SiouxPride0303 Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I can only imagine No doubt about that!!!!!! No, I appreciate your insight into this. I don't know what you do but you sound pretty knowledgable about the law on this. BTW, I believe that both ND and MN changed their stance and laws on sex offenders after Dru Sjodin. Can't remember, but I think they made the laws tougher and will watch them more closely after they get out. Thankyou very much for that link HockeyMom! As many others have said in here, no one will forget Dru I am a Masters student in Forensic Psychology (not CSI!!) one year from getting my degree, and I am interested in the sex offender population. Prior to my Masters education track, I worked with one or two juvenile sex offenders in my previous employments. I dont believe ND or MN changed their civil committment laws but they did change the means in which they track offenders, such as registration, tougher probation requirements, and gps monitoring. As hard as it is to believe, and sometimes I dont always have my head wrapped around this... they are relatively normal people. They have jobs and lives, with families and the same types of triumphs and crises that we do. The *huge* problem they have is their sexual deviances. They are not normal by societal standards at all...but they are in some ways a lot like anybody you would meet on the street. Rodriguez is a whole different animal though. And thanks again for the link H-Mom. And I agree with you about GF/UND safety changes. I was a senior when this all happened. it changed my prospective completely. In some ways, it drove me even further into my current field to study the whys and hows and ways my profession can understand them and better protect the public.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux Hockey Fanatic Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Unfortunately this law was changed just recently, after this particular incident happened. Even with all level 3 sex offenders now being referred for civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person only a small (I was told the number recently for Ramsey County, MN but I can't remember the number) pecentage actually are taken to trail and committed under this statute. In repsonse to the other comments about the lawyers having background in mental health law--Usually if someone defense or procecutor but should be defense thinks that the person is mentally ill and can't proceed with their own defense it is referred for a Rule 20 evaluation and civil commitment court which are tow completely different things, people if found not competent then are ordered to be treated in a locked facility to competence, then can return for procecution on the criminal charges, then they can try to claim mental illness as a defense this also goes back to the Rule 20 and can also trigger a civil commitment, this is a very high standard, and the person has to be so ill that that can't tell right from wrong. Doubtful in this case. But I really don't know much about the specifics of this case. Most of the time (at least in MN) there is a panel of attorneys that deal with civil commitments and criminal attorneys don't really deal with that particular part of the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildSioux Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 In response to those wondering the background of the attorney's in this case. Here is a link with some information on the judge, both the prosecuter Drew Wrigley, and the defense Hoy and Ney attorneys. It doesn't really go into detail where they went to school and their experiences. Dru Sjodin Trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightonsioux Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/15271778.htm The details of how Dru died have been made public. I am so angry right now I don't even have the words to describe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katohtr Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 This is absolutely horrible...as FOS said, there are no words to even describe how angry and disgusted I am. I now feel even worse for her family (if that was even possible to begin with). I pray to God that justice prevails.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Papers filed by the defense maintain the jury should not be allowed to ponder whether Sjodin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDFAN Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I think this logic by the defense has made me madder than anything else I have heard so far. I agree, but I think it's a sign that the defense is grasping at straws. The evidence against Rodrigeuz seems quite damning and the defense isn't even denying that he killed Sjodin. If I were sitting on the jury, the question I'd have is: If she was unconscious minutes after being abducted, why did he stab and beat her? Besides that, it would be significantly different from his past MO when he used violence as a terror tactic to subdue his victims. I also think that even if there's no evidence to prove it, most jurors will believe that the last call from Dru's cell phone was her final plea for help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDFAN Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I also think that even if there's no evidence to prove it, most jurors will believe that the last call from Dru's cell phone was her final plea for help. I don't own a cell phone, but I know that they do not dial by themselves. I'm sure they have the actual phone in evidence. If it was knocked hard enough, would it activate a speed dial to the b/f? I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I don't own a cell phone, but I know that they do not dial by themselves. I'm sure they have the actual phone in evidence. If it was knocked hard enough, would it activate a speed dial to the b/f? I doubt it. The cell phone was found right next to her body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I think the even bigger issue besides Mr Rodriguez's obvious guilt in this case is why the he** was he out of prison in the first place. We need to stop with the idea that we can 'reform' everyone and realize that there are some criminals who need to rot in prison with no possibility of ever stepping foot outside of a cell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I agree with you, PCM......why is the defense not claiming that he is innocent, rather saying that she was unconscious after three minutes and that she was already gone when he started to transport her. I think the defense knows what they are doing, and will try to set the court up with something that they can appeal the decision on. I saw Ralph Erickson many times in action in disctrict court, and he definalty knows what he is doing. Let's just hope and pray that all goes well and there is no mis-trial......it must be hard for her family to watch, I can't imagine what it would be like to have to sit through all of this again. MafiaMan- I agree with you too, people shouldn't be let out and given another chance at life. If one thing comes out of all of this- it's the hope that there is at least one less victim out there because the laws have been changed and made stricter......the really sh**** thing is that it happened and it happened here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartTime Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Maybe the Dr's/individuals who deem these criminals fit to go back into society should be more accountable when the person repeats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The defense's game plan seems to be to keep Rodriquez out of Terre Haute (the federal prison where the govt does executions), rather than appellate review, even though their often shrill arguments over venue, jury selection, etc. are meant to establish a record for review. Their emphasis on jurisdiction in opening statements, Dru's consciousness, etc. seems to be aimed at planting some seeds in at least one juror's mind as to whether a death sentence is appropriate. I think the $64,000 question is whether Rodriquez takes the stand. I'm betting he doesn't at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 C'mon. We all know he's really innocent. Let's just release him, let him go, about 1245 hours on 16 Sep 2006 in the parking lot south of Alerus Center near the tent that'll be erected there. However, I do think he should be really careful if we do release him right then, right there: He, above all, knows bad things can happen to people in parking lots. Sing it Toby and Willie ... "Grandpappy told my pappy ... " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Actually, I think that (if he is found guilty- and remember he is innocent until proven guilty) he should just be let out into the general population of a maximum security prison among those prisoners waiting to die- and refresh their memory of what he did. He wouldn't last any longer than Jeffery Dahmer in a room full of mop handles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Walrus Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I saw Ralph Erickson many times in action in disctrict court, and he definalty knows what he is doing. Let's just hope and pray that all goes well and there is no mis-trial......it must be hard for her family to watch, I can't imagine what it would be like to have to sit through all of this again. I'm going down on Monday to Support Alan Sjodin and Linda Walker, It will be one of the Toughest things I have ever done in my Life. I will be very hard to sit and watch these proceeding, I'm sorry but in my mind he is 100% Guilty. Alan and Linda have become good friends and need our support as much as we can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Alan and Linda have become good friends and need our support as much as we can. Bless you and bless them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxPride0303 Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Maybe the Dr's/individuals who deem these criminals fit to go back into society should be more accountable when the person repeats. This statement is so ludicrous, I cant even begin an argument against it right now....good grief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PartTime Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 This statement is so ludicrous, I cant even begin an argument against it right now....good grief. Then Don't! Heaven forbid anybody should be held accountable! Criminals break the law and they are held accountable, but when individuals (Dr's, parole board's etc ) turn them loose back into society and the criminal repeats, there is no accountability on anybody's part. A Dr. sits down and psychoanalyzes a criminal or patient and then deems that that person is fit to go back into society and that person repeats /commits a crime, what does the Dr. do?? shrug his/her shoulders and say "oops!"? Nothing will change, when a person commits a crime or repeats, they are the only one that will be accountable. When that individual gets released and if they happen to repeat, we the public will sit back and say.........."Why was he/she even released"? Like we always do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7>5 Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Then Don't! Heaven forbid anybody should be held accountable! Criminals break the law and they are held accountable, but when individuals (Dr's, parole board's etc ) turn them loose back into society and the criminal repeats, there is no accountability on anybody's part. A Dr. sits down and psychoanalyzes a criminal or patient and then deems that that person is fit to go back into society and that person repeats /commits a crime, what does the Dr. do?? shrug his/her shoulders and say "oops!"? Nothing will change, when a person commits a crime or repeats, they are the only one that will be accountable. When that individual gets released and if they happen to repeat, we the public will sit back and say.........."Why was he/she even released"? Like we always do. Ok here is my take on what the defense is trying to do: They are trying to say she was still alive when she entered MN. Fine if Dru can still be alive in ND then fine if she is still dead in Mn or ND then he should fry. I am not trying to be insensative but I hate these people like Alfonso. More then that I hate their attorney's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Ok here is my take on what the defense is trying to do: They are trying to say she was still alive when she entered MN. Fine if Dru can still be alive in ND then fine if she is still dead in Mn or ND then he should fry. I am not trying to be insensative but I hate these people like Alfonso. More then that I hate their attorney's. He can be charged federally if she was alive when he began transportation. They're trying to cast doubt on whether she was alive when he started driving, and they are saying that the United States can't prove if she was alive or dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 They're trying to cast doubt on whether she was alive when he started driving, and they are saying that the United States can't prove if she was alive or dead. I have an idea on how to prove it scientifically: Let's inflict the same injuries on a 'volunteer test subject' and then time how long they survive. I even have a "volunteer test subject" in mind .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyMom Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I have an idea on how to prove it scientifically: Let's inflict the same injuries on a 'volunteer test subject' and then time how long they survive. I even have a "volunteer test subject" in mind .... I think he's too short and fat to be an objective subject, but I think he'll do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux7>5 Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 He can be charged federally if she was alive when he began transportation. They're trying to cast doubt on whether she was alive when he started driving, and they are saying that the United States can't prove if she was alive or dead. OK Thanks for that info I do appreciate it. I still think that he should fry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.