February 10, 2025 • 46 mins
David Moust's case illustrates the catastrophic failures of the criminal justice system in addressing the needs of individuals with severe mental health issues and violent tendencies. Through a chronicle of his life, the episode discusses the systemic lack of accountability that ultimately allowed him to return to society after multiple warnings of his dangerousness, leading to further tragedies.
• Early childhood marked by trauma and instability
• Institutionalization without proper mental health treatment
• Signs of violent behavior manifesting in adolescence
• Military service followed by escalating violence
• Minimal sentencing leading to repeated offenses
• The murders that prompted legislative action in Indiana
• Reflection on the necessity for systemic reform
• Discussion on the relationship between mental health and violence
www.deviantcriminology.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
All right, welcome to Deviant Criminology.
So this is our true crime andcriminal justice podcast.
I'm Richard, I'm Heather, andthis week we're going to kind of
delve into a crime that I hadheard about, I thought, for the
first time on another podcastthat just kind of mentioned this
guy.
They didn't go into detail, butthen I did a presentation on it
(01:00):
for my class it as kind of acase study and near the end I
realized, holy shit, I know thiscase when I worked in Indiana.
It was kind of one that helpedset a precedent that we'll
probably talk about near the endinstead of the beginning.
But so today we're going totalk about the case of David
Edward Moust.
He is a serial killer that kindof had a very disturbing life
(01:23):
and I think it's a very goodcase study into things the
system did wrong and we have thepotential to continue to do
wrong if we don't learn fromthese mistakes, where David
Moust was born into a troubledfamily.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
From the outset, moust's life was marked by
instability and trauma.
His parents divorced when hewas just seven years old,
setting the stage for atumultuous childhood that would
shape his future in ways no onecould have predicted.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
So the most significant event of Moust's
early years occurred when he wasonly around nine years old.
So his mother, who others haddescribed her as being disturbed
and psychotic and having somemental health issues of her own,
she made this shocking decisionto have her young son confined
to a mental institution.
So again, this is aroundmid-60s.
(02:18):
So institutions at that time AI have multiple problems with
this.
But they were not kind of whatwe think of now, these nice
holistic social workers around,well-staffed.
These were horriblyunderstaffed, very vile
conditions.
There wasn't a lot of oversightof children and what I have the
other problem with this is thatthis woman could just have her
(02:38):
son locked up with no dueprocess.
I can't even like that is kindof like the foundation of our
system is due process, like justthe thought that you could take
a child and throw them intothis institution.
It seems troublesome to me.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Kind of throw them away.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Yeah, into a system that, and she had three other
kids.
So there was somethingspecifically about him that
really set her off and it's hardto see, like why there's not a
lot of details about this earlypart of his life, but I just
think being able to throw achild into those conditions
without the foster systemgetting involved Again, this was
before we had a lot of thechecks and balances, but Mouse
(03:14):
was being accused of trying toset his younger brother on fire
in his own bed and that he'dalso attempted to drown him.
So these accusations leveledagainst a child so young kind of
raises disturbing questionsabout the family dynamic and,
again, the mother's mental state.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
So another layer of trauma that Mouse had to deal
with in his childhood were thereports that he was molested at
an early age, and thatcombination of the family
instability, the earlyinstitutionalization and the
potential sex abuse created aperfect storm of adverse
childhood experiences for him,which laid the groundwork for
(03:57):
his future violent tendencies.
And I don't know if you'veheard this before, richie, but
I've heard that people who havebeen sexually abused are more
likely to engage in behaviorsconcerning fires and arson and
things of that nature, whichthat made me think of what you
were just talking about, withhim burning his brother's bed.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
And also and again, I'm not an expert in, like the,
the, the sexual cases as much,um, but I definitely know, when
we look back at serial killers,there is a lot of connection
between arson and other smallercrimes leading up to this more
disturbing behavior of murder.
And so there are some thingsthat he does along his life that
(04:38):
set those.
But yeah, I definitely knowthat arson and stuff has been
associated with the serial side,again the sexual side.
I definitely know that arsonand stuff has been associated
with the serial side, again thesexual side.
I don't know, maybe one daywe'll have to get an expert to
kind of talk about that.
That would be good.
So as Mouse entered hisadolescence, his behavior began
to exhibit clear signs ofdisturbances.
He choked two friends withoutany apparent reason,
(04:59):
demonstrating kind of a lack ofimpulse control and propensity
for violence which, if you lookat again, it's easy to go back
and say we see these signs now.
But these are two clear signsof psychopathy.
Is that lack of remorse, thatimpulse control?
And then, perhaps even moredisturbing than that, was that
he attacked a squirrel with abaseball bat and killed it.
(05:20):
So there's another one thatanimal torture and abuse that we
see in serial killers.
So even at this young age,which this is before, profiling
was a thing.
So these behaviors weren'treally documented the way we see
it now.
But these incidences indicateda severe lack of empathy and a
troubled enjoyment of inflictingpain on people.
So kind of classic warningsigns for potential future of
(05:43):
violent behavior and againpossible psychopathy.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
So, to make things even worse, at age 13, while he
was living in a children's home,mouse experienced unwanted
sexual advances from another boy.
This event, occurring in anenvironment that should have
been safe, likely exacerbatedany existing trust issues and
potentially contributed tofeelings of vulnerability and
anger.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
And I think that's kind of a weird way to put that
like and that's just kind of theway it came out when we're
writing this up but in a placethat he should have felt safe.
Because when we look backespecially I always go to like
the Geraldo expose that he didkind of exposing these places.
They weren't safe environmentsand I think you add that to the
reports that he was sexuallymolested as a child.
(06:28):
And now here he is, anothermale is making sexual advances
to him.
I think it's just adding tothose triggers he already had.
So in 1971, mounce decides toenlist in the United States Army
.
This could have been seen aslike a potential turning point,
like it could have offered himstructure and discipline and a
chance to reboot his life in aplace where he had discipline
(06:52):
and structure with goodleadership and mentorship.
However, for individuals withpreexisting mental health
conditions, the stress anddemands of military life can
sometimes exacerbate thoseproblems and I've seen that in
my work with veterans and beinga veteran myself, like there are
some people that come fromtroubled homes into that
environment and they thrive,like it's a chance for them to
really develop, and then othersespecially that do have those
(07:16):
past, traumas and stuff canbecome more susceptible to
mental health.
Issues like PTSD and otherdisorders that the military
structure just exacerbates arealready conditions and sometimes
they don't either thrive oreven make it uh through their
original enlistment so like, andsometimes um get better, but
(07:36):
for mouse that didn't.
So after bootcamp he was sent toFrankfurt, germany, um, and
again this time we're stillseeing this as East and West
Germany, so kind of setting thestage there that it's not what
we think of as Germany.
Now this is that post-World WarII environment, so far from any
support system that he may havehad, which, again going back
looking at his childhood, hedidn't really have one in the
(07:57):
first place.
Um, so this just probably onlyincreased his feelings of
isolation, because some of thestuff I did see was like he did
go back to his mother at somepoint and then went back to the
institution like almost that oh,look, here's a normal life you
could have.
Oh, no, you're going right back.
So his mother was troubled andthis kind of became a cycle for
especially his early teen years.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
From what I've read and was able to find, so during
this military service he commitshis first known murder.
In 1974, while he's stationed inFrankfurt, he kills a
13-year-old, james McClister.
This crime marked the beginningof his pattern that would
continue through Mouse'scriminal career, the targeting
(08:39):
of young male victims.
And when I was looking intothis case a little bit more, I
saw that one source had saidthat he had beaten the victim
with a board, but Mouse hadclaimed that it was an accident
and it had something to do witha moped that was stolen.
So I'm not sure how you couldline that up where it was an
accident.
I don't know if he was tryingto say that he fell off of the
(09:01):
back of the moped or if thereyou know if there was a
collision or exactly how that.
It just mentioned that heclaimed it was an accident and I
guess, because he was saying itwas an accident, he only got
four years, which to me seemsextraordinarily short for
sentencing, especially likemilitary wise.
I mean he ends up gettingreleased in 1977 and he asks not
(09:24):
to be released.
But as far as the military sideof it and court court
marshalling, I don't knowanything about that.
Do you know anything about?
Speaker 2 (09:30):
So some of the things that I've discussed when I was
looking at this case is one theyprobably would have gotten him
out of Germany as quick aspossible because it's just that
international incident and youdon't want one of your own tried
in a foreign country and thenbringing him back here.
They would have probably again,the evidence is in Germany,
they're not going to go andcollect Germany, they're
probably at this time not goingto be cooperative with the
(09:53):
German police.
And I'm not saying that's whathappened here, but we've seen
that a lot in military casesbefore, even in modern now,
where there's cases that happenoverseas and they quickly rush
the person out.
Now, where there's cases thathappen overseas and they quickly
rush the person out because youdon't want that international
incident to disrupt relations.
And then you get thecommunities like get them, you
know, get the military out.
We don't the americans here, butthe four years seems low.
(10:16):
But again it would have been.
They didn't have a lot ofevidence to dispute him and at
the same time punishing aservice member.
They don't know their cases.
We were definitely more pro-ourmilitary people at the time, so
it doesn't surprise me he gotso little when it was hard to
prove one way or another, theywere going to side with the
American over the German at thetime.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
I wondered if maybe they believed his whole.
It was an accident thing.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
And it's very possible.
I couldn't find a lot aboutthis case case, just that it was
one associated with him, uh,and that's kind of something,
especially just the time period.
It doesn't really surprise me.
It's hard to find facts aboutthat because the us military
wasn't going to put a lot outand the germans would have to go
back in records and stuff,because it's not something
that's probably going to show upnow.
But yeah, there's a lot to thatcase in the small amount of
(11:07):
time that even as an accident,that seems very low.
But then at the end of it he'ssaying this like don't let me
out, I'm a danger, and here wego, we're going to release you.
It was just one time you saidit was an accident which is
crazy again.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
So following that military service you said, after
he's asked not to be let out,but he's let out anyway, his
violent behavior escalatesdramatically and in 1979, he
stabs his friend in Chicago.
His friend is asleep, which youknow.
Again, it demonstrates thatwillingness to attack even the
(11:43):
people who are close to him,even this friend who's asleep
and obviously in a vulnerableposition.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
And he chose the two kids in the institution as well.
For no, there was no.
From what we're told and whatthe documents show, there's no
provocation for.
So he just attacks people forno reason, and this is a
sleeping friend, which we'll seelater.
You don't want to be this guy'sfriend right, right.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Nothing good comes of it.
You don't want to be anywhereclose to him so that incident
probably indicated, you knowagain, a deterioration in his
ability to form and maintainthose relationships.
Later mouse admits that he liedon the stand, said he didn't do
it and ultimately he's foundnot guilty of that crime in
(12:29):
Chicago.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Again, I don't understand this, and I guess
this is more kind of anindictment on the justice system
at the time.
Like he gets four years forthis killing in Germany.
Then he stabs his friend, whichhis friend's like that dude
stabbed me and they're like andhe admits to lying on the stand
and they're like no, you're notguilty, it was an accident.
Maybe again, details are hardbut we don't know if there was
(12:53):
alcohol involved or anythinglike that.
But somehow again he gets awaywith it.
So we kind of fast forward alittle bit to 1981, which saw a
further escalation in his crimes.
So he decides to kill a male,the male that molested him while
he was in the institution.
But he can't find that kid.
(13:13):
He doesn't know where he's at.
This is many years later atthis point.
So instead, when he can't findhim, he decides to drown a
15-year-old named Donald Jonesin an Elgin quarry instead.
And one thing I findinteresting about this is you
know, we're 20 something yearslater into his life, but he's
(13:34):
doing exactly what his motheraccused him of trying to do to
his brother.
So it kind of makes me wonder,like that chicken and that egg
scenario is did he have apropensity to want to drown
somebody, or did being accusedof trying to drown somebody so
much in his life, he decided Iwant to know what that actually
is like.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Which is an interesting question, because
maybe he'd been trying to drownpeople for, you know, 10, 15
years and just finally actuallywas successful.
Or, like you said, maybe he hadnever thought about it until
somebody said, hey, we thinkyou're trying to do this.
And then he was like, hey, yeah, that's an interesting idea.
I wonder what that would belike.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
you're trying to do this, and then he was like, hey,
yeah, that's an interestingidea.
I wonder what that would belike.
And looking back, the germ thekid he killed in germany was
like near a quarry, or in aforested area as well, which
again I don't know for sure.
I didn't see it, but now thatI'm thinking back to it, I could
have had a lake or river thathe tried to get the kid to and
the kid fought back.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Yeah, what I had read was a forested area, so I think
there is a lot or river that hetried to get the kid to and the
kid fought back.
Yeah, what I had read was aforested area.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
So I think there is a lot of things that looking back
from his childhood and thencoming here and that
institutionalization and stuffthat adds to the interest of
this of how he drowns this kidand just how we can look at the
psychology of how he was treatedbefore and how it may have
influenced this behavior.
Because for a serial killer hedoesn't have a pattern Like if
(14:57):
we look, his kills are different.
He stabs one guy, he's chokingtwo friends, Like those people
didn't die, but then hebludgeons one person, he drowns
this one and then next his killMO changes again his kill MO
changes again.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
So later that year he goes on down to Texas and he
stabs a 14-year-old boy.
So these crimes not only show apattern of targeting young male
victims but also highlight howhis mobility is aiding him in
evading detection, Because ifanybody's looking for him in
Chicago, they're not looking forhim in Texas.
Nobody's got an eye out for him.
So each time he moves itpotentially allows him to escape
(15:39):
any type of suspicion and startover again in a new location,
which makes it more challengingfor law enforcement to try to
connect those crimes andidentify any type of a pattern.
But it's like you were saying,it's not like there was a
certain identifiable pattern tobegin with.
So when he's down there inTexas he gets sentenced to five
years for causing bodily injuryto a child, and while he's in
(16:03):
custody there they figure outhe's connected to that stuff
that happened in Illinois.
So he's going to be extraditedback to Illinois in 1982.
And so it makes it morechallenging for them to find a
pattern.
But just like we were talkingabout, there wasn't really a
specific pattern to even belooking for, so go ahead, and
(16:25):
not just that, you're alsotalking about a time period
where jurisdictions didn't talk.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
I mean, you know, even in 2025, we have problems
with like law enforcement kindof communicating.
Even one jurisdiction over thisis thousands of miles apart
from each other, and even thenthey were able to make some type
of connection, which ishonestly to me very impressive
that in the 80s they were ableto make this connection bring
him down with no pattern.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Right, because it's not like you can say we're
looking for somebody who stabspeople, because they're not all
the same, they're two completelydifferent things.
So in this Texas case he endsup getting sentenced to five
years for causing bodily injuryto a child.
But while he's in custody theyalso figure out that he is tied
(17:12):
to that Illinois case.
So he ends up gettingextradited in 1982.
And when he goes back toIllinois they rule that he's
unfit to stand trial.
They commit him to a mentalhealth facility and it takes
about 10 years before he comesback around and enters his
guilty plea.
And so in 1994, he pleadsguilty, he is sentenced to 35
(17:35):
years.
He gets credit for the time heserved in his mental health
facilities plus any jail time hehad done, which turns out to be
12 years, and he ends upgetting released in 1999.
And I tried to go back andfigure out like how they
calculated that and, if I'mbeing honest, most of the
articles that I clicked onwanted me to pay money and I was
(17:56):
too cheap to want to pay toread all those articles.
But from what I can figure out,he did the 12 years credit for
time served for what he hadalready done and then he got
about five years that he wouldhave served.
So the 1982 to 1994 would havebeen 12.
Then 1994, he gets sentencedand he's released in 99.
So that's another five years.
(18:17):
So that gets you to a total of17.
And it did say he had good time.
If his good time was day forday credit, 17 times two is 34.
He had a 35 year sentence.
So I think that's what happened.
I think they gave him day forday credit for time served,
which most states won't let youdo anymore.
Most states.
For a crime of violence youhave to do 75 percent of the
(18:38):
time you cannot do day for daycredit.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
And that was one of the things that stuck out to me
was this like a just a five yearsentence?
When he killed him, he stabbedthe boy in Texas.
I guess he didn't die.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
I don't think it was just it's just an aggravated
assault.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
So, but even five years of stabbing a 14 year old,
when you're a grown ass man,seems to me like I don't know.
Maybe that's a clue that thisguy's on a path and we have this
prior criminal history.
But then when you end uplooking at this, you're
sentenced to 35 years and you'reserved 12.
Plus five, just plus five.
So he's brought into custody in1982 and in 17 years he's back
(19:21):
on the streets.
But again in this case, when hegets ready to be released, he
says don't let me out.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
And there's a whole lot going on too during that 12
year period.
So, like you know, I mentionedhe was not fit to stand trial.
Well, as we're going throughthere, there's all kinds of
different things that are goingon behind the scenes, like
there's fifth amendment, sixthamendment, institutionalizedized
(19:52):
questions, all of that.
So we'll go go through thelegal stuff first.
Okay, when he is in custody intexas he is in custody in texas
stabbing the boy he asks forcounsel.
Then he also makes statementsabout the case that happened in
illinois.
Then he waives extradition andwhen he waives extradition, and
when he waives extradition, oneof the forms he signs says that
(20:15):
he's requesting counsel beappointed to represent him.
Then he's transferred back toIllinois and while he's being
transferred back to Illinois hemakes additional incriminating
statements and the defense fileda motion to suppress all of
that after defense counsel wasappointed at the indictment in
(20:35):
illinois, at the arraignmentexcuse me, in illinois so I
think, going back, maybe I gavetoo much credit to law
enforcement here.
This dumb ass just gave himselfup, so okay so I don't caught
that yeah, I don't know if hemade the statements first and
then they were like, oh, did youdo something?
Or if they were like, hey, wehear you guys are you're getting
(20:56):
in trouble in Chicago, and hewas like verbal vomit.
This is what I did in Chicago.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
See, and this is why you have to go back and listen
to our Miranda warnings, when wesay don't say shit.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
And that's what I was just going to say, and
especially when, but?
And that's what.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
I was just going to say, and especially when.
But I mean I can see where thecourt's coming from.
Just the mental health side,like how do you take, how do you
know what's true, what's false,what he's exaggerating, what
he's not?
And then his mental healthstate into that.
So I think it's interestingthat he served what was it?
(21:29):
Almost 12 years in a mentalhealth institution.
He serves the five years extraand he's saying don't let me out
, this isn't a guy thatcommitted a murder, that was
simple.
You have that criminal history.
He's telling you I've done 12years in a mental institution
because I'm disturbed, I will dothis again.
(21:50):
And they're like oh no, man, weknow better than you do about
yourself and your own.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
I don't know, horrific murdering tendencies.
We're going to let you out,which.
I'll come back to that thoughtin a second, because I had that
thought too.
So when they go to trial, whenthey are at the trial level, the
trial court says they're goingto suppress all the statements
that he made under the Fifth andSixth Amendment, both to the
people in Texas and to thepeople during the transport from
Texas to Illinois.
It goes to the Court of Appeals, and to the people during the
(22:14):
transport from Texas to Illinoisit goes to the court of appeals
.
And at the court of appealsthey say the stuff he said in
Texas is good, it's in, you canuse it.
But when he signed the waiverfor extradition where it
requested counsel be appointed,at that point they could no
longer use any statements fromthere going to Chicago.
And if you think about it, itmakes sense because otherwise
you could say I want to havelegal counsel and then from that
(22:37):
point forward, anytime anypolice officer ever asked you
about anything, you could saywell, there was this one time I
asked for a lawyer.
So now you can't question meabout anything, which clearly
that wouldn't make sense.
So the court of appeals, Ithought, did a really good job
of delineating this thoughtprocess, of saying, okay, he
(22:57):
asked for counsel, he hadcounsel, but that was for that
crime in Texas.
If he wanted counsel for thenext crime, he needed to ask for
counsel for the next crime,separate from the one in Texas.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
So I thought that was interesting.
That and I definitely agree to apoint that they should have
thrown out during transport.
Like you said, he'd alreadyasked for counsel, but it's
especially you're talking a longcar ride, like even if they
flew him, there's plenty of time, especially if you're a trained
officer, to kind of coax peopleto start telling you stuff
(23:30):
because your natural instinct isto talk.
So what doesn't seem likequestioning in the beginning
leads to you questioning him toget him to start talking, and
then you could just do that topeople.
You could lock somebody in thecar for 5, 10, 20 hours on a
trip and just slowly getinformation out of them and be
like, oh well, yeah, he askedcounsel.
We didn't ask any directquestions, but he just gave us
(23:50):
all this stuff.
Right, that's a very slipperyslope.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
And that's not counting hotel stays or
restaurant stops, like if it's a20-hour drive, I doubt you're
going to drive straight through20 hours.
You absolutely have to stop forgas and bathroom breaks, so
it's going to be more time thanjust that.
So that was one interestingpart of it.
Another one was the facilitythat he was at.
One interesting part of it.
(24:14):
Another one was the facilitythat he was at At one point in
time.
They file a motion, the defensefiles a motion regarding the
facility where he's being heldfor his mental health treatment.
So he begins at one place.
He tries to escape in July of1987.
At that point the IllinoisDepartment of Mental and
Developmental Disabilitiestransfers him to a different
facility.
The different facility hashigher security measures.
(24:37):
He says that he's not gettingthe number of visitors, that he
should be transferred back tothe minimal security facility
and that his transfer violatedhis due process rights, which
(25:00):
the court says.
No mental health facility canfigure out what they're doing
with you.
We're not going to get involvedin that.
You tried to escape.
Like they have to figure outwhat they're doing.
We're not mental healthprofessionals.
They are.
They'll figure it out.
And so, part of me, you see allthese motions being filed over
that 12 years.
And part of me thinks well, ifhe really wanted to stay in,
(25:20):
that bad, why is he fighting allthis stuff?
You'd think if he really wantedto stay in he wouldn't be
filing a motion to suppress allthose statements.
If he really wanted to stay inhe wouldn't be filing motions
saying put me back at theminimum security mental health
facility.
But at the same time you alsohave to keep in mind that those
attorneys have obligations too,and if they don't file those
(25:41):
things then it's ineffectiveassistance of counsel.
And if they don't file thosethings and he successfully
prosecuted, he can come back onappeal and say I had ineffective
assistance of counsel and getthose convictions overturned.
So while it might seem like abig waste to do all this stuff
for somebody who says they wantto stay in, you kind of have to,
or else he might use that aslike what people would call a
(26:03):
technicality to get out.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Well, and it's kind of a catch 22, because you're
saying he's not mentally stable.
So how do we know he's mentallystable enough to say that he
did it and that that's not apart of his mental illness?
So it's kind of he's damned ifhe does and he's damned if he
doesn't.
So I also find it very sad thathe notices this about himself.
(26:29):
But going back to the mentalinstitution and the escape like
I could see if he was, if he hadchecked himself in, like if
he'd put himself in therebecause he knew he was mentally
and needed help, and then theyforced him to go to a different
facility.
But he's there under courtorder, so don't really see where
they thought they had standingto be like, oh no, you have to
take him back because he triedto escape, like right.
(26:49):
That's like saying like, oh no,my, my, my um client, holy god,
I don't know why.
I couldn't think of that.
You know, yes, my client triedto escape from the jail, but you
can't put him in solitarybecause that's just not right.
Put him back where he can tryand escape again right exactly
it just seems like a very damnedif you do, damned if you don't.
(27:10):
Moronic statement to go with.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
It really does and I found some quotes, you know, as
I was doing research.
One came from the IllinoisDepartment of Corrections and it
said this inmate is the most,is most likely the most
dangerous inmate you will house.
Another one came from DD Short,who is a Department of
Corrections spokesman, who saidhe did not meet the criteria to
be placed in any other kind offacility.
(27:34):
So there's a lot of people inthe system along the way who see
the bad things with him butthey just can't seem to get what
they.
Again, it's a failure of thesystem.
So he's eligible for that earlyrelease.
The prosecutor argues that heneeds to remain in custody.
Mouse himself requests toremain in custody through a
(27:56):
five-page letter that he writes,but he's still released.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
Which is again insane to me.
It's like, how do you not seethat this is going to fail
horribly?
It's like when a warning systemon a plane tells you like hey,
there's a problem, it may notfly, and you're like you know
what?
No, it's going to be fine.
It's like I warned you I wasgoing to have a problem and you
still didn't listen to me.
So following his release, mousequickly returned to his violent
(28:26):
behavior.
Listen to me.
So following his release, mousequickly returned to his violent
behavior.
So, not even two years afterhis release, he attempts to
murder a friend of his byhitting him with a pipe and the
victim declines to assist in theprosecution.
But this goes back to what Isaid earlier Like don't let this
friend, don't let this dudestay with you.
Like he started to stab onefriend, choke two other people
(28:46):
he knew.
Now he's beat one with a metalpipe.
If David calls and says, hey, Ineed a place to crash, this is
not, it's not dude.
Like I'll give you money for ahotel.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
But at the same time there is one thing that we see
in psychopaths and I think thisguy, when you look at his entire
life, he is a psychopath.
I don't know about that youngage and we could debate all day
and it would take a lot moreresearch and court records and
everything else.
If it's nature versus nurture,was it that his mother put him
in the system that just kind ofturned him this way?
Or when we have reports of hismother being mentally disturbed,
(29:24):
that it was just kind of agenetic thing.
But like we see that he's notgoing to change, like there's no
change in his behavior, there'sno want to change.
He's told you this and yourelease him back into the system
and he's still able to makefriends, though he's still able
to gain people's trusts, hisvictim's trust, and that goes
with that psychopath trait ofthat superficial charm and that
(29:46):
ability to like, mimic people'sbehaviors and thoughts and
emotions to get them to like you.
Like I said, the victimdeclines to press charges.
So two years later he continuesto escalate.
His crimes reach a horrificpeak.
So Mouse was arrested for themurders of three teenagers in
(30:06):
Hammond, indiana 16-year-oldJames Regagni, 13-year-old
Michael Dennis and 19-year-oldNick James this is how I know
the mouse case that I didn'trealize until I read this last
part when we were talking aboutit in class.
And that's because Indiana,because of this case, started a
violent offender registry.
(30:26):
Because Indiana, because ofthis case, started a violent
offender registry Because thisguy had been in so many systems
and committed so many violentcrimes that possibly he could
have been watched or held Like.
If we would have known that hehad this pattern of violent
behavior, maybe he never wouldhave been released in the first
place.
So it was interesting.
That was the first time I madethe connection of wait.
I heard this when I was in thepolice academy.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Yeah, so that would have been in 2003 that he
committed those murders inHammond Indiana.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
Yes.
So after attacking these people, these three young men, these
crimes demonstrated just hiscontinuous pattern of targeting
young males, again suggesting aconsistent motivation throughout
his career of young maleoffenders, of young male victims
.
And again I don't know if thatgoes back to the younger child
(31:13):
molestation and who may havedone that to him, because that
wasn't talked about.
You know, we had instinctivelywould think, father, but was it
an older sibling Then thatattack, that or lack of a better
word attack that happenedinside the juvenile home by
another young male.
He seems the rest of his lifeto target young men, almost for
retribution.
(31:33):
The proximity of these murdersoccurring in hammond, indiana,
also put a constraint with hisearlier geographic spread,
possibly indicating a chain inhis modus operandi or a
deterioration in his ability toevade detection.
But I think part of that.
I mean his age is he's mucholder now but he also never
really had an MO.
He used multiple, but we talkedabout that, you know drowning,
(31:56):
stabbing.
He attempts to beat somebodywith a pipe, choking some other
people.
He doesn't.
It just seems to be the act ofkilling someone that he enjoys
more than anything else that heenjoys more than anything else.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
So the conclusion of his case comes in November of
2005, when he pleads guilty tothe three Hammond murders and he
was sentenced to three lifeterms.
However, the story doesn't endthere.
On January, the 20th 2006,mouse commits suicide in his
jail cell and he leaves behind aconfession note.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
In it he admitted to killing five people and
apologized to the victim'sfamilies and that I have
questions about too, of how,like he confessed to the murders
we knew about.
But were there more?
Because we and I didn't seeanything.
If anybody's tried to profilethis after the fact or do
(32:52):
post-mortems on looking back athis case so many years later to
see if there may have been um.
But I just feel like there hasto be stuff we missed.
But of course he's only goingto confess to the five that he
was known for Cause, but I Idon't know that there was more.
But I just feel that there wereso many gaps in time and his
(33:12):
propensity for violence thatthere had to be other things
that weren't known about.
So mouse suicide again raisesquestions about mental health
care and suicide prevention andcorrection facilities.
But I think with thisindividual he had been
institutionalized for so long.
I don't know if he would havebeen like on a watch for suicide
um and his confession no, oh,go ahead.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
I was just gonna say.
I don't know if they would havecared because, you have to
remember, this is like early2000s.
Um, you know, it's hammond,indiana, was where he committed
the crimes.
I don't know for sure where hewas being held but, um, you know
, like michigan city, in thatarea, the jails that were in
that area had a certainreputation at the time.
I don't know how much theywould have been keeping an eye
(33:53):
on him or how much they wouldhave intervened if they saw
something well and again, Idon't know if that had anything
to do with this case, but I doknow well.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
No, because that was a suicide.
Um, but I do know that inaround 2000 that time frame
indiana took one of its prisonsand made it strictly for sex
offenders because of theassaults, batteries and murders
that were happening of sexoffenders in indiana jails and
prisons.
So that is kind of it did getso bad in indiana.
(34:24):
It was kind of this known thingthat they had to create its own
special prison and of course,sex offenders in prison,
especially anything to do withchildren, it did get so bad in
Indiana.
It was kind of this known thingthat they had to create its own
special prison and of coursesex offenders in prison,
especially anything to do withchildren, are targets Like even
the most heinous criminals don'tlike child sex offenders or
child offenders at all.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
So even if he wasn't suicidal, knowing he's inside
there for killing multiple youngmen, I'm sure he would have had
a huge target on his back andI'm sure that if he was going to
die at the hands of otherprisoners, it would not have
been a swift and merciful death.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
No, no, I know, I mean you can go with that.
And Indiana at that time periodhad multiple, even though her
Baumeister was dead at thispoint young male murders, men
that were murdering young malesas well, that just wouldn't have
fared well in prison.
But again, that's hisconfession note provided some
closure, but it left a lot ofquestions, like I said, to what
(35:19):
were the extent of his crimesand are there things we don't
know about?
Speaker 3 (35:24):
And the impact of this case goes far beyond his
death because, as you mentioned,it led to the creation of
Indiana's Violent OffenderRegistry, which includes sexual
offenses and violent offenses,and those registrations have to
be made with local lawenforcement so that when
somebody moves into a new area,local law enforcement are
notified that this person hascome to the area.
(35:48):
And it's my understanding thatthat registration can be for
either 10 years or for life,depending on the sentence and
what the underlying offense is.
And this demonstrates how oneof these high profile cases can
drive legislative changes whichare aimed at improving public
safety.
We've talked about that alittle bit before, like with the
(36:09):
Amber Alert and some of theother cases that we've had, that
sometimes tragedies will happenand something good comes of it
that will help the rest of uslater on, hopefully.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
And with this case like I can build off this
because I worked in Indiana inlaw enforcement for a little
while and because of thisregistry, almost every officer
is assigned to so many offendersin their area that they're
supposed to check on over time.
So when a new offender comes inthey're assigned to an officer
and that officer is supposed tobe responsible for going and at
least making sure that they'restill living at that address
(36:41):
every once in a while and justdo check-ins.
So it's kind of anothercheck-in balance that came out
of this, but it made it moreresponsibility on law
enforcement to keep track.
It's not just oh, you're onthis list, good luck, or you can
look it up on the internet.
Law enforcement is activelykeeping tabs on these
individuals.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
There was also I was gonna say there was also
questions that got brought uptoo about sentencing and there
was a big public backlash onthis because, again back in that
time period, this is when wehad a lot of mandatory
sentencing for drug offendersand we had a lot of prison
overcrowding, so people weregetting released early because
(37:20):
we had too many people in ourprisons and one of the things
that brought up were questionsabout drug offenses and crime of
violence cases and why we hadthe sentencing structure that we
did.
One source that I saw said thatin 2001, 20% of those
individuals in the 50 stateprison systems were there for
(37:44):
drug offenses and that wasmostly because of federally
mandatory minimum sentencingguidelines.
So that was one of the otherthings that people were mad
about is they were looking atthis case saying he got out
after, you know, 17 years orfive years or, depending how
you're looking at it, half of 35years he gets out.
Why is he on the street?
(38:05):
Why is it that this guy who'sselling marijuana is got a
maximum?
You know he's got thismandatory life sentence for
selling marijuana and this guy'skilled two kids and somehow
he's out on the street.
What's up with that?
Speaker 2 (38:18):
Yeah, if he would have had a couple of ounces of
weed in his pocket, if you lookat the sentencing, he would have
stayed in prison longer forthat than he would have for the
murders that he committed.
It would have been the weedthey really hammered him on,
which says a lot Also, again,about that time period of the
war on drugs and coming out ofthat.
But it's a really disturbingcase for that because again, not
(38:38):
only did we let him out not we,but you know the system let him
out, but at every step he keptsaying don't release me.
And again, again.
That's probably what bothers memost about this case.
But mine is like the horrificmurders of, uh, innocent, uh
young men.
But just that, he was warningthem, he was gonna do it.
He, he gave them everyindication like I'm gonna set
(39:01):
the house on fire, get out of it.
And they're like no, we're justgonna stay inside and we're
gonna make it more dangerous forour children it was predictable
and preventable so david mouseis classified as a serial killer
just based on several factors.
So he did kill at least threevictims.
Even though there's no specificritual to it, there's still an
(39:23):
mo of the age and things likethat.
So that's one factor thatreally goes to it.
His murders occurred over anextended period of time, so
there was a cooling off period,another event, a cooling off
period, another event that againgoes into that classification
of serial killers.
Mouse predominantly targetedmale teenagers, showing a
(39:44):
consistent victim profile.
But also that dominance becauseobviously a 13-year-old,
15-year-old boy and this is agrown man with military training
.
So he's definitely targetingweaker people, not anybody
that's going to give him anypushback and he's somehow able
to lure them.
Like we didn't go into detailabout the Hammond case because
that's we don't exactly go intothe gruesome details, but if you
(40:06):
really look at that case it wasa very brutal set of
circumstances and there was alot of involvement in the
community on looking for thevictims.
That brought the police to himand everything else.
But overall it just shows thepattern that he had that who he
was targeting, the length oftime that he had in this, the
(40:26):
number of victims.
His killings took place atseveral different events and
locations.
We don't know if he ever wentback like I don't know if he
ever went back to germany tothat first kill.
It'd be interesting to know ifhe did again.
It's so late now but I wonderif there's something there that
he may have wanted to go back.
We see that where that whereserial killers would go back to
(40:47):
the original crime scenes.
But again, I don't know enoughto be able to say that he had
connections to the victims or ifit was just the act of killing.
Again, like with Dahmer, hedidn't idolize but he fascinated
about his victims.
I don't know if he had that orif this was more of rage
killings than it was sexual orgraphic in what he was looking
for, age killings than it wassexual or graphic in what he was
(41:08):
looking for.
So Mouth's case is particularlynotable because again he
repeated requests to remainincarcerated and recognizes his
own dangerous tendencies, whichis very interesting.
He was very self-aware of whathe was capable of doing.
Speaker 3 (41:21):
So in a diary he wrote, which they have, from
October, the 30th of 2005, hesays when I got locked up in the
army and then especially when Igot locked up in 1981, I knew I
should never be let out again.
I didn't know how to act aroundother people and I was never
(41:45):
taught how to make friends andkeep them.
When an inmate says he doesn'twant out, I hope that somebody
listens.
Speaker 2 (41:53):
And that should really be put on the front of
every criminal justice book.
The awareness of our duty is toprotect people and when
somebody tells you who they are,you should probably listen to
who they are, if not by theirown words but by their actions.
And he had both.
He had his words that I will dothis again and then his actions
that multiple times he'sincarcerated for violent attacks
(42:17):
on people and murders and he'sjust.
They just keep letting him outand it doesn't end specifically
because the criminal justicesystem.
It ends because he ends it onhis own terms, which again kind
of a psychopathic move rightthere, like I'm not going to let
you take me out, I'm going togo out on my terms.
But despite this, he wasreleased multiple times and
(42:37):
continued to commit murders, ashe said he would.
His patterns of behavior,victim selection and the span of
his crimes firmly establishedthat he was a serial killer in
criminological terms.
Speaker 3 (42:49):
We're left with many questions.
How could the system havefailed so many times to keep a
self-professed dangerousindividual incarcerated?
What more could have been doneto prevent his crimes, and what
can we learn from this case tobetter protect potential victims
in the future?
Speaker 2 (43:07):
from this case to better protect potential victims
in the future.
And I think that's the biggestthing, like as an educator in
this system, but as people thatworked in this system is like
looking at these failures andhow to make sure it doesn't
happen again because the sadthing is it still does happen.
Like we still have violentoffenders that are let out,
sexual offenders that are letout, and some of them have been
known to say like I'm notrehabilitated.
(43:28):
But because the way oursystem's set up it's not made to
just hold people indefinitely,like we can't just say you could
be a threat, we're not thethought police, but at the same
time, again, if somebody'stelling you they're going to do
it, our system kind of needs tohave those checks and balances
and say, okay, then maybe wedon't let you out, but then, as
(43:51):
you said, you kind of then runthe risk of do you get sued
because you violated theirrights?
And sometimes they don't haveto bring those cases.
Somebody else can and all theywould have to say is well, he
was mentally ill and you tookadvantage of that.
Speaker 3 (44:05):
Or you end up getting a sentence overturned where you
put him away for 35 years and10 years into it somebody says
that and now you have to let himout, even though he shouldn't
be out, but you've lost theevidence because it's been 10
years.
Speaker 2 (44:19):
And I think like again, we're a short podcast you
could probably do a wholedocumentary series on not just
his crimes, because that's notever what we focus on as much as
here's where the system didwell and didn't do, where that
due process, those procedurallaws were violated and actually
(44:50):
just kind of helped this guyslip through the system in a way
as well.
And I think we talk a lot aboutstatutory laws but we don't
realize how much more impactfulthose procedural laws are in
getting people out of the courtsystem.
Speaker 3 (45:02):
Definitely.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
So this was another good episode.
Horrible topic, horrible topic,horrible dude, but it's kind of
a good topic to help people, Ihope, that are listening to this
, start thinking about thesystem, looking at the system
and learning why criminaljustice and the criminal justice
system is important tounderstand.
I want to thank you all so muchfor listening to our little
(45:24):
podcast.
This is created with love andpassion for criminal justice and
true crime.
So if you're enjoying thepodcast, please follow us, like
or rate us on whatever systemyou're listening to us on,
subscribe to our podcast anddownload episodes.
Downloads are important for ourgrowth, as is growing our
(45:44):
listeners.
So if you wouldn't mind, takethe time to ask your friends,
family, co-workers, tell themabout us through word of mouth,
social media.
I don't care if you even screamat strangers on the streets.
To help us kind of get outthere who we are.
If you're interested inlearning more, you could visit
our website atwwwdeviantcriminologycom.
(46:06):
There you'll find some stuffabout our backgrounds,
references, show notes for eachepisode.
You can also follow us on ourFacebook page at Deviant
Criminology.
We also have an Instagram page,which is deviant underscore
criminology.
Or find me at drrichardweaveron Instagram.
(46:26):
And as we grow.
We hope to develop a communitythat will grow with us.
So again, thank you for takingthe time to listen and have a
good week.
Thank you.
All right, welcome to Deviant Criminology.
So this is our true crime andcriminal justice podcast.
I'm Richard, I'm Heather, andthis week we're going to kind of
delve into a crime that I hadheard about, I thought, for the
first time on another podcastthat just kind of mentioned this
guy.
They didn't go into detail, butthen I did a presentation on it
(01:00):
for my class it as kind of acase study and near the end I
realized, holy shit, I know thiscase when I worked in Indiana.
It was kind of one that helpedset a precedent that we'll
probably talk about near the endinstead of the beginning.
But so today we're going totalk about the case of David
Edward Moust.
He is a serial killer that kindof had a very disturbing life
(01:23):
and I think it's a very goodcase study into things the
system did wrong and we have thepotential to continue to do
wrong if we don't learn fromthese mistakes, where David
Moust was born into a troubledfamily.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
From the outset, moust's life was marked by
instability and trauma.
His parents divorced when hewas just seven years old,
setting the stage for atumultuous childhood that would
shape his future in ways no onecould have predicted.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
So the most significant event of Moust's
early years occurred when he wasonly around nine years old.
So his mother, who others haddescribed her as being disturbed
and psychotic and having somemental health issues of her own,
she made this shocking decisionto have her young son confined
to a mental institution.
So again, this is aroundmid-60s.
(02:18):
So institutions at that time AI have multiple problems with
this.
But they were not kind of whatwe think of now, these nice
holistic social workers around,well-staffed.
These were horriblyunderstaffed, very vile
conditions.
There wasn't a lot of oversightof children and what I have the
other problem with this is thatthis woman could just have her
(02:38):
son locked up with no dueprocess.
I can't even like that is kindof like the foundation of our
system is due process, like justthe thought that you could take
a child and throw them intothis institution.
It seems troublesome to me.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Kind of throw them away.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Yeah, into a system that, and she had three other
kids.
So there was somethingspecifically about him that
really set her off and it's hardto see, like why there's not a
lot of details about this earlypart of his life, but I just
think being able to throw achild into those conditions
without the foster systemgetting involved Again, this was
before we had a lot of thechecks and balances, but Mouse
(03:14):
was being accused of trying toset his younger brother on fire
in his own bed and that he'dalso attempted to drown him.
So these accusations leveledagainst a child so young kind of
raises disturbing questionsabout the family dynamic and,
again, the mother's mental state.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
So another layer of trauma that Mouse had to deal
with in his childhood were thereports that he was molested at
an early age, and thatcombination of the family
instability, the earlyinstitutionalization and the
potential sex abuse created aperfect storm of adverse
childhood experiences for him,which laid the groundwork for
(03:57):
his future violent tendencies.
And I don't know if you'veheard this before, richie, but
I've heard that people who havebeen sexually abused are more
likely to engage in behaviorsconcerning fires and arson and
things of that nature, whichthat made me think of what you
were just talking about, withhim burning his brother's bed.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
And also and again, I'm not an expert in, like the,
the, the sexual cases as much,um, but I definitely know, when
we look back at serial killers,there is a lot of connection
between arson and other smallercrimes leading up to this more
disturbing behavior of murder.
And so there are some thingsthat he does along his life that
(04:38):
set those.
But yeah, I definitely knowthat arson and stuff has been
associated with the serial side,again the sexual side.
I definitely know that arsonand stuff has been associated
with the serial side, again thesexual side.
I don't know, maybe one daywe'll have to get an expert to
kind of talk about that.
That would be good.
So as Mouse entered hisadolescence, his behavior began
to exhibit clear signs ofdisturbances.
He choked two friends withoutany apparent reason,
(04:59):
demonstrating kind of a lack ofimpulse control and propensity
for violence which, if you lookat again, it's easy to go back
and say we see these signs now.
But these are two clear signsof psychopathy.
Is that lack of remorse, thatimpulse control?
And then, perhaps even moredisturbing than that, was that
he attacked a squirrel with abaseball bat and killed it.
(05:20):
So there's another one thatanimal torture and abuse that we
see in serial killers.
So even at this young age,which this is before, profiling
was a thing.
So these behaviors weren'treally documented the way we see
it now.
But these incidences indicateda severe lack of empathy and a
troubled enjoyment of inflictingpain on people.
So kind of classic warningsigns for potential future of
(05:43):
violent behavior and againpossible psychopathy.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
So, to make things even worse, at age 13, while he
was living in a children's home,mouse experienced unwanted
sexual advances from another boy.
This event, occurring in anenvironment that should have
been safe, likely exacerbatedany existing trust issues and
potentially contributed tofeelings of vulnerability and
anger.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
And I think that's kind of a weird way to put that
like and that's just kind of theway it came out when we're
writing this up but in a placethat he should have felt safe.
Because when we look backespecially I always go to like
the Geraldo expose that he didkind of exposing these places.
They weren't safe environmentsand I think you add that to the
reports that he was sexuallymolested as a child.
(06:28):
And now here he is, anothermale is making sexual advances
to him.
I think it's just adding tothose triggers he already had.
So in 1971, mounce decides toenlist in the United States Army
.
This could have been seen aslike a potential turning point,
like it could have offered himstructure and discipline and a
chance to reboot his life in aplace where he had discipline
(06:52):
and structure with goodleadership and mentorship.
However, for individuals withpreexisting mental health
conditions, the stress anddemands of military life can
sometimes exacerbate thoseproblems and I've seen that in
my work with veterans and beinga veteran myself, like there are
some people that come fromtroubled homes into that
environment and they thrive,like it's a chance for them to
really develop, and then othersespecially that do have those
(07:16):
past, traumas and stuff canbecome more susceptible to
mental health.
Issues like PTSD and otherdisorders that the military
structure just exacerbates arealready conditions and sometimes
they don't either thrive oreven make it uh through their
original enlistment so like, andsometimes um get better, but
(07:36):
for mouse that didn't.
So after bootcamp he was sent toFrankfurt, germany, um, and
again this time we're stillseeing this as East and West
Germany, so kind of setting thestage there that it's not what
we think of as Germany.
Now this is that post-World WarII environment, so far from any
support system that he may havehad, which, again going back
looking at his childhood, hedidn't really have one in the
(07:57):
first place.
Um, so this just probably onlyincreased his feelings of
isolation, because some of thestuff I did see was like he did
go back to his mother at somepoint and then went back to the
institution like almost that oh,look, here's a normal life you
could have.
Oh, no, you're going right back.
So his mother was troubled andthis kind of became a cycle for
especially his early teen years.
Speaker 3 (08:18):
From what I've read and was able to find, so during
this military service he commitshis first known murder.
In 1974, while he's stationed inFrankfurt, he kills a
13-year-old, james McClister.
This crime marked the beginningof his pattern that would
continue through Mouse'scriminal career, the targeting
(08:39):
of young male victims.
And when I was looking intothis case a little bit more, I
saw that one source had saidthat he had beaten the victim
with a board, but Mouse hadclaimed that it was an accident
and it had something to do witha moped that was stolen.
So I'm not sure how you couldline that up where it was an
accident.
I don't know if he was tryingto say that he fell off of the
(09:01):
back of the moped or if thereyou know if there was a
collision or exactly how that.
It just mentioned that heclaimed it was an accident and I
guess, because he was saying itwas an accident, he only got
four years, which to me seemsextraordinarily short for
sentencing, especially likemilitary wise.
I mean he ends up gettingreleased in 1977 and he asks not
(09:24):
to be released.
But as far as the military sideof it and court court
marshalling, I don't knowanything about that.
Do you know anything about?
Speaker 2 (09:30):
So some of the things that I've discussed when I was
looking at this case is one theyprobably would have gotten him
out of Germany as quick aspossible because it's just that
international incident and youdon't want one of your own tried
in a foreign country and thenbringing him back here.
They would have probably again,the evidence is in Germany,
they're not going to go andcollect Germany, they're
probably at this time not goingto be cooperative with the
(09:53):
German police.
And I'm not saying that's whathappened here, but we've seen
that a lot in military casesbefore, even in modern now,
where there's cases that happenoverseas and they quickly rush
the person out.
Now, where there's cases thathappen overseas and they quickly
rush the person out because youdon't want that international
incident to disrupt relations.
And then you get thecommunities like get them, you
know, get the military out.
We don't the americans here, butthe four years seems low.
(10:16):
But again it would have been.
They didn't have a lot ofevidence to dispute him and at
the same time punishing aservice member.
They don't know their cases.
We were definitely more pro-ourmilitary people at the time, so
it doesn't surprise me he gotso little when it was hard to
prove one way or another, theywere going to side with the
American over the German at thetime.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
I wondered if maybe they believed his whole.
It was an accident thing.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
And it's very possible.
I couldn't find a lot aboutthis case case, just that it was
one associated with him, uh,and that's kind of something,
especially just the time period.
It doesn't really surprise me.
It's hard to find facts aboutthat because the us military
wasn't going to put a lot outand the germans would have to go
back in records and stuff,because it's not something
that's probably going to show upnow.
But yeah, there's a lot to thatcase in the small amount of
(11:07):
time that even as an accident,that seems very low.
But then at the end of it he'ssaying this like don't let me
out, I'm a danger, and here wego, we're going to release you.
It was just one time you saidit was an accident which is
crazy again.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
So following that military service you said, after
he's asked not to be let out,but he's let out anyway, his
violent behavior escalatesdramatically and in 1979, he
stabs his friend in Chicago.
His friend is asleep, which youknow.
Again, it demonstrates thatwillingness to attack even the
(11:43):
people who are close to him,even this friend who's asleep
and obviously in a vulnerableposition.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
And he chose the two kids in the institution as well.
For no, there was no.
From what we're told and whatthe documents show, there's no
provocation for.
So he just attacks people forno reason, and this is a
sleeping friend, which we'll seelater.
You don't want to be this guy'sfriend right, right.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Nothing good comes of it.
You don't want to be anywhereclose to him so that incident
probably indicated, you knowagain, a deterioration in his
ability to form and maintainthose relationships.
Later mouse admits that he liedon the stand, said he didn't do
it and ultimately he's foundnot guilty of that crime in
(12:29):
Chicago.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Again, I don't understand this, and I guess
this is more kind of anindictment on the justice system
at the time.
Like he gets four years forthis killing in Germany.
Then he stabs his friend, whichhis friend's like that dude
stabbed me and they're like andhe admits to lying on the stand
and they're like no, you're notguilty, it was an accident.
Maybe again, details are hardbut we don't know if there was
(12:53):
alcohol involved or anythinglike that.
But somehow again he gets awaywith it.
So we kind of fast forward alittle bit to 1981, which saw a
further escalation in his crimes.
So he decides to kill a male,the male that molested him while
he was in the institution.
But he can't find that kid.
(13:13):
He doesn't know where he's at.
This is many years later atthis point.
So instead, when he can't findhim, he decides to drown a
15-year-old named Donald Jonesin an Elgin quarry instead.
And one thing I findinteresting about this is you
know, we're 20 something yearslater into his life, but he's
(13:34):
doing exactly what his motheraccused him of trying to do to
his brother.
So it kind of makes me wonder,like that chicken and that egg
scenario is did he have apropensity to want to drown
somebody, or did being accusedof trying to drown somebody so
much in his life, he decided Iwant to know what that actually
is like.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
Which is an interesting question, because
maybe he'd been trying to drownpeople for, you know, 10, 15
years and just finally actuallywas successful.
Or, like you said, maybe he hadnever thought about it until
somebody said, hey, we thinkyou're trying to do this.
And then he was like, hey, yeah, that's an interesting idea.
I wonder what that would belike.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
you're trying to do this, and then he was like, hey,
yeah, that's an interestingidea.
I wonder what that would belike.
And looking back, the germ thekid he killed in germany was
like near a quarry, or in aforested area as well, which
again I don't know for sure.
I didn't see it, but now thatI'm thinking back to it, I could
have had a lake or river thathe tried to get the kid to and
the kid fought back.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Yeah, what I had read was a forested area, so I think
there is a lot or river that hetried to get the kid to and the
kid fought back.
Yeah, what I had read was aforested area.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
So I think there is a lot of things that looking back
from his childhood and thencoming here and that
institutionalization and stuffthat adds to the interest of
this of how he drowns this kidand just how we can look at the
psychology of how he was treatedbefore and how it may have
influenced this behavior.
Because for a serial killer hedoesn't have a pattern Like if
(14:57):
we look, his kills are different.
He stabs one guy, he's chokingtwo friends, Like those people
didn't die, but then hebludgeons one person, he drowns
this one and then next his killMO changes again his kill MO
changes again.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
So later that year he goes on down to Texas and he
stabs a 14-year-old boy.
So these crimes not only show apattern of targeting young male
victims but also highlight howhis mobility is aiding him in
evading detection, Because ifanybody's looking for him in
Chicago, they're not looking forhim in Texas.
Nobody's got an eye out for him.
So each time he moves itpotentially allows him to escape
(15:39):
any type of suspicion and startover again in a new location,
which makes it more challengingfor law enforcement to try to
connect those crimes andidentify any type of a pattern.
But it's like you were saying,it's not like there was a
certain identifiable pattern tobegin with.
So when he's down there inTexas he gets sentenced to five
years for causing bodily injuryto a child, and while he's in
(16:03):
custody there they figure outhe's connected to that stuff
that happened in Illinois.
So he's going to be extraditedback to Illinois in 1982.
And so it makes it morechallenging for them to find a
pattern.
But just like we were talkingabout, there wasn't really a
specific pattern to even belooking for, so go ahead, and
(16:25):
not just that, you're alsotalking about a time period
where jurisdictions didn't talk.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
I mean, you know, even in 2025, we have problems
with like law enforcement kindof communicating.
Even one jurisdiction over thisis thousands of miles apart
from each other, and even thenthey were able to make some type
of connection, which ishonestly to me very impressive
that in the 80s they were ableto make this connection bring
him down with no pattern.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
Right, because it's not like you can say we're
looking for somebody who stabspeople, because they're not all
the same, they're two completelydifferent things.
So in this Texas case he endsup getting sentenced to five
years for causing bodily injuryto a child.
But while he's in custody theyalso figure out that he is tied
(17:12):
to that Illinois case.
So he ends up gettingextradited in 1982.
And when he goes back toIllinois they rule that he's
unfit to stand trial.
They commit him to a mentalhealth facility and it takes
about 10 years before he comesback around and enters his
guilty plea.
And so in 1994, he pleadsguilty, he is sentenced to 35
(17:35):
years.
He gets credit for the time heserved in his mental health
facilities plus any jail time hehad done, which turns out to be
12 years, and he ends upgetting released in 1999.
And I tried to go back andfigure out like how they
calculated that and, if I'mbeing honest, most of the
articles that I clicked onwanted me to pay money and I was
(17:56):
too cheap to want to pay toread all those articles.
But from what I can figure out,he did the 12 years credit for
time served for what he hadalready done and then he got
about five years that he wouldhave served.
So the 1982 to 1994 would havebeen 12.
Then 1994, he gets sentencedand he's released in 99.
So that's another five years.
(18:17):
So that gets you to a total of17.
And it did say he had good time.
If his good time was day forday credit, 17 times two is 34.
He had a 35 year sentence.
So I think that's what happened.
I think they gave him day forday credit for time served,
which most states won't let youdo anymore.
Most states.
For a crime of violence youhave to do 75 percent of the
(18:38):
time you cannot do day for daycredit.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
And that was one of the things that stuck out to me
was this like a just a five yearsentence?
When he killed him, he stabbedthe boy in Texas.
I guess he didn't die.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
I don't think it was just it's just an aggravated
assault.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
So, but even five years of stabbing a 14 year old,
when you're a grown ass man,seems to me like I don't know.
Maybe that's a clue that thisguy's on a path and we have this
prior criminal history.
But then when you end uplooking at this, you're
sentenced to 35 years and you'reserved 12.
Plus five, just plus five.
So he's brought into custody in1982 and in 17 years he's back
(19:21):
on the streets.
But again in this case, when hegets ready to be released, he
says don't let me out.
Speaker 3 (19:30):
And there's a whole lot going on too during that 12
year period.
So, like you know, I mentionedhe was not fit to stand trial.
Well, as we're going throughthere, there's all kinds of
different things that are goingon behind the scenes, like
there's fifth amendment, sixthamendment, institutionalizedized
(19:52):
questions, all of that.
So we'll go go through thelegal stuff first.
Okay, when he is in custody intexas he is in custody in texas
stabbing the boy he asks forcounsel.
Then he also makes statementsabout the case that happened in
illinois.
Then he waives extradition andwhen he waives extradition, and
when he waives extradition, oneof the forms he signs says that
(20:15):
he's requesting counsel beappointed to represent him.
Then he's transferred back toIllinois and while he's being
transferred back to Illinois hemakes additional incriminating
statements and the defense fileda motion to suppress all of
that after defense counsel wasappointed at the indictment in
(20:35):
illinois, at the arraignmentexcuse me, in illinois so I
think, going back, maybe I gavetoo much credit to law
enforcement here.
This dumb ass just gave himselfup, so okay so I don't caught
that yeah, I don't know if hemade the statements first and
then they were like, oh, did youdo something?
Or if they were like, hey, wehear you guys are you're getting
(20:56):
in trouble in Chicago, and hewas like verbal vomit.
This is what I did in Chicago.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
See, and this is why you have to go back and listen
to our Miranda warnings, when wesay don't say shit.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
And that's what I was just going to say, and
especially when, but?
And that's what.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
I was just going to say, and especially when.
But I mean I can see where thecourt's coming from.
Just the mental health side,like how do you take, how do you
know what's true, what's false,what he's exaggerating, what
he's not?
And then his mental healthstate into that.
So I think it's interestingthat he served what was it?
(21:29):
Almost 12 years in a mentalhealth institution.
He serves the five years extraand he's saying don't let me out
, this isn't a guy thatcommitted a murder, that was
simple.
You have that criminal history.
He's telling you I've done 12years in a mental institution
because I'm disturbed, I will dothis again.
(21:50):
And they're like oh no, man, weknow better than you do about
yourself and your own.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
I don't know, horrific murdering tendencies.
We're going to let you out,which.
I'll come back to that thoughtin a second, because I had that
thought too.
So when they go to trial, whenthey are at the trial level, the
trial court says they're goingto suppress all the statements
that he made under the Fifth andSixth Amendment, both to the
people in Texas and to thepeople during the transport from
Texas to Illinois.
It goes to the Court of Appeals, and to the people during the
(22:14):
transport from Texas to Illinoisit goes to the court of appeals
.
And at the court of appealsthey say the stuff he said in
Texas is good, it's in, you canuse it.
But when he signed the waiverfor extradition where it
requested counsel be appointed,at that point they could no
longer use any statements fromthere going to Chicago.
And if you think about it, itmakes sense because otherwise
you could say I want to havelegal counsel and then from that
(22:37):
point forward, anytime anypolice officer ever asked you
about anything, you could saywell, there was this one time I
asked for a lawyer.
So now you can't question meabout anything, which clearly
that wouldn't make sense.
So the court of appeals, Ithought, did a really good job
of delineating this thoughtprocess, of saying, okay, he
(22:57):
asked for counsel, he hadcounsel, but that was for that
crime in Texas.
If he wanted counsel for thenext crime, he needed to ask for
counsel for the next crime,separate from the one in Texas.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
So I thought that was interesting.
That and I definitely agree to apoint that they should have
thrown out during transport.
Like you said, he'd alreadyasked for counsel, but it's
especially you're talking a longcar ride, like even if they
flew him, there's plenty of time, especially if you're a trained
officer, to kind of coax peopleto start telling you stuff
(23:30):
because your natural instinct isto talk.
So what doesn't seem likequestioning in the beginning
leads to you questioning him toget him to start talking, and
then you could just do that topeople.
You could lock somebody in thecar for 5, 10, 20 hours on a
trip and just slowly getinformation out of them and be
like, oh well, yeah, he askedcounsel.
We didn't ask any directquestions, but he just gave us
(23:50):
all this stuff.
Right, that's a very slipperyslope.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
And that's not counting hotel stays or
restaurant stops, like if it's a20-hour drive, I doubt you're
going to drive straight through20 hours.
You absolutely have to stop forgas and bathroom breaks, so
it's going to be more time thanjust that.
So that was one interestingpart of it.
Another one was the facilitythat he was at.
One interesting part of it.
(24:14):
Another one was the facilitythat he was at At one point in
time.
They file a motion, the defensefiles a motion regarding the
facility where he's being heldfor his mental health treatment.
So he begins at one place.
He tries to escape in July of1987.
At that point the IllinoisDepartment of Mental and
Developmental Disabilitiestransfers him to a different
facility.
The different facility hashigher security measures.
(24:37):
He says that he's not gettingthe number of visitors, that he
should be transferred back tothe minimal security facility
and that his transfer violatedhis due process rights, which
(25:00):
the court says.
No mental health facility canfigure out what they're doing
with you.
We're not going to get involvedin that.
You tried to escape.
Like they have to figure outwhat they're doing.
We're not mental healthprofessionals.
They are.
They'll figure it out.
And so, part of me, you see allthese motions being filed over
that 12 years.
And part of me thinks well, ifhe really wanted to stay in,
(25:20):
that bad, why is he fighting allthis stuff?
You'd think if he really wantedto stay in he wouldn't be
filing a motion to suppress allthose statements.
If he really wanted to stay inhe wouldn't be filing motions
saying put me back at theminimum security mental health
facility.
But at the same time you alsohave to keep in mind that those
attorneys have obligations too,and if they don't file those
(25:41):
things then it's ineffectiveassistance of counsel.
And if they don't file thosethings and he successfully
prosecuted, he can come back onappeal and say I had ineffective
assistance of counsel and getthose convictions overturned.
So while it might seem like abig waste to do all this stuff
for somebody who says they wantto stay in, you kind of have to,
or else he might use that aslike what people would call a
(26:03):
technicality to get out.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
Well, and it's kind of a catch 22, because you're
saying he's not mentally stable.
So how do we know he's mentallystable enough to say that he
did it and that that's not apart of his mental illness?
So it's kind of he's damned ifhe does and he's damned if he
doesn't.
So I also find it very sad thathe notices this about himself.
(26:29):
But going back to the mentalinstitution and the escape like
I could see if he was, if he hadchecked himself in, like if
he'd put himself in therebecause he knew he was mentally
and needed help, and then theyforced him to go to a different
facility.
But he's there under courtorder, so don't really see where
they thought they had standingto be like, oh no, you have to
take him back because he triedto escape, like right.
(26:49):
That's like saying like, oh no,my, my, my um client, holy god,
I don't know why.
I couldn't think of that.
You know, yes, my client triedto escape from the jail, but you
can't put him in solitarybecause that's just not right.
Put him back where he can tryand escape again right exactly
it just seems like a very damnedif you do, damned if you don't.
(27:10):
Moronic statement to go with.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
It really does and I found some quotes, you know, as
I was doing research.
One came from the IllinoisDepartment of Corrections and it
said this inmate is the most,is most likely the most
dangerous inmate you will house.
Another one came from DD Short,who is a Department of
Corrections spokesman, who saidhe did not meet the criteria to
be placed in any other kind offacility.
(27:34):
So there's a lot of people inthe system along the way who see
the bad things with him butthey just can't seem to get what
they.
Again, it's a failure of thesystem.
So he's eligible for that earlyrelease.
The prosecutor argues that heneeds to remain in custody.
Mouse himself requests toremain in custody through a
(27:56):
five-page letter that he writes,but he's still released.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
Which is again insane to me.
It's like, how do you not seethat this is going to fail
horribly?
It's like when a warning systemon a plane tells you like hey,
there's a problem, it may notfly, and you're like you know
what?
No, it's going to be fine.
It's like I warned you I wasgoing to have a problem and you
still didn't listen to me.
So following his release, mousequickly returned to his violent
(28:26):
behavior.
Listen to me.
So following his release, mousequickly returned to his violent
behavior.
So, not even two years afterhis release, he attempts to
murder a friend of his byhitting him with a pipe and the
victim declines to assist in theprosecution.
But this goes back to what Isaid earlier Like don't let this
friend, don't let this dudestay with you.
Like he started to stab onefriend, choke two other people
(28:46):
he knew.
Now he's beat one with a metalpipe.
If David calls and says, hey, Ineed a place to crash, this is
not, it's not dude.
Like I'll give you money for ahotel.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
But at the same time there is one thing that we see
in psychopaths and I think thisguy, when you look at his entire
life, he is a psychopath.
I don't know about that youngage and we could debate all day
and it would take a lot moreresearch and court records and
everything else.
If it's nature versus nurture,was it that his mother put him
in the system that just kind ofturned him this way?
Or when we have reports of hismother being mentally disturbed,
(29:24):
that it was just kind of agenetic thing.
But like we see that he's notgoing to change, like there's no
change in his behavior, there'sno want to change.
He's told you this and yourelease him back into the system
and he's still able to makefriends, though he's still able
to gain people's trusts, hisvictim's trust, and that goes
with that psychopath trait ofthat superficial charm and that
(29:46):
ability to like, mimic people'sbehaviors and thoughts and
emotions to get them to like you.
Like I said, the victimdeclines to press charges.
So two years later he continuesto escalate.
His crimes reach a horrificpeak.
So Mouse was arrested for themurders of three teenagers in
(30:06):
Hammond, indiana 16-year-oldJames Regagni, 13-year-old
Michael Dennis and 19-year-oldNick James this is how I know
the mouse case that I didn'trealize until I read this last
part when we were talking aboutit in class.
And that's because Indiana,because of this case, started a
violent offender registry.
(30:26):
Because Indiana, because ofthis case, started a violent
offender registry Because thisguy had been in so many systems
and committed so many violentcrimes that possibly he could
have been watched or held Like.
If we would have known that hehad this pattern of violent
behavior, maybe he never wouldhave been released in the first
place.
So it was interesting.
That was the first time I madethe connection of wait.
I heard this when I was in thepolice academy.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
Yeah, so that would have been in 2003 that he
committed those murders inHammond Indiana.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
Yes.
So after attacking these people, these three young men, these
crimes demonstrated just hiscontinuous pattern of targeting
young males, again suggesting aconsistent motivation throughout
his career of young maleoffenders, of young male victims
.
And again I don't know if thatgoes back to the younger child
(31:13):
molestation and who may havedone that to him, because that
wasn't talked about.
You know, we had instinctivelywould think, father, but was it
an older sibling Then thatattack, that or lack of a better
word attack that happenedinside the juvenile home by
another young male.
He seems the rest of his lifeto target young men, almost for
retribution.
(31:33):
The proximity of these murdersoccurring in hammond, indiana,
also put a constraint with hisearlier geographic spread,
possibly indicating a chain inhis modus operandi or a
deterioration in his ability toevade detection.
But I think part of that.
I mean his age is he's mucholder now but he also never
really had an MO.
He used multiple, but we talkedabout that, you know drowning,
(31:56):
stabbing.
He attempts to beat somebodywith a pipe, choking some other
people.
He doesn't.
It just seems to be the act ofkilling someone that he enjoys
more than anything else that heenjoys more than anything else.
Speaker 3 (32:13):
So the conclusion of his case comes in November of
2005, when he pleads guilty tothe three Hammond murders and he
was sentenced to three lifeterms.
However, the story doesn't endthere.
On January, the 20th 2006,mouse commits suicide in his
jail cell and he leaves behind aconfession note.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
In it he admitted to killing five people and
apologized to the victim'sfamilies and that I have
questions about too, of how,like he confessed to the murders
we knew about.
But were there more?
Because we and I didn't seeanything.
If anybody's tried to profilethis after the fact or do
(32:52):
post-mortems on looking back athis case so many years later to
see if there may have been um.
But I just feel like there hasto be stuff we missed.
But of course he's only goingto confess to the five that he
was known for Cause, but I Idon't know that there was more.
But I just feel that there wereso many gaps in time and his
(33:12):
propensity for violence thatthere had to be other things
that weren't known about.
So mouse suicide again raisesquestions about mental health
care and suicide prevention andcorrection facilities.
But I think with thisindividual he had been
institutionalized for so long.
I don't know if he would havebeen like on a watch for suicide
um and his confession no, oh,go ahead.
Speaker 3 (33:33):
I was just gonna say.
I don't know if they would havecared because, you have to
remember, this is like early2000s.
Um, you know, it's hammond,indiana, was where he committed
the crimes.
I don't know for sure where hewas being held but, um, you know
, like michigan city, in thatarea, the jails that were in
that area had a certainreputation at the time.
I don't know how much theywould have been keeping an eye
(33:53):
on him or how much they wouldhave intervened if they saw
something well and again, Idon't know if that had anything
to do with this case, but I doknow well.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
No, because that was a suicide.
Um, but I do know that inaround 2000 that time frame
indiana took one of its prisonsand made it strictly for sex
offenders because of theassaults, batteries and murders
that were happening of sexoffenders in indiana jails and
prisons.
So that is kind of it did getso bad in indiana.
(34:24):
It was kind of this known thingthat they had to create its own
special prison and of course,sex offenders in prison,
especially anything to do withchildren, it did get so bad in
Indiana.
It was kind of this known thingthat they had to create its own
special prison and of coursesex offenders in prison,
especially anything to do withchildren, are targets Like even
the most heinous criminals don'tlike child sex offenders or
child offenders at all.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
So even if he wasn't suicidal, knowing he's inside
there for killing multiple youngmen, I'm sure he would have had
a huge target on his back andI'm sure that if he was going to
die at the hands of otherprisoners, it would not have
been a swift and merciful death.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
No, no, I know, I mean you can go with that.
And Indiana at that time periodhad multiple, even though her
Baumeister was dead at thispoint young male murders, men
that were murdering young malesas well, that just wouldn't have
fared well in prison.
But again, that's hisconfession note provided some
closure, but it left a lot ofquestions, like I said, to what
(35:19):
were the extent of his crimesand are there things we don't
know about?
Speaker 3 (35:24):
And the impact of this case goes far beyond his
death because, as you mentioned,it led to the creation of
Indiana's Violent OffenderRegistry, which includes sexual
offenses and violent offenses,and those registrations have to
be made with local lawenforcement so that when
somebody moves into a new area,local law enforcement are
notified that this person hascome to the area.
(35:48):
And it's my understanding thatthat registration can be for
either 10 years or for life,depending on the sentence and
what the underlying offense is.
And this demonstrates how oneof these high profile cases can
drive legislative changes whichare aimed at improving public
safety.
We've talked about that alittle bit before, like with the
(36:09):
Amber Alert and some of theother cases that we've had, that
sometimes tragedies will happenand something good comes of it
that will help the rest of uslater on, hopefully.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
And with this case like I can build off this
because I worked in Indiana inlaw enforcement for a little
while and because of thisregistry, almost every officer
is assigned to so many offendersin their area that they're
supposed to check on over time.
So when a new offender comes inthey're assigned to an officer
and that officer is supposed tobe responsible for going and at
least making sure that they'restill living at that address
(36:41):
every once in a while and justdo check-ins.
So it's kind of anothercheck-in balance that came out
of this, but it made it moreresponsibility on law
enforcement to keep track.
It's not just oh, you're onthis list, good luck, or you can
look it up on the internet.
Law enforcement is activelykeeping tabs on these
individuals.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
There was also I was gonna say there was also
questions that got brought uptoo about sentencing and there
was a big public backlash onthis because, again back in that
time period, this is when wehad a lot of mandatory
sentencing for drug offendersand we had a lot of prison
overcrowding, so people weregetting released early because
(37:20):
we had too many people in ourprisons and one of the things
that brought up were questionsabout drug offenses and crime of
violence cases and why we hadthe sentencing structure that we
did.
One source that I saw said thatin 2001, 20% of those
individuals in the 50 stateprison systems were there for
(37:44):
drug offenses and that wasmostly because of federally
mandatory minimum sentencingguidelines.
So that was one of the otherthings that people were mad
about is they were looking atthis case saying he got out
after, you know, 17 years orfive years or, depending how
you're looking at it, half of 35years he gets out.
Why is he on the street?
(38:05):
Why is it that this guy who'sselling marijuana is got a
maximum?
You know he's got thismandatory life sentence for
selling marijuana and this guy'skilled two kids and somehow
he's out on the street.
What's up with that?
Speaker 2 (38:18):
Yeah, if he would have had a couple of ounces of
weed in his pocket, if you lookat the sentencing, he would have
stayed in prison longer forthat than he would have for the
murders that he committed.
It would have been the weedthey really hammered him on,
which says a lot Also, again,about that time period of the
war on drugs and coming out ofthat.
But it's a really disturbingcase for that because again, not
(38:38):
only did we let him out not we,but you know the system let him
out, but at every step he keptsaying don't release me.
And again, again.
That's probably what bothers memost about this case.
But mine is like the horrificmurders of, uh, innocent, uh
young men.
But just that, he was warningthem, he was gonna do it.
He, he gave them everyindication like I'm gonna set
(39:01):
the house on fire, get out of it.
And they're like no, we're justgonna stay inside and we're
gonna make it more dangerous forour children it was predictable
and preventable so david mouseis classified as a serial killer
just based on several factors.
So he did kill at least threevictims.
Even though there's no specificritual to it, there's still an
(39:23):
mo of the age and things likethat.
So that's one factor thatreally goes to it.
His murders occurred over anextended period of time, so
there was a cooling off period,another event, a cooling off
period, another event that againgoes into that classification
of serial killers.
Mouse predominantly targetedmale teenagers, showing a
(39:44):
consistent victim profile.
But also that dominance becauseobviously a 13-year-old,
15-year-old boy and this is agrown man with military training
.
So he's definitely targetingweaker people, not anybody
that's going to give him anypushback and he's somehow able
to lure them.
Like we didn't go into detailabout the Hammond case because
that's we don't exactly go intothe gruesome details, but if you
(40:06):
really look at that case it wasa very brutal set of
circumstances and there was alot of involvement in the
community on looking for thevictims.
That brought the police to himand everything else.
But overall it just shows thepattern that he had that who he
was targeting, the length oftime that he had in this, the
(40:26):
number of victims.
His killings took place atseveral different events and
locations.
We don't know if he ever wentback like I don't know if he
ever went back to germany tothat first kill.
It'd be interesting to know ifhe did again.
It's so late now but I wonderif there's something there that
he may have wanted to go back.
We see that where that whereserial killers would go back to
(40:47):
the original crime scenes.
But again, I don't know enoughto be able to say that he had
connections to the victims or ifit was just the act of killing.
Again, like with Dahmer, hedidn't idolize but he fascinated
about his victims.
I don't know if he had that orif this was more of rage
killings than it was sexual orgraphic in what he was looking
for, age killings than it wassexual or graphic in what he was
(41:08):
looking for.
So Mouth's case is particularlynotable because again he
repeated requests to remainincarcerated and recognizes his
own dangerous tendencies, whichis very interesting.
He was very self-aware of whathe was capable of doing.
Speaker 3 (41:21):
So in a diary he wrote, which they have, from
October, the 30th of 2005, hesays when I got locked up in the
army and then especially when Igot locked up in 1981, I knew I
should never be let out again.
I didn't know how to act aroundother people and I was never
(41:45):
taught how to make friends andkeep them.
When an inmate says he doesn'twant out, I hope that somebody
listens.
Speaker 2 (41:53):
And that should really be put on the front of
every criminal justice book.
The awareness of our duty is toprotect people and when
somebody tells you who they are,you should probably listen to
who they are, if not by theirown words but by their actions.
And he had both.
He had his words that I will dothis again and then his actions
that multiple times he'sincarcerated for violent attacks
(42:17):
on people and murders and he'sjust.
They just keep letting him outand it doesn't end specifically
because the criminal justicesystem.
It ends because he ends it onhis own terms, which again kind
of a psychopathic move rightthere, like I'm not going to let
you take me out, I'm going togo out on my terms.
But despite this, he wasreleased multiple times and
(42:37):
continued to commit murders, ashe said he would.
His patterns of behavior,victim selection and the span of
his crimes firmly establishedthat he was a serial killer in
criminological terms.
Speaker 3 (42:49):
We're left with many questions.
How could the system havefailed so many times to keep a
self-professed dangerousindividual incarcerated?
What more could have been doneto prevent his crimes, and what
can we learn from this case tobetter protect potential victims
in the future?
Speaker 2 (43:07):
from this case to better protect potential victims
in the future.
And I think that's the biggestthing, like as an educator in
this system, but as people thatworked in this system is like
looking at these failures andhow to make sure it doesn't
happen again because the sadthing is it still does happen.
Like we still have violentoffenders that are let out,
sexual offenders that are letout, and some of them have been
known to say like I'm notrehabilitated.
(43:28):
But because the way oursystem's set up it's not made to
just hold people indefinitely,like we can't just say you could
be a threat, we're not thethought police, but at the same
time, again, if somebody'stelling you they're going to do
it, our system kind of needs tohave those checks and balances
and say, okay, then maybe wedon't let you out, but then, as
(43:51):
you said, you kind of then runthe risk of do you get sued
because you violated theirrights?
And sometimes they don't haveto bring those cases.
Somebody else can and all theywould have to say is well, he
was mentally ill and you tookadvantage of that.
Speaker 3 (44:05):
Or you end up getting a sentence overturned where you
put him away for 35 years and10 years into it somebody says
that and now you have to let himout, even though he shouldn't
be out, but you've lost theevidence because it's been 10
years.
Speaker 2 (44:19):
And I think like again, we're a short podcast you
could probably do a wholedocumentary series on not just
his crimes, because that's notever what we focus on as much as
here's where the system didwell and didn't do, where that
due process, those procedurallaws were violated and actually
(44:50):
just kind of helped this guyslip through the system in a way
as well.
And I think we talk a lot aboutstatutory laws but we don't
realize how much more impactfulthose procedural laws are in
getting people out of the courtsystem.
Speaker 3 (45:02):
Definitely.
Speaker 2 (45:04):
So this was another good episode.
Horrible topic, horrible topic,horrible dude, but it's kind of
a good topic to help people, Ihope, that are listening to this
, start thinking about thesystem, looking at the system
and learning why criminaljustice and the criminal justice
system is important tounderstand.
I want to thank you all so muchfor listening to our little
(45:24):
podcast.
This is created with love andpassion for criminal justice and
true crime.
So if you're enjoying thepodcast, please follow us, like
or rate us on whatever systemyou're listening to us on,
subscribe to our podcast anddownload episodes.
Downloads are important for ourgrowth, as is growing our
(45:44):
listeners.
So if you wouldn't mind, takethe time to ask your friends,
family, co-workers, tell themabout us through word of mouth,
social media.
I don't care if you even screamat strangers on the streets.
To help us kind of get outthere who we are.
If you're interested inlearning more, you could visit
our website atwwwdeviantcriminologycom.
(46:06):
There you'll find some stuffabout our backgrounds,
references, show notes for eachepisode.
You can also follow us on ourFacebook page at Deviant
Criminology.
We also have an Instagram page,which is deviant underscore
criminology.
Or find me at drrichardweaveron Instagram.
(46:26):
And as we grow.
We hope to develop a communitythat will grow with us.
So again, thank you for takingthe time to listen and have a
good week.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com