Old recommendations come to light

Ron Schilling recently was shown these recommendation letters By the parole board- a nice surprise even if they were written long ago.

Ron Finds himself in seg

Crime? Having too many envelopes. His comments coming.

Letter to all

from:Ron Schilling #32219
Oakhill Corr. Inst.
Box 938
Oregon, WI 53575-0938

to:Bruce Vielmetti
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
333 W. State Street
Milwaukee, WI 53201

26 September 2011

Re: Chisholm's suggested prison reform

Dear Mr. Vielmetti:
Let me begin with a belated compliment on the Chisholm article you authored back in February. It is my earnest hope that something positive has occurred since then and that this writing will encourage you to follow-up on it.
The Forum for Understanding Prisons (FFUP) only recently sent me a copy of your article covering the Chisholm speech at Marquette Law. The article was well written, but the prospect of yet another proposal to "rethink the criminal justice system" is, well, nearly nauseating. The mental process has more than been exhausted; action is long overdue.
The problem is multi-faceted and merely addressing one point of interest will never do much to comprehensively correct corrections. Chisholm hit one of the nails squarely on the head when stating, "if they're serious about one of their biggest deficits, this is a real opportunity." But then in the next breath he digresses with "people just have to start thinking about it." The problem is that the identical issues have been thought about ad nauseum and by agencies with that express purpose in mind. Trouble is, none of the resulting committee recommendations are implemented. And the reasons for this are themselves multi-faceted and have been occurring for decades with byzantine complexity.
In the insular world of corrections, the system has become morally numb as it becomes ever more aligned with political and corporate ideology. It has been a gradual evolution of power resulting in sparse allegiance to the tenets of traditional common sense, economics, morality or justice. The reigning corporate ideology has infected the minds and hearts of legislators and DOC personnel so thoroughly it creates a disconnect and an inability to see that the dark machinations of their corporate power is itself a criminal enterprise that helps plunder the nation and destroy millions of lives, leaving them all the more morally bankrupt.
What is more, free rein amorality is praised by those operating the system — they exemplify subservience to various political aspects of DOC and the abject careerism that poisons the prison industry and leaves it with no real moral compass. They know the demands of the industry and understand the bottom line of the play-book completely and have ingested all the byzantine quirks to a point where they cannot finally make independent moral choices. And thus meaningful recommendations become mere rhetoric and the hymns of instruction fall upon deaf ears.
We are all impacted by the system; those in positions of control as well as those captives dwelling in the bowels of the beast. When a captive allows an institution to provide him with his identity and sense of self-worth he becomes an obsequious pawn, no matter how much intelligence or talent he possesses. He lives in perpetual fear of what those in authority think of him and might do to him. Such a mechanism of internalized control is highly effective. The rules for advancement or release are never clearly defined or written down. Moreover, careerists pay lip service to the stated ideals of the system which are couched in lofty rhetoric about balance, impartiality, neutrality, fairness and justice. Conversely, at the same time they astutely grasp the actual guiding principle fostered by those in control and advanced by a self-serving media, which is not to significantly alienate the corporate and political power elite upon whom the system depends for fresh captives and funding for their enterprise.
Those who master the duplicitous game do well. Those who cling tenaciously to a desire to tell the truth, even at a cost to themselves or the institution, become a management problem. Such is my personal experience. But one's position must be contemplative, not only to recognize the Maoist tendency to hammer the hardest on the nail sticking up the farthest, but to realized when one sticks with what has already been done there is generally no true advancement.
If Chisholm examines the effects of systemic hubris and the pathology of the system's self-infatuation; if he looks at the system's large and small failures — as well as its relatively few successes — he will eventually push past the myth of corrections peddled to him by legislators and DOC minions and uncover its troubled core.
As things stand, it is no longer about "corrections." There is nothing being corrected by the current mess. "Corrections" has been leached of all real meaning, and only the notion remains of a parole opportunity even for the most deserving. Even the most hardheaded critics must concede that rethinking a failed policy is not a weakness — nor soft — but the only wise way to proceed.
And be it not unlike me to expose a perceived problem, but I would be remiss to not also offer valid suggestions to correct corrections. Chisholm acknowledges the exponentially increasing fiscal problem, and states it is in part due to parolees violating the conditions of their parole. While that is a despicable and unnecessary problem, other States have realized the ineffectiveness of it and have done away with parole revocation for minor infractions of rules. That alone would achieve a 40% decrease in the recidivism problem and yield a significant fiscal savings.
An even bigger problem is one of judicial intent not being adhered to. It is HUGE, and largely ignored. And it is increasingly costly as more captives are entangled in the system. But it's not necessarily the system's fault; any system is only as good as what is put into it. And in this case, there simply are no safeguards in place to make the system accountable to the tenet of judicial intention.
Contrary to Chisholm's thoughts, all changes do not need to come from Madison, nor do they need to be studied by yet another committee/ nor sponsored by some legislative Act. Enormous benefits could be realized on a personal level if various people would act more responsibly.
For instance, if Chisholm himself is sincere about trying to save the State millions of dollars each year he could immediately implement a procedure to follow-up on those captives he was responsible for prosecuting. Some simple mousing around the DOC data archives would yield data allowing him to confirm just how much time has been served by any given captive, and how far it is beyond the mark of the sentencing judge's intent. And I offer my own case as an illustration/ where the judge intended for me to serve the mean average at the time of sentencing — which was 13.6 years — and yet here I sit well into my 37th year. And truth be known, I had a more honest opportunity at obtaining a parole 20 years ago than I do under the current incarnation of the parole schema.
For more information on the manifest problems creating the above scenario, please visit and peruse some of the essays.
Thank you for your time and attention to the above matters. Sincerely/
. Ron Schilling
cc: Senate Committee :on Judiciary/ Utilities/ Commerce/ and Government Operations: Senator Zipperer (R)/ Chair Senator Neil Kedzie (R) / Vice Chair Senator Pam Galloway (R) Senator Fred Risser (D) • Senator Jon Erpenbach (D)
Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections: Representative Gary Bies (R) / Chair Representative Andre Jacques (R) / Vice Chair Representative Steve Kestell (R) Representative Ed Brooks (R) Representative Scott Krug (R) Representative Frederick Kessler (D) Representative Robert Turner (D)
Milwaukee DA John Chisholm
Forum For Understanding Prisons
WI-CURE
WI Prison Watch
WI Network for Peace and Justice
-3-

picture of original letter

latest documents, latest heartbreak

Another denial of parole 5/11


(above is 5/11 parole decision, document 1. click to view larger, transcribed below)


PCAT240
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Parole Commission
DOC-1208 (Rev.09/2008) W1CS
PAROLE COMMISSION ACTION
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Statutes
Chapter 304
Administrative Code
Chapter PAC1
OFFENDER NAME
SCHILLING, RON
DOC NUMBER
032219
INSTITUTION NAME
Oakhill Correctional Institution [OCI]
AGENT NUMBER
70511
T1S
No
980
No

RECOMMENDED ACTION TAKEN
Defer (for 6 Months)
NEW FED
01/26/2012
MR/ES
Life Sentence
RECOMMENDED ELIGIBILITY DATE
DATE ACTION TAKEN
05/11/2011
HEARING TYPE
Parole Review

If you are recommended for a parole grant, the time frame within which you shall be released, as established by the chairperson of the Parole Commission, shall be reflected in the grant.
GENERAL REASONS FOR ACTION TAKEN
1. Parole Plan - approved
2. Release at this time would involve an unreasonable risk to the public.
3. Your institutional conduct has been satisfactory.
4. You have NOT served sufficient time for punishment.
5. Your program participation has been satisfactory.
PAROLE COMMISSION COMMENTS
At 59 years of age, you have served 36yrs 2 mos. and you are serving your 3rd period of adult incarceration as a violation of probation with new sentence for PTAC of armed robbery, and PTAC of 1st degree murder, which occurred in June of 1975, and involved you and an accomplice planning to rob a drug dealer, and during the incident, the man was not only struck with a claw hammer and pipe, but you stabbed the victim approximately 20 times resulting in his death. You have a lengthy offense history which dates back to when you were a juvenile.

You have been at OCI since May of 2006, your institution conduct has been and remains good (minor conduct report in 5/2009) and you have no unmet programming needs. You have not held an inst job since 7/16/1997 per your account and said you keep yourself busy writing. The SW summary says unassigned since 5/2006. When seen in the past you said you were receptive to a return to the center system and off grounds employment for reentry purposes. When PRC saw you and talked about inst job and transfer to Milw Ctn, you were not interested. Your interest is purely release and not following the rec of ERRC or PRC. As I stated today, doing it your way will not lead to release. You need to do what is told/rec to you. For the aforementioned reasons, the ERRC again endorses a reduction in custody rating to minimum community custody status and opportunities in the comm. as determined and at the discretion of the inst. for a period of monitoring. In the mean time I again stressed you need to get an inst job to show motivation as told to you by PRC. You have been in the WCCS several times in the past. You do have an approved plan for Milw but transition is necessary first. You need to follow what you are told! The increase to a D-6 is soley meant to give time to be reviewed by PRC in 6/2011 and if approve custody reduction and/or move, time for this to happen. The defer is not due to misconduct or meant to be negative. LANGUAGE ON THIS FORM DOES NOT REFLECT CHANGES PURSUANT TO 2009 WISCONSIN ACT 28

Below is 5/11 parole decision, document 2. click to view larger, transcribed below.




PCAT240
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Parole Commission
DOC-1208 (Rev.09/2008) WICS
PAROLE COMMISSION ACTION
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Statutes
Chapter 304
Administrative Code
Chapter PAC1
OFFENDER NAME
SCHILLING, RON
DOC NUMBER
032219
INSTITUTION NAME
Oakhill Correctional Institution [OCI]
AGENT NUMBER
70511
ITS
No
980
No

RECOMMENDED ACTION TAKEN
Defer (for 6 Months)
NEW PED
01/26/2012
MR/ES
Life Sentence
RECOMMENDED ELIGIBILITY DATE
DATE ACTION TAKEN
05/11/2011
HEARING TYPE
Parole Review

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
TYPE
COMMENTS
DUE DATE
STAFF
Program Endorsement
Program Endorsement
Support review for custody the discretion of the inst Support review for custody the discretion of the inst
reduction and an opportunity in the comm. as dtermined at reduction and an oppotunity in the comm. as dtermined at
12/31/9999 SUTTON, i//Ji/yyyy JAMES R
12/31/9999 AET, ANGELA

MEMBER

R. VerhagenN1406


SIGNATURE

PAROLE COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON
DATE APPROVED
05/11/2011
The recommended action is approved for the stated reasons.
SIGNATURE
' File Review
THERE IS NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THIS DECISION
DISTRIBUTION: Original - Institution (SS File); Copy - Offender; Copy - Parole Commission; Copy - PRC; Copy - Agent Copy -

Denied Freedom once again: 2011

I should have accepted the plea bargain for 20 years. After trial the sentencing judge heard all the testimony and saw all the evidence, and intended me to serve 13.6 years on my life sentence. That was the mean average length of time at the time, and if a guy was well-behaved and lived within the rules, he was back on the streets in that time. Incredibly, and without explanation, in June I begin my 37th year of incarceration. And I am by all standards a model prisoner and have corrected the pathology of my offense to assure myself that it could never happen again. I have also claimed three additional college degrees in Geology,Business Administration and Law and even claimed ministerial credentials. My conduct is exemplary, and I always do the absolute best I can with what I have, volunteering for work assignment and helping others at every turn, even saved two lives with the Heimlick maneuver. I participate in Restorative Justice seminars, victim-impact classes, and numerous extracurricular educational activities. I am self-didactic and strive to educate myself and others.

The main trouble I experience is the lack of accountability in the parole apparatus. There is a hard "trust" issue after some 30+ interviews; not one has been forthcoming, truthful and honest. The concepts of due process and fair play no longer apply to the parole commissions' actions; it has become a vapid, hollow charade as the rules, policies and attitudes change on a whim and I am then held to increasingly stringent standards. Sadly, I had a better chance at parole 20 years ago.

My parole saga began when I became parole-eligible in '87. My custody level was reduced to minimum-security in '91 and in '92 the sojourn through minimum custody centers began. With each transfer I worked harder than any 10 guys trying to make a positive showing and work my way out of the system. Each time, however, the parole commission would send a memo and/or make a clandestine phone call resulting in my being returned to higher security.

That occurred five times — the last time in '97. In 2006 parole Chairperson Lenard Wells granted me a parole after considering all relevant criteria, but then reneged for no valid reason, being disingenuous to my supporters.

Also problematic is that the victim in my case has many close friends and relatives throughout the DOC system. The guy's Uncle was the Security Director at Waupun when I arrived, and upon retiring he took a position on the parole commission. That coincided with the above fiasco.

Presently, my parole agent accepted and approved the parole plan for Milwaukee, and had me sign the parole rules. An apartment is being held open for me; two jobs are being held open for me, all resources and support personnel are there to provide transportation to the parole office, and to get a driver's license. Moreover, I was raised in a family of small businesses, have always enjoyed the freedom of self-employment, and have a studied appreciation for business. I am also an accomplished guitarist and song writer, and have people ready to help me publish, copyright and market the many volumes of material I've written over the decades. Am also an avid inventor, and have people eager to explore and patent some of my inventions and ideas. Many believe both ventures could generate considerable employment, stimulating the economy and allowing me to give back to my community. In sum, there is no valid reason not to grant parole in this case. The parole commission should be charged with looking for ways to parole clients but, instead, they are not even trying.

Even more astounding , my co-defendant — who devised the plan for this offense, and who was undeniably the armed-robber and murderer perpetrating this case — was paroled some 19 years ago. I have never understood that, and the parole commission refuses comment.

Release of life cases after 1975. Is Schilling the last to be paroled?

Is Schilling the last to be paroled?


RELEASE OF LIFER CASES AFTER 1975

1) State v. Earl. 309 N.W.2d 890(Wis.App. 1981)
Three days prior to the murder, and in the presence of two police officers who were called in response to family trouble, Earl threatened to murder the victim. It identifies the motive for killing, and also is evidence of a mental purpose to take human life.
On December 7, 1978, Earl was convicted of first-degree murder, and was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 12.11.78 and was released on 9.24.93 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.
2) Leplev v. State. 280 N.W.2d 124 (Wis. 1979) HBE
The evening before the killing, Lepley and his brother attempted to break into the neighbor's property. The neighbor saw them on the property and told them to stay away. The night before the killing, Lepley decided that he would kill the neighbor and loaded the rifle the night before. The next day Lepley and his brother went to the neighbor's place, with Lepley carrying the loaded 30-30 rifle. The two waited from 9 a. m. until 2 p. m. for the neighbor to come out of his home. Lepley stepped out with the rifle and shot him dead. The widow of the victim witnessed the shooting.
The killing was premeditated and intentional where the basic facts on which Lepley was found guilty of first degree murder were that he, in the company of his brother, lay in wait for a neighbor, and when he emerged from his home, Lepley shot him with a 30-30 rifle. Lepley was promptly arrested and charged with first degree murder.
Leonard Lepley plead guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment on October 21, 1946. The record shows that Lepley was paroled in 1958, after serving twelve years of incarceration. That parole was later revoked.
DOC records show Lepley was re-admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 5.20.75 and was released on 4.30.84 after serving an additional nine years of incarceration.
3) Larson v. State. 271 N.W.2d 647 (Wis. 1978) HBE
Herbert Heintz died as a result of two gunshot wounds on December 23, 1974. At that time Gerald L. Larson was living with Heintz and his wife.
Larson and Heintz spent the day ice fishing and did considerable drinking. They returned home and had dinner when, apparently without provocation, Heintz slammed his hands on the table and began to berate his wife with abusive language. He then left the house. Larson followed him approximately ten minutes later. He found Heintz standing next to his car. Heintz told Larson he was going to go into the house and kill his wife. He went to the garage and got a pipe which was approximately two inches in diameter and 20 inches long. He then started toward the house. As Larson tried to stop him, Heintz hit him on the left side of the neck or shoulder with the pipe, knocking him to the ground. Larson got up, went to his car and got his .22 magnum revolver from the glove compartment. Larson again tried to stop Heintz, saying if he was going to kill anyone he could start with him. Heintz hit Larson with the pipe on the left arm. Heintz then turned to his car and was about to get in when Larson shot him in the back of the head from a distance of two feet. Heintz fell onto the car seat. Larson reached in over the body and, placing the gun against the back of Heintz' head, shot a second time. He waited to make sure Heintz was dead, then pushed his feet inside the car and shut the door. He returned the gun to his glove compartment and went back into the house where he and Mrs. Heintz watched television until about lip. m., when he went to bed.
The next morning Larson moved Heintz' body to the trunk of the car. Two days later he moved the body to the trunk of his own car and took it to a wooded area where he left it. He threw Heintz' keys into the trash at the Heintz residence. Heintz was reported missing on December 27th. Police searched the home and interviewed Larson and Mrs. Heintz. Heintz' car was impounded and blood matching his type was found on the front seat and floor and in the trunk. The body was discovered in the woods in November, 1975. Two .22 magnum bullets were found in the body. On December 1, 1975, the police took a .22 magnum revolver from Larson.
The police later asked Larson to come to the station to discuss the killing of Heintz. A detailed six-page longhand statement was written by a police officer based on Larson's answers to questions. Before signing the last page of the statement, Larson obliterated one line and initialed it. This obliterated statement said that Larson did not plan to kill Heintz.
Larson was convicted of first-deree murder and admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 2.23.76 and was released on 1.25.88 after serving twelve years of incarceration.
4) Sage v. State. 275 N.W.2d 705 (Wis. 1979)
Paul Sage was convicted of the first-degree murder of William Bartel, in Ainsworth, WI. Sage was at a bar with Bartel, age eighty, who was bragging about his car and money. Bartel offered to give the defendant a ride home. Sage invited him in for a beer. As Bartel was seated near the kitchen table, the defendant took a shovel from the hall behind Bartel and hit him with the shovel in the back of the head. Sage hit Bartel "maybe 20 or 30 times," tied his hands and feet, taking his wallet, and dumped him in a dry well head-first. The body was covered, except for the feet, by rugs and towels. A deputy sheriff found Bartel's body, and Sage was apprehended in Oklahoma and extradited to Wisconsin.
A pathologist, performed an autopsy and determined death was caused by blunt blows to the head, and listed nineteen "subheadings" of external injuries, yet he declined to number the injuries. It was further determined the "body was banged from so many different sides" that a fall would not have produced the injuries.
Sage was convicted of first-degree murder and admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 1.24.76 and was released on 10.13.89 after serving thirteen years of incarceration.
5) Roe v. State. 290N.W.2d291 (Wis. 1980)
Richard J. Roe, Sr. pled NGRI to the charges, and was found guilty on 26 April 1976, after a bifurcated jury trial, of the first degree murder of James Armbruster. The facts leading up to the death of James Armbruster were never in dispute. Neither was the fact that the defendant fired the fatal shot.
Roe entered the tavern at the Log Cabin Lodge and, noticing that the place was crowded and that only one seat was open, he sat down next to James Armbruster. Roe had an old score to settle with Armbruster. After some light conversation he left and returned approximately an hour later, parking his car in a spot where "no one could trap him," and wearing a trench coat which he had not worn previously. He walked out of the Lodge once more and reappeared a few minutes later. Armbruster was sitting on the second bar stool from the right nearest to the door. As the defendant entered the bar, witnesses observed him carrying a bolt action shotgun. He leveled the gun at Armbruster. Armbruster was still sitting on the bar stool and when the defendant came in, he turned around to his right. At that moment, the defendant, from less than five feet away, fired the shotgun, hitting Armbruster right below the rib cage. Armbruster died of massive internal injuries. The defendant remained stationary after the shooting for a couple of seconds, turned around and then walked out. As he walked toward his car, he passed an employee of the Lodge and said, "I shot a man, so what?"
Police officers surrounded the defendant's cabin at 2:30 a. m. After arresting Roe, the officers found a bolt action shotgun in a closet with one spent cartridge in the chamber and one fully loaded cartridge was in the clip.
During the second phase of the NGRI trial, the defense counsel produced an expert witnesses to establish an insanity defense at the time of the shooting. The expert described Roe's reaction to the shooting: "Mr. Roe related the incidents to it like a teacher, he was smiling, he took great pride in detail, he took great pride that he could do this, he saw himself and he saw this act of taking another man's life, this particular man's life, as really doing the community a service. He felt that Mr. Armbruster had violated the morals of the community and the standards of the community and the laws of the community himself and had never been reprimanded for it and somebody had to do it, and Richard Roe did it."
Roe was found not to have had a mental disease or defect so as to lack "substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law." He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Roe was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 4.28.76 and was released on 10.30.89 after serving thirteen years of incarceration.
6) Ketterhagen v. State. 248 N.W.2d 902 (Wis. 1977)
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Mark C. Ketterhagen, and he was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 8.30.75 and was released on 2.15.90 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.
7) Alien v. State. 300 N.W.2d 82 (Wis.App. 1980)
Augusta Alien had a history of convictions prior to the murder conviction. Five convictions occurred within ten years of the first-degree murder trial. Alien was found guilty of first-degree murder, and was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 3.14.77 and was released on 10.16.90 after serving thirteen years of incarceration.
8) Wagner v. State. 277 N.W.2d 849 (Wis. 1979) HBE
The body of Suzan Reignier was found in a creek bed under a bridge in Brown county. She had been raped and murdered and had apparently been dead for some time. Her corpse was repeatedly raped night after night by Richard Wagner.
Personal property belonging to the deceased girl was found hi Brown county near property owned by Wagner's uncle and grandmother. Shortly thereafter Wagner went to the Sheriffs Department with a purse belonging to the deceased girl. An investigation ensued and Wagner was placed on a probation hold after having been delinquent in reporting for four months, and after the agent had written several letters asking him to report in person and advising him that his failure to report was a violation of his probation agreement. It was rumored that Wagner was behaving oddly.
The investigation showed Wagner's fingerprint had been found in dried blood on the knife used in the murder.
A jury found Wagner guilty of first-degree murder and found that he had not been suffering from a mental disease or defect, and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Wagner was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 11.19.75 and was released on 5.3.91 after serving sixteen of incarceration.
9) State v. Semenak. 297 N.W.2d 515 (Wis.App. 1980)
On 26 March 1977 Keith Semenak's wife, Bettie, was shot to death in the kitchen with a .25 caliber Colt pistol the defendant kept in his dresser in the bedroom. There were no witnesses or evidence of a forcible entry by the killer. Four bullets entered her chest, all in a six-inch spread, two of which entered her heart. Two bullets went through her left arm. The victim's Son found her body lying on the floor with her legs on a kitchen chair and a cigarette in her hand. She was dressed to go to work. A State Crime Laboratory investigator found a .25 caliber Colt semiautomatic pistol in the right-hand corner of the living room couch, and it contained the defendant's fingerprints.
Keith Semenak was convicted of the crime and subsequently admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 8.22.78 and was released on 8.8.91 after serving thirteen years of incarceration.
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
10) Woodrow Guiden, a repeat offender, intentionally murdered a security guard during an armed robbery. He was sentenced to life plus 33 years, was admitted to the DOC on 7.29.75 and was released on 3.31.92 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
11) Cleehorn v. State. 198 N.W.2d 577 (Wis. 1972)
Norman Lee Cleghorn shot a man in Knox's tavern in Milwaukee. Cleghorn was charged with first-degree murder, tried before a jury, found guilty of the crime.
According to DOC records, Cleghorn was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 10.17.75 and was released on 10.18.92 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
12) State v. Wirth. 330 N.W.2d 249 (Wis.App. 1982)
Alan L. Wirth and other individuals burglarized Clayton Hull's home and stole a .38 caliber revolver. While the burglary was in progress, Hull returned home and struggled with the burglars to get the keys to their car. During the struggle, Wirth leaned over the car and shot Hull twice with the stolen revolver. Wirth returned home in Milwaukee, and the revolver he used to shoot Hull fell out from his pants and discharged as it hit the floor. When he sought medical help for the gunshot wound, the police were notified. Wirth told police he shot twice
because Hull did not fall after the first shot.
Wirth was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 8.24.77 and was released on 1.3.92 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.
13) State v. Zelenka. 266 N.W.2d 279 (Wis. 1978)
Robert Steven Zelenka drove a van while an assault was taking place in the back. The victim died as a result of the wounds suffered in the assault. Zelenka was found guilty of first-degree murder and armed robbery. About fourty minutes after that offense occurred, Zelenka also walked a blindfolded man into the woods in Iowa County and shot him in the head with his friend's .357 magnum handgun, but was acquitted of that crime.
Prior to this acquittal he was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence plus a 3 year term on 12.12.75 and was released on 5.21.92 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
14) Austin v. State. 271 N.W.2d 668 (Wis. 1978) HBE
Bobby Earl Austin smoked marijuana, injected heroin, and drank an undetermined amount of wine and beer, and then joined a dice game at a local tavern in Racine. Kenny Simmons and Berlyn Funderburg later joined the game, and Funderburg began winning consistently. After the defendant found that Funderburg had been playing with loaded dice, he demanded that Funderburg return the money he had lost in the dice game, but Funderburg refused. Austin then went to the home of a friend, took a shotgun, and loaded it. He then returned to the site of the dice game. After demanding but not recovering money there, he traced down Funderburg. Funderburg approached defendant's car. The defendant got out of the car with the shotgun, and told Funderburg to return the money lost in the dice game. Funderburg took money out of his pocket, and the Austin took it. He then noticed Kenny Simmons, turned and said either "You next Kenny boy" or something to the effect "I'm going to blow you away," and fired the shotgun. The blast only slightly injured Simmons but killed Willie Wortham, who was standing nearby.
Following a jury trial, Austin was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, and one count of armed robbery. He was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment for first-degree murder and additional terms of 15 and 7 years for the attempted first-degree murder and armed robbery, respectively.
Austin was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 12.11.75 and was released on 4.13.92 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
16)Bereeron v. State. 271 N.W.2d 386 (Wis. 1978) HBE
This case was consolidated with one Terry Neeley for his role in the murder of Marvin Boguskie. The victim had been shot by a 12 gauge shotgun in the back yard of his home, and death was caused by gunshot wounds to the chest. The state established that a conspiracy was formed to kill Marvin Boguskie. The 4 members participating in the conspiracy were the defendant, the co-defendant, Neeley, and two accomplices. The initial plan in the conspiracy was to kill the victim as he left work., but the plan was abandoned because there were too many witnesses around. There were also plans to conceal the gun afterwards, and numerous phone calls plotting every detail.
Walter E. Bergeron was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 6.24.76 and was released on 6.30.92 after serving sixteen years of incarceration.
17) The case of Mark Moes was connected with the above Bergeron case, was also convicted of first-degree murder and was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 5.8.76 and was released on 1.4.93 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
18) State v. Pankow. 313 N.W.2d 279 (Wis.App. 1981)
Kyrle Pankow presented an unsuccessful NGRI defense in Taylor County Court, but there was abundant eyewitness testimony and he was convicted.
Pankow was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 10.7.77 and was released on 8.7.92 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.
19) State v. Wickersheim. 300 N.W.2d 79 (Wis.App. 1980)
The marriage of Gloria and James M Wickersheim was stormy. On the day of the killing, Gloria was in the process of obtaining a divorce from James. She and James were at the bowling alley early in the evening, and James was drinking while Gloria watched her team bowl. Gloria left the bowling alley with one Karen Gruber and went to several different bars before returning home where Gloria and their children lived. He waited for Gloria to arrive because he wanted to talk to her about their marital problems. He went into the kitchen, got his 30-30 rifle from the closet, loaded it and went into the living room. He recognized Gloria's car coming and went into the bedroom, opened a window, took off the screen and fired two shots at Gloria's parked car for the purpose of shooting a hole in the tire to keep Gloria from leaving. He then walked to the kitchen where Gloria's back was toward him, and aimed the rifle and squeezed the trigger, watching Gloria dead-fall to the floor.
Wickersheim was subsequently convicted of her first-degree murder and admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 12.17.78 and was released on 9.4.92 after serving fourteen years of incarceration.
20) Jose Rodrigues was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 11,13.76 and was released on 6.10.93 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
21) State v. Jackson. 293 N.W.2d 181 (Wis.App. 1980)
Anthony Lee Jackson's half-brother, James Boston, was fighting in the Krooked Knite Tavern with another man. The victim, Michael Jackson, separated the two men. As Boston left the tavern, heated words were exchanged with Michael Jackson. Boston told Michael not to come outside or he would shoot him. Boston went to the Elbow Tavern where he met the Anthony Jackson. Boston told the defendant about his exchange with Michael Jackson. Subsequently, they both returned to the Krooked Knite Tavern.
Anthony Jackson knew about the victim's reputation as a fighter and karate expert, and he was aware that the victim was a large man. Anthony testified that he was prepared to use the gun and out the victim. When the victim asked what the defendant had to do with the disagreement, the defendant replied he had a lot to do with it. Shouting and pushing began between the victim and the defendant, and the victim struck the defendant. The defendant pulled his gun and shot the victim.
Anthony Jackson was convicted of first-degree murder and admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 3.20.79 and was released on 8.25.93 after serving fourteen years of incarceration.
22) Tucker v. State. 267 N.W.2d 630 (Wis. 1978)
Thomas R. Tucker was conviction for murder as party to a crime, and armed robbery, party to a crime.
Tucker was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 11.23.76 and was released on 9.2.93 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
23) State v. Schulz. 307 N.W.2d 151 (Wis. 1981)
Gerald A. Schulz was charged with the murder of Randall S. Quandt. Trial evidence demonstrated that Schulz was romantically involved with Susanne M. Liddle, who broke off the relationship, saying she wanted to see other men. The victim, Randall Quandt, was a person whom Liddle subsequently associated with.
The record reflects that Schulz visited several bars and drank extensively until closing time, after which he set out to locate Liddle. There was considerable evidence by state witnesses that he did not seem to be intoxicated when he found Liddle and Quandt in the parking lot of an apartment complex where they were attending a party. After a brief conversation, the defendant produced a gun and shot and killed the victim.
Schulz was convicted of first degree murder and admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 11.4.81 and was released on 3.30.95 after serving fourteen years of incarceration.
24) Matvasz v. State. 293 N.W.2d 184 (Wis.App. 1980)
Paul S. Matyasz was arrested after twice shooting the victim. Matyasz shot the victim in the both legs, reloaded the shotgun and returned to shoot the victim again. The victim died from a gunshot wound to the chest.
Matyasz was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 2.14.78 and was released on 3.20.95 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
25) State v. Guirau. 308 N.W.2d 420 (Wis.App. 1981)
The pathologist testified with respect to the number and manner of gunshot wounds to the victim to show intent to take human life. The circumstances under which the shots were fired, the jury found intent to kill and rejected Joaquin Guirau's claim of self-defense.
Guirau was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 3.6.80 and was released on 12.2.96 after serving sixteen years of incarceration.
26) State v. Moss. 333 N.W.2d 734 (Wis.App. 1983)
On May 21, 1981, Moss was released from a hospital following prostate surgery. He was in a tender state of health and quite irritable. Arriving home, Moss found that his garage keys were missing, as were some tools and other items. Moss sought out John Ford, a friend, whom Moss believed responsible for the property's disappearance. After Moss located Ford, they returned to Moss's garage. An altercation ensued concerning the missing property. A short time later, Ford was found dead in a nearby yard. He had been shot twice. Moss was convicted of the first degree murder.
Ervin Moss was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 9.15.81 and was released on 10.28.97 after serving sixteen years of incarceration.
27) State v. Flattum. 346 N.W.2d 787 (Wis.App. 1984)
Bernard Flattum was convicted of first-degree murder in St. Croix County. He killed Margaret Wink by strangulation and knifing her. His psychiatric history and background of alcohol abuse, and of defendant's size did not prevent him from forming specific intent to commit first-degree murder after consuming a specified amount of alcohol.
Bernard Flattum was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 12.15.82 and was released on 2.28.97 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.
28) State v. McKinnev. 314 N.W.2d 362 (Wis.App. 1981)
Rodney McKinney was convicted of the first-degree murder of his girlfriend. He picked her up from school and drove her to his apartment where he killed her. McKinney fled the apartment, intending to drive to California. After being transported to Antigo, WI, he made substantial admissions and was convicted of her intentional murder.
McKinney was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 12.3.79 and was released on 6.22.97 after serving eighteen years of incarceration.
29) James Thrower was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 5.13.77 and was released on 2.18.97 after serving twenty years of incarceration.
30) State v. Rodriguez. 300 N.W.2d 83 (Wis.App. 1980)
Edward J. Rodriguez was one of six males at a beer party in an abandoned building foundation located in Racine county. During the course of the party, he and an accomplice left to go to a nearby gasoline station and garage for the purpose of purchasing automobile tires. Upon learning that the owner of the station would not take a check in payment for the tires, the two left the station and returned to the party. Shortly thereafter, they returned with a hunting knife and robbed and attacked the owner. They kicked him in the head and chest and stabbed him twenty-eight times, inflicting fatal injuries. Rodriguez was found guilty of first-degree murder and armed robbery.
Rodriguez was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 9.17.79 and was released on 8.11.97 after serving eighteen years of incarceration.
31) Jimmy Novak was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 8.21.78 and was released on 12.22.98 after serving twenty years of incarceration.
32) State v. Robinson. 321 N.W.2d 363 (Wis.App. 1982)
A fugitive warrant was issued for Eric Robinson's arrest when a man was found dead of gunshot wounds laying on a sidewalk in Milwaukee. New Hampshire police were contacted and received a complaint and arrest warrant for Robinson because of his previous contacts with that area. Robinson was arrested and confessed to the murder. He was returned to Milwaukee for trial and convicted of first-degree murder.
Robinson was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 12.4.80 and was released on 8.21.98 after serving eighteen years of incarceration.
33) State v. Ouadrini. 319 N.W.2d 178 (Wis.App. 1982)
Alex Quadrini was convicted of first-degree murder after giving a statement to police. During the jury trial a defense was mounted as to his psychiatric condition but was unsuccessful. He was convicted of intending to kill his victim.
Alex Quadrini was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 10.21.80 and was released on 4.9.98 after serving eighteen years of incarceration.
34) State v. Szutkowski. 460 N.W.2d 446 (Wis.App. 1990)
Raymond J. Szutkowski was convicted when the state presented sufficient evidence of first-degree murder. The evidence showed that he shot his wife with a shotgun at close range in a tavern parking lot.
Szutkowski was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 6.19.80 and was released on 2.23.98 after serving nineteen years of incarceration.
35) State v. Henschel. 300 N.W.2d 83 (Wis.App. 1980)
Ernest Henschel was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for the killing of his business partner.
Henschel was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 12.6.77 and was released on 6.1.99 after serving twenty-two years of incarceration.
36) State v. Pruitt. 289 N.W.2d 343 (Wis.App. 1980)
Richard Lee Pruitt was found guilty by a jury of the first-degree murder of Christine Berg. The defendant and the victim wereengaged, but the romance soured and she returned the engagement ring announcing her intention to move in with one Bruce Bowton. Duringthe next few weeks, the defendant, and the victim saw each other on several occasions to return gifts they had given each other.
Some time later they engaged in a loud and near-physical argument in the parking lot outside Bowton's apartment. Bowton ordered Pruitt to leave. Before driving off, he told Bowton, "I'm going to get you too." Pruitt went home and obtained his rifle and ammunition and returned to Bowton's apartment. Upon entry there, he pointed the rifle at Bowton and ordered him to keep away from him. He then raised the rifle to his shoulder and shot the victim, who at that moment was attempting to make a telephone call. The shot entered the victim's head behind her right ear and exited in front of her left ear. She was dead when the police arrived approximately half an hour later.
Pruitt was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 10.30.78 and was released on 1.5.99 after serving twenty-one years of incarceration.
37) State v. Shears. 229N.W.2d 103 (Wis. 1975) HBE
Danny Shears, Marvin Louis Madden, and Jesse James Ford III performed an armed robbery at a restaurant and bar in Dane County. During that robbery, a bartender was shot and killed. A patron was shot and died later of complications from that gunshot. They entered the club with pistols and a sawed-off shotgun and several shots were fired, hitting the bartender in the chest, and sustained other bullet wounds. A patron was shot after this, as he was attempting to get to a phone in the kitchen. Another patron was ordered to hand over his money, he was locked in the basement with other patrons.
All three were found guilty by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of armed robbery. In addition, Ford was convicted of one count of concealing identity. Each were sentenced to double-life imprisonment, and an indeterminate consecutive term of 30 years on the armed robbery conviction. Ford was given an indeterminate term of five years on the concealing identity charge terms.
Shears was paroled on 8.2.90 after serving sixteen years of incarceration.
38) Madden and
39) Ford were similarly paroled.
40) Lovedav v. State. 247 N.W.2d 116 (Wis. 1976) HBE
Stanley Loveday asked the victim for a cigarette and subsequently shot him with a shotgun at point blank range. He was discovered lying in the street suffering from a shotgun wound in his right side. He died an hour later at Milwaukee County General Hospital as a result of that wound.
Loveday was found guilty of first-degree murder, and the fact that he was addicted to drugs was irrelevant to the issue of whether he intended to kill, and his NGRI defense failed.
Loveday was admitted on 7.11.73 with a life sentence and was released 5.3.91 after serving eighteen years of incarceration.
41) Hughes v. State. 227 N.W.2d 911 (Wis. 1975) HBE
Jeffrey Hughes shot his Wife twice in the neck with the shotgun and administered one shotgun blast to the face of his neighbor when he tried to reason and calm the defendant. Mrs. Hughes was found dead at the bottom of the basement stairs with her head propped against the
wall. The neighbor was lying near her with a massive facial wound to his forehead above the bridge of his nose.
Hughes was found guilty of both first-degree murders and sentenced to two consecutive life terms, and was paroled after serving fourteen years of incarceration.
42) State v. Grancorwitz. 318 N.W.2d 22 (Wis.App. 1981)
Brian P. Grancorvitz admitted at trial that he stabbed the victim to death in a fight outside a Readstown tavern, but claimed he acted in self-defense. The victim was a Viroqua farmer, and the Viroqua jury did not accept that position. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life in prison. During his incarceration he legally changed his name to Adrian B. Lomax.
Lomax was admitted to the DOC on 6.26.80 and was released on 8.00.04 after serving twenty-four years of incarceration.
43) State v. Kasmierski. 367 N.W.2d 244 (Wis.App. 1985)
The facts were never disputed in the case of Joseph Kasmierski. He shot and killed Ronald Dittmer. Kasmierski had been romantically involved with Mary Dittmer, Ronald's ex-wife. He was struggling to maintain this relationship with Mary. Minutes before the shooting, he entered Mary's home and saw her with Ronald. Although Mary's daughter was present, Kasmierski testified that he thought Mary and Ronald had engaged in an act of oral sex. Mary asked both Ronald and Kasmierski to leave her home. As they were leaving, Kasmierski banged his car door into Ronald's car. Kasmierski testified that Ronald then threatened to kill him.
Kasmierski exited his car, approached Ronald, and pointed a shotgun at Ronald's chest. While the two men talked for several minutes, Kasmierski lowered the gun. Ronald returned to his car and started backing down the driveway. Kasmierski followed the car and shot Ronald as he sat in the front seat of the car. Mary ran to Ronald's car and shouted for Kasmierski to aid her in stopping Ronald's bleeding. He responded by pushing her out of the way and shooting Ronald again. Kasmierski was convicted of first-degree murder.
Kasmierski was admitted to the DOC on 2.14.84 and was released on 1.00.04 after serving twenty years of incarceration.
44) Pauline Smart was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 4.21.77 and was released on 2.22.91 after serving thirteen years of incarceration.
45) Marvin Johnson was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 3.12.75 and was released on 9.6.88 after serving thirteen years of incarceration.
46) State v. LaTender. 273 N.W.2d 260 (Wis. 1979)
A jury convicted LaTender of first-degree murder, four counts of endangering safety by conduct regardless of life, and one count of reckless use of a firearm. He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus five years, plus three-years, plus a one-year sentence, all to be served consecutively.
Lowell Stan LaTender was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 6.4.76 and was released on 12.30.91 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.
47) Walter Rogers was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 9.18.76 and was released on 10.16.91 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.
48) Doy Jones was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 2.14.77 and was released on 9.29.92 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.
49) Ashton Fields was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 6.17.80 and was released on 12.9.92 after serving twelve years of incarceration.
50) Harvey Schultz was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 12.17.75 and was released on 9.30.92 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
51) Grover Lee Crain was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 9.27.75 and was released on 6.15.92 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
52) Michael D. Katherine was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 6.30.78 and was released on 10.1.92 after serving fourteen years of incarceration.
53) Hilber v. State. 277 N.W.2d 839 (Wis. 1979) HBE
Jesse Ray Hilber was convicted in Milwaukee County of the first-degree murder of his father. His co-defendant, James Mayes, was convicted of the first-degree murder of the victim he was trying to rob.
Jesse Hilber was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 10.7.76 and was released on 8.9.93 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
54) Richard Love was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 11.3.78 and was released on 6.4.93 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.
55) R. Worthing was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 12.8.77 and was released on 6.21.93 after serving sixteen years of incarceration.
56) Dorthy Hatcher was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 8.5.80 and was released on 1.6.93 after serving thirteen years of incarceration.
57) State v. Stokes. 309 N.W.2d 889 (Wis.App. 1981)
Walter Stokes asserted at trial an 'abused husband theory' to reduce first-degree murder to manslaughter—heat of passion. He claims he was a 'marital victim' subjected by his wife to a continuous pattern of provocation from the first year of their three-year marriage up to and including the events of the weekend of the shooting. His theory is that he repressed his emotions in the face of this provocation until he 'simply couldn't take it anymore,' and at that point, acted in the heat of passion. Despite three forms of murder being submitted to the jury, such a proposition was not accepted.
Walter Stokes was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 4.2.80 and was released on 1.6.93 after serving thirteen years of incarceration.
58) Isidro Sosa was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 5.18.82 and was released on 7.1.93 after serving eleven years of incarceration.
59) William Brookins was convicted of three intentional first-degree homicides and admitted to the DOC with three life sentences on 4.2.82 and was released on 12.20.93 after serving eleven years of incarceration.
60) Frank Macdougall was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 12.15.82 and was released on 3.24.94 after serving twelve years of incarceration.
61) State v. Nash. 366 N.W.2d 146 (Wis.App. 1985)
Julius James Nash was convicted in a four-day trial in Kenosha County of first-degree murder, party to the crime, for his participation in the execution of Felix Winters.
Julius Nash was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 10.3.83 and was released on 8.29.94 after serving eleven years of incarceration.
62) Travis Tucker got into a dispute with a bar owner when he pulled out a gun and shot him in the head. He was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide and sentenced to life in prison.
Travis Tucker was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 5.2.75 and was released on 11.29.94 after serving nineteen years of incarceration.
63) State v. Whittemore. 479 N.W.2d 566 (Wis. 1991)
Jose Morales was robbed and shot by two men and died seventeen days later. Lawrence C. Whittemore was incarcerated in Ohio and received the Kenosha detainer against him for those crimes. After a three-day trial the jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and attempted armed robbery.
Whittemore was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 9.18.79 and was released on 9.10.94 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.
64) Muller v. State. 289 N.W.2d 570 (Wis. 1980)
Peggy Muller reflected that she was separated from Kenley A. Muller. She was in the bedroom of her apartment with Buford (Pee Wee) Troxel when she heard a loud noise outside. She was sitting on the edge of the bed looking out of the bedroom window and saw Muller. She unlocked the bedroom door which exited onto the porch and told Pee Wee to go. He refused, indicating that he was going to face the defendant. Pee Wee walked out of the bedroom and down the hall toward the kitchen. Peggy went out the other bedroom door onto the porch and toward the steps. In so doing, she saw Muller standing in the kitchen with a gun in his hand. She saw him walk from the kitchen into the hall, heard two shots, ran to the first floor apartment and banged on the front door and bedroom window. She received no response, so she ran down the street to another house and knocked on the door. While she was there she saw Muller running down the street. Muller was subsequentlyconvicted in Rock County of first-degree murder.
Muller was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 3.15.77 and was released on 7.15.94 after serving seventeen years of incarceration.
65) State v. Henningsen. 308 N.W.2d 770 (Wis. 1981)
The body of Nancy Potts was found in an abandoned car in Adams County. Nancy's mother testified that Nancy knew Janna L. Henningsen because they lived in the same trailer park, and that Nancy moved to another trailer park because she feared Henningsen. Nancy became acquainted with Kenny Reichhoff of correspondence while he was in prison. They began to date when he was released. They were to be married, and invited Henningsen and Richard Reichhoff, Kenny's brother, to the ceremony. Nancy's mother received an inquiry from the hospital where Nancy worked as to Nancy's whereabouts. That noon her mother called the hospital and spoke to personnel who indicated that Nancy had received a telephone call from Henningsen to visit her. Nancy's mother went to defendant's trailer, knocked at the doors and obtained no response. Henningsen was convicted of first-degree murder following a bifurcated jury trial in which she was found guilty and not to be relieved of responsibility by mental disease or defect.
Henningsen was admitted to the DOC with a life sentence on 6.14.79 and was released on 9.27.94 after serving fifteen years of incarceration.

Back to Free Ron Schilling main page

A letter summing up parole fiasco

DATE: 05 May 2010
TO: Dick Verhagen — ERRC Commissioner
FROM: Ronald Schilling #32219 ; OCI
RE: Parole consideration for 2010
Dear Mr. Verhagen:

To my knowledge, it has been quite a long time since you had any input in my case. The last time being a '96 classification decision, where your name was brought up by the FLCI PRC Coordinator along with that of Husz, Leik, and Puckett, while explaining everyone had finally concurred that I should have a "smooth transition" through minimum custody. A detailed explanation of that saga is contained in the enclosures.
My life has been an open book since 13 June 1975. I have spent the last 35 years letting everyone know that I have changed my ways; there is scant little remaining of the individual incarcerated back then. I have changed enough to assure myself that my inappropriate actions could never be repeated under any circumstances. Despite my considerable academic and spiritual advancements, I continue striving to improve myself, my conditions and surroundings, and the conditions of those around me.
From the onset of parole eligibility in 1987, the commission has based the deferment of parole on the same factors; relying on the undefined criteria of "insufficient time/" and "unreasonable risk." Continuing to base each decision on purely static and unchanging factors is not substantiated with evidence or facts supported with reason. In short, there is no valid basis for any decision based on those criteria absent current evidence, especially when all current data suggests a contrary finding.
The passage of time is highly probative to the determination, and reliance on outdated data clearly contradicts all the successful positive adjustments made over the decades.
The sufficient evidence test is not honestly met when relying on the gravity of the underlying offense to support deferment of parole. Under this standard it must be determined whether sufficient evidence exists to support the contention that I pose an unreasonable public safety risk because of the gravity of the underlying offense. The facts of the case do not reasonably support such a finding. The fact that the case involved a vicious knife attack does not, without significantly more, support the finding of current risk. Almost all killings involve vicious acts of some measure during the commission of the offense. The mere existence of a regulatory factor establishing unsuitability does not necessarily constitute "some evidence" that my release would unreasonably endanger public safety. The evidence suggesting the committing offense was vicious cannot eternally provide adequate support for a decision that I am unsuitable for parole.
The Legislature specifically contemplated matters of "sufficient time" and "risk to the public" when setting forth the eligibility criteria for granting parole after a period of 11.3 years. This determination depicts the date where sufficient time is served and risk reduced to where I could be released. They were mindful that the passage of time and the related changes in a prisoner's mental attitude and demeanor are probative of the determination of current dangerousness. When, as here, all of the information supports the determination that I am rehabilitated and no longer pose a danger to public safety, the mere recitation of the circumstances of the underlying offense, absent articulation of a rational nexus between those facts and current dangerousness, fails to provide the required modicum of evidence to sustain parole deferment.
The sentencing judge could have affected a means of frustrating the parole effort had he intended that result. That is, he could have set the sentences consecutive, or applied the maximum terms on each
offense or gone on record with harsh statements concerning release. He did none of these and it can be logically deduced that he intended for me to serve no longer than the mean average length of time on that date, which was 13.6 years for a person with similar sentence. I am currently serving my 35th year of incarceration, and the reasons therefore have never been articulated beyond the unchanging, immutable and static factors, which cannot reasonably be supported, by a fair assessment of the facts and particulars in this matter. There is simply no evidence establishing that I would' pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society. In fact, quite the opposite is suggested from all relevant evidence.
On 10 January 2006,then Parole Chairperson Wells informed all participants of a public meeting that he had granted my case a parole after considering all relevant criteria and determining the record exhibited all the factors listed in the regulations indicating suitability for release on parole. Further, he provided I would be "released in 30 days or sooner." Noted, was my age at the time, the excessive length of incarceration as a model prisoner, and extensive record of rehabilitation including participation in self-help, vocational and educational programs, obtaining plural college degrees, being CPR-trained and saving two lives while incarcerated, having an incredible work ethic and history. Also available for consideration were documents depicting my insight into the circumstances of the offense, my acceptance of responsibility and remorse, and my realistic parole and employment plans. He found no evidence establishing the existence of any other statutory factor relevant to a prisoner's unsuitability for parole. Moreover, all psychological evaluations were uniformly positive, further demonstrating my release would pose no unusual danger to public safety. Unfortunately, and to the utter dismay of those attending the public meeting, he later reversed himself for no valid reason.
His decision to reverse himself runs contrary to statutory and constitutional obligations, and does nothing to negate the circumstances causing him to initially grant my release on parole. The governing statutes and constitutional principles require the granting of parole when there is no valid evidence of current dangerousness. Every relevant factor under any reasoned evaluation suggests there is zero risk I would ever reoffend.
Moreover, other factors establishing suitability support the view chat continuing to defer parole in this matter is not supported by sufficient evidence. I have an exemplary record as a model prisoner, continue to participate in rehabilitative programming specifically tailored to address the circumstances that led to the commission of the offense, including restorative justice, anger management, cognitive intervention/,victim impact training, occupational success/ occupational communications/ many computer technology courses/ personal empowerment, and even completed Ministry credentials, in addition to college-level degrees in Music, Geology, Business Administration and Law. Not one person who knows me understands why I am continually being denied parole.
Accordingly, under circumstances where the files are replete with evidence establishing my utter rehabilitation, and devoid of any evidence supporting a finding that I continue to pose a threat to public safety, it flies in the face of due process to continue reliance upon immutable and unchanging circumstances to deny parole. Those unchanging and static factors of the offense have no predictive value regarding current threat to public safety. Thus, they are insufficient to defer parole.
Emphasis should be placed on a proper review of the evidence concerning current dangerousness or risk to the public. Such consideration was intended by the Legislature to not only guarantee that the decision makers have fully addressed the public safety implications of release, but that honesty, fair play and all due process have been afforded in the individualized assessment of current danger and risk to public safety.
The enclosed thirteen pages of documents offer a truthful arid broad overview of this entire case since 1975. It's a cheap read,really,in light of the wealth of information contained therein — all of which is pertinent to the parole determination. I thank you for your time and consideration of the facts in this matter.
Sincerely, .
Ronald Schilling §32219

Spiritual Ruminations for the Commission

25 December 2005
SPIRITUAL RUMINATIONS FOR THE COMMISSION

I've been thinking a great deal about the faith I have in life, and precisely where it is applicable. It's a faith which transcends the physical, compressed world. I've noticed that the more my life seems to be unfair and less pleasant, the more focus I have on matters of spirit. And it has been this way decade after decade after decade in this proverbial closet; that every instance of sorrow and grief has brought me a clearer understanding of God's lighted realm, or the Kingdom of Heaven. I have subsequently come to believe that it is the true point of my life — the only real, lasting and passionate objective. This Divine reality is something I see, something I can feel and touch and know intimately.

Faith is my only true success in life. Everything else is vulnerable to physical interference, to natural catastrophe, to politics, betrayal, greed, jealousy, decay, corruption and loss. And all this — everything — is nothing in the end. The transcendent reality most call God is the only thing completely fulfilling and lasting; everything else is impermanent.

I have talked with many people in prison who consistently report that life is unfair. Admittedly, it is also my experience in this physical reality — especially where the systems of man are concerned — that life is, indeed, unfair. The best I could offer them was to learn from those who have learned to suffer gracefully through the unfairness. Jesus did, and did so in ways that people are still learning from. He demonstrated the impermanence of physical life and the fact that nothing lasts except God and God's Christ — the lighted reality about and in us. Jesus showed people the difference between being in this world and being of it. He demonstrated the failure of the people when crucifying him; by coming back three days later and calmly saying, "Even death is not final in my Father's Kingdom." In God's lighted Kingdom not even death is permanent. Moreover, everything in God's lighted realm is so good, so wonderful and impossibly joyful and free that, by comparison, even the worst and most horrible suffering is small and even trivial.

The book The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis, illustrates the imagery of size. Standing in the area of Heaven he teaches a new soul that all of the physicalness of Earth — all of time and humanity — exists in a tiny crack beneath their feet. Life in this tiny crack is compressed and stifling, whereas the area of Heaven is unbounded and vast. The greatest joy or worst sorrow in worldly life only exists in that little crack of Heaven. Even the death of a newborn baby, the execution of an innocent man, the death of a drug dealer, the starving of millions of people, or the intentional slaughter of millions inert-, or the calamities of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and pandemics which claim even acre millions of lives, all are profoundly negative in the little crack, but that doesn't make them any bigger. It is all part of the little compressed world we inhabit. And most cannot even conceive of the vastneas of the Heavenly realm, nor the Divine freedom of inhabiting that realm. A physical coiiiparieon might be as we gaze through the Hubble telescope and see deeper and deeper into the vastness, and realising what an insignificant pebble this entire planet is. Same thing differentiating Heaven from Earth. Even a quick glimpse of the vastness of Heaven is billions of times more positive than all the negativity on Earth. It's not even close to being balanced because what is positive in the light is infinite and unceasing, whereas the negative is compressed and constantly changing. All of the evils of physical life are but an annoyance with a lifespan of a few seconds — or the twinkling of an eye — in the realm of Heaven.

Heaven is so vast, complete and free, that when some of us experience it there is nothing in the physical compressed world that ever holds much fear for us again. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., called it the "Promised Land." Even when he knew he was going to be assassinated it didn't change his mission because he realized his assassination was trivial after seeing what he saw. Jesus went the same route after realizing his plight. Likewise, once I saw the larger spiritual reality I discovered it is so much larger than the compressed world, of all my hopes and fears it holds no power over me after that point. Jesus illustrated that point when Pontius Pilate screamed at Him, "Don't you know I can crucify you or set you free??," and Jesus replied calmly, "You have no power over me at all." The instruction is not to focus time and energy on the world that does not last. It is not our's.

Same, too, is the situation I have found ciyself in annually with the parole commission. The analogy is profoundly similar where the commission has me looking for the keys to freedom under the bright streetlight instead of in the dark alley where they were actually lost 30+ years hence. Dark or not, even if it takes all night, the alley is the only place where the keys will be found. My keys, my joy, my peace cannot be found in the- mundane world even if I become the wealthiest or most powerful person in the world, or head of the world's largest charity, or the new Gandhi who brings peace to the Middle East. The eternal cannot be found in the mundane. The absolute cannot be found in the relative. It is not mine.

The lighted treasure of Heaven is awaiting each and every one of us, and it is closer than our own breath. It is vital to maintain faith in what is worthy and lasting. I am blessed with the opportunity to know the difference between living in this world but not of it, as Jesus taught. This blessing also incorporates an opportunity to respect and deal responsibly with the problems and limitations of this worldly life without being overwhelmed by them.
And herein lies the only value in separating the worldly arid Divine or, as Jesus put it, "Mammon" and "God." There came a point when I ceased to see or respond to two worlds at all. Jesus said, "When thine eye be single, thy body will be full of light." I awakened to the reality that it is all about Spirit alone; there is no second thing. I discovered the mundane arid compressed world is but a shifting embodiment of the lighted realm. Lewis points out in The- Great Divorce- that once we reach Heaven and look back, we see our lives were never anywhere but in Heaven. Tne whole thing, my life, my tragedies, betrayals, depression and suffering is all like a compressed arid brief moment of annoyance in the realm or God. Likewise, ail of the good times, composing music, creating and writing songs, authoring various writings, inventing numerous gizmos and gadgots, fathering children, knowing love, saving lives, it is all but a product of the minute compressed world. Good or bad, it all amounts to little or nothing in the little crack in the vastness of Heaven.

Interesting, too, that in light of this not only does my future change, but my history changes as well when ray vision clears and I see life for what it really is, as well as for what it is not. I experience this in little ways all the tine. All the senseless ancl unfounded parole deferments since 1987, rendered without consideration of the merits or substance of what I am about today, nor concerned with fairness,or justice; it is all nothing when viewed from such a positive and enlightened state. The past 30+ years of torment is nothing in comparison to the enlightened end of it and, in fact, if the truth were known it probably resulted in my becoming so enlightened. Being betrayed by a so-called Christian woman is nothing in light of the bounty of Heaven. The world falling apart at the seams and about to destroy itself is nothing either.

It is far too easy in this day and age to let the distractions in life take our eye from God. I have made it a high enough priority to where I have the opportunity to walk through this valley of the shadow ol death with a rod and staff that profoundly comfort and empower me. I can be in the world of bad news and decay, but not be of it. I must function in this world, it is my sacred duty to help and comfort and solve problems and make peace and feed as many people as possible on the lighted spiritual realities I have discovered in life. But, still, I do not belong to any of that; it is rnot mine. I belong solely to God. None of that can harm who I really am; it can only affect the material world; it can only effect the part of me that is physical and temporary. That's why Jesus said that what is born of flesh must die of flesh, and we need to be born again in Spirit to find our eternal nature. That is mine. I have found it was right here in front of me all along, always waiting for me to awaken to it.

As this reflects on the faith I find in life, it is not only the most important thing, but the only thing that really matters. It has afforded me strength to stand against the evil and courageously do the right thing. It has strengthened me enough to rise up to the enormous injustice; and corruption in the system; to expose how it can be s0 easily corrupted by the whims of alternate parole commission members who are related tc the victim's families, who don't even have a clue about who I am today, or what transpired the day their relative died; to expose how unfair it is to even allow them to sit in positions of power on the commission and unjustly influence the decision with their vote.

Having said it before, I strive more than most to have the system function fairly and with some semblance of justice, fair-play, compassion and consideration of merit. There appears no consideration to the many people who could benefit in large ways by having me on the streets, working, paying taxes, spreading the message of God's lighted reality through song, and publishing books on the matter, or how the many inventions I could build prototypes for and market would make the lives of many people quite a lot easier. There is no consideration of the many positives this situation presents, because the parole apparatus is inherently entrenched and stuck in the compressed and faithless world; where there is more consideration given to a minor conduct report for not chewing food fast enough with the few teeth I have left.

Back to Free Ron Schilling main page