Judge Orders Milgaard to Testify
No surprise to those of us who've followed events over the last couple of days -- Justice MacCallum has ordered David Milgaard to testify at the inquiry. If he does not comply, he will not only lose legal standing but also funding for his defense counsel, Hersh Wolch.
Wolch did his best to argue on David's behalf, insisting that he is in therapy and his doctor has advised him against testifying and having to relive events from the past. MacCallum was unmoved. He was particularly annoyed that David called a press conference on Monday, using the physical grounds of the inquiry.
In his first visit back to Saskatoon since his arrest, Dave advocated for compensation for Michel Dumont of Quebec and Ronald Dalton of New Foundland; according to the Katherine Harding of the Globe and Mail, Joanne Marceau, a spokeswoman for the Quebec Justice Department, said "Mr. Dumont isn't eligible for compensation because he hasn't 'established his factual innocence.' Newfoundland Justice Minister Tom Marshall said Mr. Dalton's case was still being reviewed."
"With astonishing hubris, Mr. Milgaard arranged to use this very hearing room, paid for at public expense, to publicly undermine the work of the inquiry, an inquiry he himself demanded, and to threaten the commission with the stigma of popular disapproval should it have the temerity to subpoena him as a witness. To borrow a diplomatic expression, such conduct by a party with standing is unacceptable,"
MacCallum stated.
Dave has until November 18 to make up his mind as to whether or not he wants the inquiry to proceed, which would involve him showing up, or if he wants it to fold. A very messy and unfortunate set of circumstances.
Is MacCallum being unreasonable? Should David have to testify? I've already given my opinion; unless testifying could precipitate some sort of mental collapse, I believe that David should attend the very hearing that he and his family demanded. What are your thoughts?
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/10/26/milgaard-warning051026.html
http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/news/story.html?id=57dcd83c-4eac-4fb7-9f5d-30c32b88181c
Sigrid Mac
Wolch did his best to argue on David's behalf, insisting that he is in therapy and his doctor has advised him against testifying and having to relive events from the past. MacCallum was unmoved. He was particularly annoyed that David called a press conference on Monday, using the physical grounds of the inquiry.
In his first visit back to Saskatoon since his arrest, Dave advocated for compensation for Michel Dumont of Quebec and Ronald Dalton of New Foundland; according to the Katherine Harding of the Globe and Mail, Joanne Marceau, a spokeswoman for the Quebec Justice Department, said "Mr. Dumont isn't eligible for compensation because he hasn't 'established his factual innocence.' Newfoundland Justice Minister Tom Marshall said Mr. Dalton's case was still being reviewed."
"With astonishing hubris, Mr. Milgaard arranged to use this very hearing room, paid for at public expense, to publicly undermine the work of the inquiry, an inquiry he himself demanded, and to threaten the commission with the stigma of popular disapproval should it have the temerity to subpoena him as a witness. To borrow a diplomatic expression, such conduct by a party with standing is unacceptable,"
MacCallum stated.
Dave has until November 18 to make up his mind as to whether or not he wants the inquiry to proceed, which would involve him showing up, or if he wants it to fold. A very messy and unfortunate set of circumstances.
Is MacCallum being unreasonable? Should David have to testify? I've already given my opinion; unless testifying could precipitate some sort of mental collapse, I believe that David should attend the very hearing that he and his family demanded. What are your thoughts?
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/10/26/milgaard-warning051026.html
http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/news/story.html?id=57dcd83c-4eac-4fb7-9f5d-30c32b88181c
Sigrid Mac
posted by Sigrid Macdonald @ 3:03 PM
4 Comments:
At 5:18 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hi
Here is my vote
No not "orderd to testify"
It would be in everybody,s best
interests to warp-up this inquiry by the middle of November 2005 and on a positive note. Which is going to help everybody.
It would be good to read comments from any students who are reading
this blog. Since most internet users will read posts but not write.
Dan Wood
At 6:11 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
I agree that we need to hear from some other readers. I track the number of people who visit this site and I know lots of you are out there! So please, offer your opinion. You can do so anonymously. And you should surely know by all of my previous post that I completely respect your right to disagree with me. I don't don't care if I'm the only one on this whole blog who thinks that David should testify as long as it won't give him a nervous breakdown.
Dan, the inquiry is never going to end by the middle of November! It's probably going on until March of 2006. They've already spent about $8 million and interviewed zillions of people. It would be horrifying if all that time, money and energy was for nothing.
At 9:43 PM,
Anonymous said…
I am of total agreement that David should testify baring some real illness or proof this will be more than just inconvienent.
I totally agree with MacCallum. This was an unclassy act use the media to undermine the very inquiry he set up. I am glad Justice MacCallum is the no-nonsense type of guy he is. Good for him for calling out these actions. We all knew David would be called. Where was Hersh on this one?? He should have advised his client better.
I hope the outcome is not harmed by this, and that David appears as his duty bids.
At 3:43 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Anon - Amen. Glad I'm not the only one who think so because I'm feeling terribly disloyal at the moment. But I never started this blog for the Milgaards. I started it for myself and every word in here is something that I believe -- not something that I'm saying in order to stick with a party line.
Exactly -- where was Hersh? What was he thinking? Seems as though this all could have been planned out at the very beginning. Hersh approaches McCallum and explains that David is too traumatized to testify. They agree that he will testify by satellite or something less threatening.
We'll have to see how this whole drama plays out. It's not looking good at the moment.
Post a Comment
<< Home