Reverting to my original position
Well, I'm female. I'm allowed to change my mind. Seriously, I've spoken to a number of other people who are concerned with justice in Canada over the last few days, and they have succeeded in convincing me that David would be traumatized if he had to testify; he wouldn't have anything to add, and if this were a trial and he were a defendant, he would not have to take the stand.
What I was thinking earlier was that if this were a trial, David would be the victim. He would have requested the legal proceeding and he would have had to testify. That was the error in my logic because this isn't a trial; it's a commission that is looking into the reasons why David was originally convicted.
David has been perfectly clear about the fact that he feels emotionally unable to withstand cross-examination. Earlier I said that I thought he should testify because he and the family requested the inquiry. That's true -- they did demand an investigation into what went wrong in the criminal justice system, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he should have to be there if he feels mentally and psychologically unequipped to cope with it. Moreover, there is a possibility that he would be cross-examined unkindly, which would be unthinkable considering what he's gone through.
I was lying in bed last night worrying about the whole thing and I thought, what would I dread doing more than anything else in life? My answer was going through a glucose tolerance test because I had one once before and my blood sugar fell so low --28 mg -- that I nearly passed out or had a seizure. Then I spent a week in bed afterwards with violent migraines. No matter what's at stake, I will never go through another procedure like that.
If testifying at the inquiry is Milgaard's glucose tolerance test, he needs to pass. Surely, a doctor's letter will suffice or he can be permitted to testify by satellite.
My first reaction was that he should NOT have to testify. Sometimes a knee-jerk response like that is the most authentic reply and what I've been doing since is intellectualizing. I hope that MacCallum will accommodate the Milgaards and their lawyers -- after all, it is their inquiry!
Sigrid Mac
What I was thinking earlier was that if this were a trial, David would be the victim. He would have requested the legal proceeding and he would have had to testify. That was the error in my logic because this isn't a trial; it's a commission that is looking into the reasons why David was originally convicted.
David has been perfectly clear about the fact that he feels emotionally unable to withstand cross-examination. Earlier I said that I thought he should testify because he and the family requested the inquiry. That's true -- they did demand an investigation into what went wrong in the criminal justice system, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he should have to be there if he feels mentally and psychologically unequipped to cope with it. Moreover, there is a possibility that he would be cross-examined unkindly, which would be unthinkable considering what he's gone through.
I was lying in bed last night worrying about the whole thing and I thought, what would I dread doing more than anything else in life? My answer was going through a glucose tolerance test because I had one once before and my blood sugar fell so low --28 mg -- that I nearly passed out or had a seizure. Then I spent a week in bed afterwards with violent migraines. No matter what's at stake, I will never go through another procedure like that.
If testifying at the inquiry is Milgaard's glucose tolerance test, he needs to pass. Surely, a doctor's letter will suffice or he can be permitted to testify by satellite.
My first reaction was that he should NOT have to testify. Sometimes a knee-jerk response like that is the most authentic reply and what I've been doing since is intellectualizing. I hope that MacCallum will accommodate the Milgaards and their lawyers -- after all, it is their inquiry!
Sigrid Mac
posted by Sigrid Macdonald @ 11:08 PM
12 Comments:
At 10:11 PM,
Anonymous said…
I admire your change of heart. However the real issue here is why didn't the inquiry know this before?
Real notice should have been given, in written form. Attempting to bad mouth the Commissioner for his attempt to have a complete inquiry was uncalled for, and something which Walsh shouldn't have let go on.
Walsh had better clean up the mess he has created.
At 8:58 AM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Thanks very much for your kind reply. I feel like an idiot for changing my mind back and forth.
Yeah, I agree with you. Apparently, Hersch did make it clear from the get go that David may not be able to testify -- and David has always said that he wasn't able to do it. But that is entirely different from a legally binding written document, accompanied by a doctor's letter.
The whole thing is a big mess right now. A lot will depend on what MacCallum suggests. Dave may be able to do it by video or satellite. We'll see what transpires today.
I appreciate you not criticizing me for my indecisiveness. Thank you.
At 5:01 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hi Sigrid
Glad to see this is getting straightend out. Its a good discussion.
But its getting away from the main event.
Your comment about a defendant
in a similar situation... is
interesting and it would be good if any law students reading this could comment.
Have a good day
Dan Wood
At 5:35 PM,
Anonymous said…
Are we not being a little hard on Mr Wolch. It is clear from reading the transcript that Mr Wolch and Commission Council, Mr Hodson, have had many discussions about Mr Milgaard attending the inquiry.
Mr Hodson needs to arrange Mr Milgaard’s attendance at the inquiry with Mr Wolch as Mr Milgaard has standing. One could conclude from reading the transcript that Mr Milgaard is out of the country and is deliberately avoiding the inquiry because he does not want to attend. This is not true and Mr Hodson knows this.
Discussions between Mr Wolch and Mr Hodson have been on going. Mr Hodson had two meeting with Mr Milgaard that were very positive. Commissioner MacCallum has not said anything about any of the positive statements from Mr Milgaard. I think Commissioner MacCallum needs to shut his angry trap and let Mr Hodson do his job.
As for a written medical document this will victimise Mr Milgaard. He has a right to his privacy. He has paid dearly for it. Had Mr Hobson and Mr Wolch been able to continue their discussions with Mr Milgaard a time may have been established for Mr Wolch where he could have obtained medical advice that would have helped Mr Hobson with any special requirements needed so that Mr Milgaard could attend.
I can see that Mr Milgaards first concern will be the effect the inquiry may have on his health but the foolish actions of Commissioner MacCallum may be the reason he will not be able to attend. I do not see there being anyway now for Mr Milgaard to attend without causing irreversible damage to his health. This inquiry need to end.
We have all had times Sigrid when we wished we would have changed our minds, good for you. I am not going to change my mind, Commissioner MacCallum needs to go back to Alberta
At 6:24 PM,
Admin said…
Hi Sigrid,
This must be very difficult for you personally because you do know the family. As a friend of the family I would support the family! I am surprised about the judge 'so subpoena for David. I would think David's family must be very hurt, given the entire ordeal. As a Canadian, personally I would like to hear what input he has to offer the inquiry. But to testify to have the public understand the entire process of which he had to go through will not happen, the public does not care! What had to be done to see his named cleared? I can only image that if he does testify the police, judicial system will be all over him. The media will want to cover his input. I feel if David Milgaard could provide information in private since everything has been so public, with his family supporting his choice, then it would not become the media event that I am sure it could turn out to be. Everything that happened to him in prison would be part of his testimony, I can not see how it would not be. David's ordeal started in his teens. I do not think he would wish this on anyone. I think David like many who have been wrongfully convicted at such a young age would relive the nightmare. Personally not having the privileged to met him are his family. I know some crime victims are not fond of the wrongfully convicted. I am not saying that is my opinion.
If always seems if money is awarded as it should be in David's case many who do not receive money, relating to a crime do not understand the process involving the wrongfully convicted.
Crime victims have to beg, borrow to get funeral costs covered. Loved ones can not understand that part of the judicial system.
I can only image that David was isolated during his incarnation time, he may not really have much to offer the hearing. I would be afraid that the hearing would also interpret what his says the wrong way. With all this to consider and David's age at the time of the wrongful conviction, he should maybe be left alone. Are as I stated do it privately. Had it not been for his mother, and others like yourself, he may not have had a chance to prove his case.
I also have read from newspapers the police do not want to even say sorry to his mother for what took place.
I would think at this time, he is sick of the corruption and lies.
This is a choice David should make without feeling obligated too do it for the wrong reasons.
If any questions email back.
I am trying to put my thoughts into words so you understand my perspective.
I personally feel it must be very difficult for all involved including friends.
If he is going to relive it again the mental abuse is not worth it.
I do not believe inquiries have much power, are luck with judicial change in our society today.
David deserve to know what did go wrong? I hope this is helpful but I would be concerned about the family and final outcome!
Take care chat soon Holly
At 8:16 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Dan,
How are we getting away from the main event? By me talking about my hypoglycemia? LOL. That was a digression for sure but I was trying to make a point.
I think right now the main event IS whether or not David will testify and if he should have to testify. Is the judge being callous or is he following standard protocol?
At 8:22 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Holly,
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I found your thoughts very interesting.
At first, I thought that David should testify unless it would cause him undue stress because IMO he would have much to add to the investigation. He could've talked about how he was interrogated, but of course, reliving all of that would've traumatized him. And he should never have to suffer another minute, especially, as you say, if he's going to be cross-examined by lawyers who are not particularly friendly. So, I changed my official position after talking to people like you and to Joyce.
I understand what you're saying about crime victims. It really isn't fair that the wrongly convicted should be receiving so much publicity or money when crime victims are still treated so badly and are not remunerated in any way comparable to $10 million! I sure didn't get anything like that in my lawsuit and I've been on disability and unable to work since 1981 after the drunk driver hit me when I was trying to finish my MSW.
Also, I don't have much faith in commissions and inquiries either. Marshall & Morin had inquiries and no significant changes were made afterwards to change fundamental systematic flaws. But I'm hoping that this one will be different and not some sort of whitewashing operation. Time will tell and the next few days will be crucial to see if the Justice orders David to testify
Many thanks for your powerful observations.
At 8:30 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Hello James,
Thanks so much for posting your observations about MacCallum and for sticking up for Hersh Wolch.
If you're reading the transcripts, you're light-years ahead of me in terms of information!
Actually, David is back in Canada now because he just held that notorious press conference in Saskatoon last week. And he definitely did not go abroad to avoid the hearing -- he's been out of the country for years, although I believe that he maintains a residence here.
I don't see how needing a doctor's note would violate his privacy. Both Morin and Marshall attended their own inquiries. It seems like a fairly normal thing to do -- request an inquiry and show up for it!
Re Hersh, I'm certainly not criticizing any of the Milgaard lawyers. Why would I do that? All I'm saying is that you'd think that the lawyers would have worked this out with MacCallum months ago so that it didn't become such a hostile issue. Now, as you said, it would be impossible for David to testify... but he was probably never emotionally equipped anyway.
At 6:01 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hi Sigrid
Just to answer your question
REgarding the judge and Asking
David to testify.
it appears the judge will
allow Joyce to answer questions.
Which is a good solution for
everybody.
Truly
Dan Wood
At 12:40 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Dan,
Are you saying that the judge has declared that Joyce can answer questions instead of David? Where did you hear that? I just spoke to Win Waher at AIDWYC yesterday and there hasn't been any resolution about whether or not David will have to testify.
At 8:38 AM,
Anonymous said…
Good,day
This idea came from the Previous
post of Oct,28/05 Titled
Joyce Milgaard , to stand in for son.
At the same time, David has untill Nov.15/05 to reply.
AVerage canadian
Dan Wood
At 3:03 PM,
Sigrid Macdonald said…
Hi Dan,
If you're referring to my post, I think that one was awkwardly worded and confusing. At the time, the article that I read from the Star Phoenix or CBC News or wherever I got the info from, probably said that Joyce had permission to stand in for David. But I don't think that's accurate.
As far as I know, David will have to answer to the judge by this coming Wednesday, unless some accommodations are made for him to testify by satellite.
I always laugh at your signature, "average Canadian."
:-)
Post a Comment
<< Home