Wednesday, May 04, 2005


i must confess that i am ignorant about the rule of law and jurisprudence to an extent. take the matter of dennis rader, also known as btk, the serial killer in wichita, kansas. he stood mute on his plea on tuesday, so the judge was obliged to enter a plea for him. inasmuch as mr. rader has already confessed to these murders, my question is why did the judge enter a not guilty plea for him? shouldn't he have entered a guilty plea and simply continued on with the sentencing, thus saving the taxpayers the expense of a trial with a foregone conclusion? that is a rhetorical question needless to say since no one reads my ranting anyway. however, should anyone actually read this comment and has an answer to the question, feel free to enlighten me. i have more than a passing interest in this case as i was raised in wichita, kansas and was living there when mr rader was terrorizing the city. as a matter of fact, his first victims were personal friends of friends of mine, although i did not know any of his victims personally. my mother still lives in wichita, and i have 2 siblings who live in the suburbs there.

No comments: