mental illness not long after the trial.
Lastly, Joyce Milgaard broke down and cried during the Inquiry because she thought that finally one of the detectives was admitting responsibility, but in fact, Karst conceded some degree of responsibility and quickly denied it, steadfastly refusing to apologize or accept blame for David's incarceration. Karst said that he couldn't remember meeting with Larry Fisher, although Karst was sent from Saskatoon to Winnipeg to interview Fisher and Fisher confessed to him about having raped women in Saskatoon. He also said that he did not recall that Fisher's ex-wife, Linda, approached police on her own in 1980 to tell them that she suspected that her husband had murdered Gail Miller.
The seemingly endless number of mistakes and denials continues.
Sigrid Macdonald
At the same time that Albert "Shorty" Cadrain was making such nonsensical claims, Ron Wilson and Nichol John continued to maintain that Milgaard had never been out of their sight long enough to have committed a murder. These two key pieces of information should have been enough to have created doubt in Karst's mind; however, Karst chose to believe Shorty's remark about the blood on David's clothes and to dismiss the crazy comments about the Mob.
Karst also indicated that Shorty's allegation was confirmed by his five-year-old brother Kenneth, but this does not appear to be on record anywhere. Moreover, as we all know now, Shorty not only collected $2000 reward money for providing the police with info about his "friend", but he was also institutionalized for hallucinations and mental illness not long after the trial.
Lastly, Joyce Milgaard broke down and cried during the Inquiry because she thought that finally one of the detectives was admitting responsibility, but in fact, Karst conceded some degree of responsibility and quickly denied it, steadfastly refusing to apologize or accept blame for David's incarceration. Karst said that he couldn't remember meeting with Larry Fisher, although Karst was sent from Saskatoon to Winnipeg to interview Fisher and Fisher confessed to him about having raped women in Saskatoon. He also said that he did not recall that Fisher's ex-wife, Linda, approached police on her own in 1980 to tell them that she suspected that her husband had murdered Gail Miller.
The seemingly endless number of mistakes and denials continues.
Sigrid Macdonald
posted by Sigrid Macdonald @ 7:36 PM
17 Comments:
At 4:33 PM,
Anonymous said…
This is Sigrid. I just changed the settings so that people can make comments anonymously without having to sign on to blogger, thus, I'm testing it out.
I'm reading a really cool book right now called Free Culture, which is all about what kind of creative property should be copyrighted and what kinds should not. I'm wondering if I should remove the copyright from my posts. Hmmm. Dilemma.
I encourage all of you readers to post your opinions. I welcome debate. I respect differences. I don't care if you disagree with me as long as you don't call me names :-)
Blog on. Sigrid
At 7:57 PM,
Anonymous said…
Its obvious some of the witnesses
are not credible witnesses
So why were they taken seriously?
I once, saw a car accident.
the people involved were all
accounted for.
than a young girl with some other young people came to look
So this young girl said i saw a Charger hit and run which was false
The policeman smiled at her and said thanks but no thanks
I was upset with that girl
But the policeman with his training had sized her up as a
unreliable witness.
At 9:35 AM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
You raise an excellent point. Why were those witnesses taken seriously? Firstly, Albert Cadrain's mental illness was not apparent until after the
trial, however, his crazy comments about the Mafia and the Virgin Mary should have been a tip-off. Secondly, everyone did seem to be pointing the finger towards Milgaard. All three kids said that he'd been involved,
but none of them said that before they had been coerced by the police.
I think that the police simply wanted a suspect. The rape and murder of a young, attractive woman was frightening to the community. The police wanted
to close the case. They wanted to capture the killer so as to put everyone's mind to rest. That zest to find ANYONE led to serious tunnel vision.
So sorry to hear about your own experience. You were lucky that the policeman in your case had better judgment. All kinds of studies have been done on eyewitness testimony indicating that it is notoriously unreliable.
In the case of Milgaard, the kids were young and scared. They were on drugs and they were pressured by the cops. Ron and Nicole preferred to sacrifice David
than to be implicated in the murder themselves. Cadrain is a different story. He was pretty crazy AND he had collected the reward money.
Once the kids had confessed to seeing David commit the crime, it was hard to get the police to believe their attractions. Complicated situations like this take on a snowball effect, which make it hard to unravel the damage.
Thanks for your insightful observations.
Sigrid
At 7:38 AM,
Anonymous said…
This case did have a snowball
effect and it seems to have
gone around the witnesses
for david,s defence.
Like his friends
who said he was with them and didn,t have the time.
What
better proof can there be of
his innocense since he was
just visiting that place
at that time.
At 3:42 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Yes, if only the police had believed the kids the first time round. All three of David's friends told the truth in the beginning but that wasn't good enough for the investigators.
S. Mac
At 4:47 PM,
Anonymous said…
Were can we turn for help if not to the police
If these 3 kids were taken in
to be put under pressure in the police headquarters than there should be a record of this.
Are the police above the law or
are they at fault.
At 11:46 AM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Even though I was an antiestablishment, countercultural kid like David, I do believe that most police officers mean well and that we can turn to them much of the time.
Most people who have been convicted of crimes, but certainly not all, are guilty. I have some issues around drug regulation because I think that it makes criminals out of ordinary citizens, and I have huge concerns about Internet regulation. For example, up to 43 million Americans download music illegally, so technically that makes them criminals. That's insane!
So, while I do have concerns about police procedure and the way investigations are handled due to the incidence of wrongful convictions, in general IMO we need the police.
Aside from false accusations and wrongful convictions, my main interest is in women's issues. I have just published a novel that is loosely based around the story of a woman in my Milgaard support group here in Ottawa who took up with Brett Morgan, jailhouse informant at the Milgaard Supreme Court hearing. Morgan was serving time for manslaughter -- should have been murder -- and Louise Ellis fell in love with him. She hired lawyers to get him out of jail early and he repaid her for her kindness by killing her.
When Louise went missing, I took a long hard look at my views on law enforcement because the cops who worked on her case were AWESOME. It never would have been solved without them. They were dedicated, devoted, caring, effective and efficient people.
We can't throw the proverbial babies out with the bath water. All cops are not bad!
Sigrid
PS More info re my novel is at
www.damourroad.blogspot.com.
At 6:30 PM,
Anonymous said…
Is it fair what the police did to
these 3 kids,
I find it had to believe that would happen again.
At 3:05 PM,
Anonymous said…
I Don,t find that hard to believe
Since it was 3 month after the murder took place,
and the police still had no one . So they picked-up Ron Wilson ( one of the 3 kids) and put the burdon of murder on his shoulders, so he had to shift the blame he had no other choice to get out from under the charge of murder himself. But in reality he was also not to blame. So the case against dave milgaard was stupid and short sighted.
At 3:23 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Yeah, it's really hard to blame the kids. They were young, scared and didn't have affluent parents to bail them out. If I'd gotten into any legal trouble as a teenager, I could have turned immediately to my mother and father. They would have hired the best lawyers possible. Ron, Nicole, Shorty and Dave didn't have that option.
Also, the police used extremely coercive tactics in order to obtain the "confessions" from Ron and Nicole. I don't think either one of them have ever recovered from the trauma of the investigation and the role that they played in David's incarceration.
Sigrid
At 8:45 PM,
Anonymous said…
With all due respect to Ms. Milgaard and David, Mr. Karst did not apologize to Ms. Milgaard as an apology is not justified from Karst himself under the forum of an inquiry.
The purpose of a Commission of Inquiry is to exam the investigation into Gail Miller's death, and not to have witnesses making apologizes to standing members-- warranted after the fact or not.
Say what you will about Lockyer and his passion, his court ramblings are off point more often than not. He has a history of pissing off judges, and asks for things from witnesses which are outside the objectives of testimony. I think Ms. Milgaard and her counsel would accomplish more for David, and the future of justice, if they stuck to the issues, and left personal vendetta to the past.
At 7:10 AM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Yes, you're probably right that technically, no apology is required from any of the witnesses in the Inquiry. It is simply an investigation into the various procedures that led to such a horrific outcome.
Bent wrote his letter expressing his beliefs in his own language. I probably would not have chosen those exact words, however, I do believe that certain members of the police force should be taking some responsibility for what occurred back in 1969 instead of continually passing the buck.
I don't know what your particular issue with James is. Do you feel that he's making ad hominem attacks? That has not been my impression but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Thanks for posting and I hope that you will continue to contribute your interesting insights and observations to the discussion.
Best, Sigrid
At 2:54 PM,
Anonymous said…
Sigrid, I thank you for your respectful response.
As for James Lockyer, I have worked on the other side of a file that he was on, and found his antics were not well recieved by the bench. He continually was asked by the Justice to re-phrase his questions so as not to lead witnesses. This no doubt took away from his arguments.
Similar antics have arose in this case, as he asks questions such as "wouldn't you agree that..." or "is what your saying not similar to saying this (insert example here)..." Not that I disrespect his intellect, and outstanding knowledge of the law, however one must see his made-for-court-tv style of examination can sometimes distract triers of fact.
That being said, again, I trust Justice MacCallum is completely capable of finding the real issues in this case. I look forward to the policy changes he reccomends.
At 7:02 PM,
Anonymous said…
Houton "We have an Apology"
The newpapers of August 25 wrote of an Apology that was asked for
Now the newspapers of Sept 13/05
State that there is an apology from a retired police officer.
ALSO James Lockyer questioned Earl Karst and asked him to explain.
Karst said he could not explain
So this shows a lack of logical thinking in the polices handling of the case.
At 9:47 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Dear Anon:
Thanks so much for your reply. It sounds as though you know James much better than I do. I've only met him twice socially at various meetings, so I don't know anything about his courtroom presentations.
I'm also hopeful that good recommendations will come out of this Inquiry. However, I am wary of the probability of those recommendations actually being implemented. Ever since the Marshall and the Morin commissions, the government has known about the importance of establishing an independent judicial panel. Why must we continually reinvent the wheel? Why were so many suggestions from the Marshall Inquiry tossed in the wastebasket? There is a fundamental resistance to changing policy.
Maybe you can give yourself a nickname so that I can distinguish you from the other posters. That way I can reply to people by name.
Sigrid :-)
At 9:51 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Re: "we have an apology." Really? Where did that article appear? Can you provide a link for us to read it online? I'd love to see that in print.
If Karst said that he couldn't explain, that's not necessarily illogical. It's so hard to determine what he really can't remember versus what he pretends not to remember in order to protect himself.
Give yourself a nickname so that I can refer to you when I'm responding to what you said. Thanks! Sigrid
At 4:18 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hi Sigrid
RE: Houston "We Have an Apology
I see you found the story since
you did write of it on Sept 14/05
here on the mainpage.
And to add to what you commented on
regarding logical investigating.
If Fisher had admitted to something as serious as rape in Saskatoon, Than logically these needed to be investigated.
Truly
Dan Wood
Post a Comment
<< Home