Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:07 pm Post subject: Should David Milgaard be forced to testify at the inquiry
Milgaard said " no plans to testify at his wrongful-conviction inquiry" Do you think that this is right? That he doesn't have to testify at teh inquiry that he insisted happen since he was put in jail for a crime that he didn't commit for over 30 years?
Explain your vote in the thread, and read this story to get a little background
Joined: Feb 17, 2005 Posts: 290 Location: drunk in a ditch
Status: Offline
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:34 am Post subject:
David Milgaard should not have to testify. He was convicted of a crime he did not committ and DNA evidence proved he was not the killer. I know they might have questions to ask him about cops and lawyers however this man has lived enough in the media and had his life ruined. When does he get a chance to move on and let go. He should not testify and id like to see a judge jail him. The public would cry foul in an instant.
I agree 100% I also think that there is nothing that he would have to add that he hasn't said under oath at other times.
The proof and information needed is public record and should be looked at. David Milgaard doesn't have anything to add that he has stated himself or through a lawyer in the past. There was obivously something that went wrong when he was sent to jail and they have to find it, but they DO NOT need him to testify to do it.
If I was in his situation I may want to testify just to get to tell off a few people under oath, but I have never been in a situation anything like his so I can't even say that for sure.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
