this is why we shouldn't mind giving verifiable information to providers. This a tragedy that could have been avoided if judges would put these people away with civil commitments after time served. This guy had a history of sexual assault. No rapist/murderer/mutilator is ever reformed, in my opinion. When are we going to elect politicians who will not appoint nitwit judges like this? All judges should face the voting public in an election after a few years in office. Life time appointments are a terrible mistake. I'm not just blaming the demos for this, some of the worst PC judges in Massachusetts were appointed by the Welduchi/Swift administration. Some are as bad as Dukakoid appointees! Maria Lopez would have high praise for this black robed idiot.

-- Modified on 12/19/2003 6:02:49 PM

If you don't want to give 'em an email address to get the page (I gave them zip(at)zippydotorg, they are probably spamming that "address" right now!), here is the headline:


Man who killed escort found not guilty because of mental illness


A West Allis man was not criminally responsible when he killed and dismembered an escort at his apartment after writing a blueprint for the slaying, a judge ruled Thursday.


Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Richard Sankovitz said mental illness prevented Addy, 27, from being able to conform his actions to the law on charges of first-degree intentional homicide and mutilating a corpse.

In March, Addy called Beautiful Blondes escort service and got Lewandowski, 19, of Cudahy, to come to his apartment in the 8700 block of W. National Ave. After she arrived, Addy killed her and dismembered her body, disposing of the corpse in a trash bin behind his apartment.

Sankovitz said the frenzied nature of the murder was evidence of disordered thought...

Last month, Sankovitz approved the supervised release of Keith Kalota to a Madison apartment. Kalota, a Milwaukee man, was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect for murdering his family 16 years ago...

... Beer and Horrific Sex Crimes Capital of the Nation.  It's good to know that this kind of behavior is "equal opportunity" and you are in danger, regardless of your sex, if you are a sex worker

A girl from out of town came to my place this afternoon.  Extremely sweet and accommodating girl, she stayed relaxed/talked with me 20 minutes past the appointment... she brought up the story and, like a few other girls have told me, the fear is always there to run into psychos like this.  She also related her typical experiences with men who set up appointments (whether doing independent work or through agencies), and it matches what many other providers have told me - painting a picture of how freakish and "on edge" most guys are when they meet up with the girls - like totally socially inept and clueless, usually mostly men from the US.

I never thought about that, since I'm just doing this for extra variety and fun, now it makes sense why the providers I see get super-relaxed and at ease with me really quickly.  I guess most guys, even guys with no mal intent whatsoever, still vibe something that keeps these girls on edge, and although I don't think I'm doing anything other than being calm and normal, I guess it's a huge contrast to the majority of guys out there.  Sorry if this insults a bunch of guys out there reading this - you need to chill out and don't sweat the need for these ladies to want to protect themselves, however they want to do it.  Sometimes I provide as much detail as possible and still get skipped over... but it doesn't bother me because I know the girls and agencies are just protecting themselves from unknowns wherever they can.

BTW, for those guys who this might help - this relates to YMMV.  Ever wonder how some guys will get BBBJ and multi-pops from providers that apparently only offer CBJ or 1 pop or whatever?  It's not about what a stud you are or how hot you look or how much you pay her (although a few girls I guess are willing to be more flexible for the extra cash).  It's your presentation and vibe, and your confidence in yourself.  If you're calm, sincere, can make her laugh a bit, easy with your initial touches, and make it known through your actions that you want her to feel comfortable, you'll be rewarded with the best she has to offer because she will be enjoying herself almost as much as you, if not just as much.

Oh, and for those keeping count for me, no funky smell with the girl from today.  LOL.  She smelled pretty nice, actually

I try always to keep in mind the fact that for an hour or so, I'm entrusted with the care of someone much younger than myself, and much less experienced in the world. If you think of it that way you are much less likely to worry about comparisons of different services she might have been reported to have given to someone else. It helps you to avoid the petty feelings that otherwise might develop in such an ego/emotionally loaded encounter. There are subtle rewards for rising above one's baser tendencies. You can do this without going without gratification, you just need to flexible. The most important factor is the safety and comfort of a younger and vunerable person in your care.

For the reasons mentioned,I have never been reluctant to verify. Of course my divorce was long ago so I have less to lose than some.  I do want to dissent with one point however.  Civil commitment is a very dangerous idea in that it gives the authorities a great deal of arbitrary power to use against citizens who are merely unpopular or nonconforming-such as hobbiests and providers who are victims of moral insanity (a very real diagnosis in the 19th and early 20th centuries), and can be locked up for years of "treatment" for their own and the public good.  A more useful and just approach might be to let the punishment fit the crime rather than making excuses for the criminal, at least in violent cases.  Why not stop seeing the criminal as victim of everything from social background to bad genetics and abolish the insanity defense and all other theories and practices that tell us that the criminal is not really responsible for his crime no matter how much harm he does.

I just think convicted rapists and child molesters should never be free to re-offend. In that context, how is civil commitment "very dangerous"? I would be the first to overturn the conviction of all the Amaraults, but the first to put this guy away forever, or, execute him. His first offense is nothing anyone could ever give him life or a death sentence for, but he should never have been unsupervised even if that means civil commitment. He was freed, this poor girl paid the price. Back in the 60's and 70's we opened the doors to mental hospitals out of concerns for patients' rights, but no-one wants to admit it was a big mistake. That is why San Francisco has bums defecating on the streets and scaring tourists. Your fears about the "treatment" approach are well founded. Clients busted with streetwalkers in SF are bombarded with nonsense about AIDs and forced to take AIDs tests even though it is not a significant risk in that situation. Using a "treatment" euphemism is often a way to circumvent civil rights of suspects or violators. But we are talking about convicted sex offenders who, it has been shown, are driven by their untreatable obsessions to re-offend. Big difference.