A Celebrity Killer Is Freed (Wilbert Rideau)

Modesto Bee ^ | 1/22/05 | Michael Fumento

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

Hallelujah! After 44 years one of America's most famous convicts, a black man named Wilbert Rideau convicted of murdering a white woman in Louisiana during the Jim Crow era, is free. Headlines worldwide proclaim justice has been done. But they couldn't be more wrong. Justice is weeping. For Rideau remains what he was when I knew him 17 years ago - a cold blooded murderer.

Three different juries convicted Rideau, now 62, of murder. But all were overturned on technicalities, providing Rideau an incredible fourth chance. This time he was convicted only of manslaughter, downgrading his sentence to a maximum of 21 years and thereby freeing him. But here are the uncontested facts of the case.

In 1961 Rideau robbed a St. Charles, Louisiana bank using a gun he'd purchased the day before along with a buck knife. He ordered three employees into his car and drove them to a bayou. There he emptied his gun into them a point blank range, hitting two in the neck and a third in the arm. One escaped into the water; one feigned death. The third, Julia Ferguson, made the mistake (according to others) of begging for her life. Rideau drew his knife and plunged it into her heart, killing her.

[trumandogz]

I believe it was overturned due to no blacks being on the grand jury,but back in the sixties in Louisiana very few blacks would have been eligible for any kind of jury duty since they did not register to vote or would have been on any list for jury duty.

Are you kidding? Blacks were not Allowed to Register to Vote in Louisiana in the early 1960's and once they were permitted to register to vote they were given Literacy Tests.

Funny thing about the Literacy tests in Louisiana was that they gave two different tests. One for Whites and one for Blacks. Guess which test was much easier to pass...

[deport]

This has been a lightening rod case that two governors and three previous juries elected to keep him incarcerated. He was convicted of murder three times and sentenced to die but that was overturned when the SCOTUS ruled it out in 1973. During his time in prison, 700 convicted murderers were freed, mostly during the '70s and '80s when probation after 10 years served became almost routine for convicted killers. [ http://www.livingstonparishnews.com/articles/2005/01/23/full_edition/editorials_and_opinions/04maginnis.txt ]

Now look for the big movie, book, talk show deals to emerge.

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

trumandogz has been a FReeper since December 19, 2004.

~ Blue Jays ~

[trumandogz]

Well, thanks for the welcome.

How long would I have to be a member before I could point out that the reason this person was released from prison was that he did not have a fair trial back in the 1960's?

[cyborg]

You have got to be kidding with that post.

[APFel]

So let me see if I can follow your logic.

Since Louisiana was unfair to blacks in the Jim Crow era, the murder should be let free. Letting a murderer out of prison because he was convicted during the Jim Crow era is just, because the state that convicted him was unjust. Minorities not being able to sit on a jury is a worse crime than murder (the actual taking of a persons life), so the murder should be absolved.

Now we should just sit around and hope that he behaves. Because we have to do some sort of cosmic penance, I imagine (help me out here??)

Okay.

Usually logic follows some sort of reasonable sequence and the two things you are trying to relate actually have something in common. Let's try a few exercises on how not to construct a syllogism.

1) My father has a red dog that is kind.
2) I see a red dog on the street.
3) Therefore that dog must belong to my father OR
4) Therefore that dog is kind.

Next one.

1) The murder was black.
2) Black people suffered under Jim Crow laws.
3) Therefore, the murderer should go free.

Hope that helps.

APf

[trumandogz]

It pains me to see this man released. He is scum from the bottom of a Calcasieu Parish rice patty. He is a disgrace to the human race...

But, the people of Louisiana (which I once was and my family still is) will have to pay the price of their crime by recognizing that they did not provide for fair trials for all its citizens.

[cyborg]

I don't think it's a miscarriage of justice because he did spend forty years in prison. How many murderers spend that much time in prison today?

[trumandogz]

The US Constitution states that people charged with a crime shall be granted a fair trial.

The 5th ruled that he was denied a fair trial.

Therefore his conviction was overturned.

[cyborg]

He admitted to the murders. What don't you understand about that?

[exnavychick]

I don't think it's a miscarriage of justice because he did spend forty years in prison. How many murderers spend that much time in prison today?

You have a point there, sad to say.

[rabidralph]

Dang! I thought this was an article about a guy who kills celebrities :-)

[snarks_when_bored]

Rideau used the Jake Blues defense:

"No, I didn't [rob that bank, kidnap three defenseless women, try to kill all three of them, and actually kill one of them by stabbing her in the heart while she begged for mercy]. Honest...I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD."

And the jury bought it.

[Blue Jays]

Hi trumandogz-

Welcome to Free Republic.

Wilbert Redeau robbed a bank, took three people hostage, subsequently shot all captives in a attempt to kill them...and stabbed one middle-aged woman to death with a hunting knife.

So, what was wrong with the three "unfair" juries that tossed him in the clink for life, again? Decent people of any race would see that this animal served notice on society that he is not fit to live amongst us.

~ Blue Jays ~

[Logophile]

How long would I have to be a member before I could point out that the reason this person was released from prison was that he did not have a fair trial back in the 1960's?

You seem to be saying that a fair trial is not possible unless the racial makeup of the jury is "right" (whatever that means). Presumably, a black juror would have had more sympathy for this criminal than a white one, despite the clear evidence of his guilt.

Do you believe that?

[Dan Evans]

How long would I have to be a member before I could point out that the reason this person was released from prison was that he did not have a fair trial back in the 1960's?

Why do you think he didn't get a fair trial? Don't you think white jurors capable of being fair?