Deviant Criminology
Dr. Richard Weaver Jr., Heather Kenney, and Rachel Czar take listeners on a journey through the world of true crime. With their unique careers in the criminal justice and academic world; they work to provide an entertaining and educational experience for listeners. This podcast examines many areas of true crime including; the formation of laws, cases that defined caselaw, and crimes that impacted the world. Please join us on this journey as we transition from professionals in criminal justice and academia to budding podcasters.
Deviant Criminology
David Edward Moust: A Serial Killer's Path and a Failed Justice System
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
All right, welcome to Deviant Criminology. So this is our true crime and criminal justice podcast. I'm Richard, I'm Heather, and this week we're going to kind of delve into a crime that I had heard about, I thought, for the first time on another podcast that just kind of mentioned this guy. They didn't go into detail, but then I did a presentation on it for my class it as kind of a case study and near the end I realized, holy shit, I know this case when I worked in Indiana. It was kind of one that helped set a precedent that we'll probably talk about near the end instead of the beginning. But so today we're going to talk about the case of David Edward Moust. He is a serial killer that kind of had a very disturbing life and I think it's a very good case study into things the system did wrong and we have the potential to continue to do wrong if we don't learn from these mistakes, where David Moust was born into a troubled family.
Speaker 3:From the outset, moust's life was marked by instability and trauma. His parents divorced when he was just seven years old, setting the stage for a tumultuous childhood that would shape his future in ways no one could have predicted.
Speaker 2:So the most significant event of Moust's early years occurred when he was only around nine years old. So his mother, who others had described her as being disturbed and psychotic and having some mental health issues of her own, she made this shocking decision to have her young son confined to a mental institution. So again, this is around mid-60s. So institutions at that time A I have multiple problems with this. But they were not kind of what we think of now, these nice holistic social workers around, well-staffed. These were horribly understaffed, very vile conditions. There wasn't a lot of oversight of children and what I have the other problem with this is that this woman could just have her son locked up with no due process. I can't even like that is kind of like the foundation of our system is due process, like just the thought that you could take a child and throw them into this institution. It seems troublesome to me.
Speaker 3:Kind of throw them away.
Speaker 2:Yeah, into a system that, and she had three other kids. So there was something specifically about him that really set her off and it's hard to see, like why there's not a lot of details about this early part of his life, but I just think being able to throw a child into those conditions without the foster system getting involved Again, this was before we had a lot of the checks and balances, but Mouse was being accused of trying to set his younger brother on fire in his own bed and that he'd also attempted to drown him. So these accusations leveled against a child so young kind of raises disturbing questions about the family dynamic and, again, the mother's mental state.
Speaker 3:So another layer of trauma that Mouse had to deal with in his childhood were the reports that he was molested at an early age, and that combination of the family instability, the early institutionalization and the potential sex abuse created a perfect storm of adverse childhood experiences for him, which laid the groundwork for his future violent tendencies. And I don't know if you've heard this before, richie, but I've heard that people who have been sexually abused are more likely to engage in behaviors concerning fires and arson and things of that nature, which that made me think of what you were just talking about, with him burning his brother's bed.
Speaker 2: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 smaller crimes leading up to this more disturbing behavior of murder. And so there are some things that he does along his life that set those. But yeah, I definitely know that arson and stuff has been associated with the serial side, again the sexual side. I definitely know that arson and stuff has been associated with the serial side, again the sexual side. I don't know, maybe one day we'll have to get an expert to kind of talk about that. That would be good.
Speaker 2:So as Mouse entered his adolescence, his behavior began to exhibit clear signs of disturbances. He choked two friends without any apparent reason, demonstrating kind of a lack of impulse control and propensity for violence which, if you look at again, it's easy to go back and say we see these signs now. But these are two clear signs of psychopathy. Is that lack of remorse, that impulse control? And then, perhaps even more disturbing than that, was that he attacked a squirrel with a baseball bat and killed it. So there's another one that animal 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't really documented the way we see it now. But these incidences indicated a severe lack of empathy and a troubled enjoyment of inflicting pain on people. So kind of classic warning signs for potential future of violent behavior and again possible psychopathy.
Speaker 3: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 an environment that should have been safe, likely exacerbated any existing trust issues and potentially contributed to feelings of vulnerability and anger.
Speaker 2:And I think that's kind of a weird way to put that like and that's just kind of the way it came out when we're writing this up but in a place that he should have felt safe. Because when we look back especially I always go to like the Geraldo expose that he did kind of exposing these places. They weren't safe environments and I think you add that to the reports that he was sexually molested as a child. And now here he is, another male is making sexual advances to him. I think it's just adding to those triggers he already had.
Speaker 2:So in 1971, mounce decides to enlist in the United States Army. This could have been seen as like a potential turning point, like it could have offered him structure and discipline and a chance to reboot his life in a place where he had discipline and structure with good leadership and mentorship. However, for individuals with preexisting mental health conditions, the stress and demands of military life can sometimes exacerbate those problems and I've seen that in my work with veterans and being a veteran myself, like there are some people that come from troubled homes into that environment and they thrive, like it's a chance for them to really develop, and then others especially that do have those past, traumas and stuff can become more susceptible to mental health. Issues like PTSD and other disorders that the military structure just exacerbates are already conditions and sometimes they don't either thrive or even make it uh through their original enlistment so like, and sometimes um get better, but for mouse that didn't.
Speaker 2:So after bootcamp he was sent to Frankfurt, germany, um, and again this time we're still seeing this as East and West Germany, so kind of setting the stage there that it's not what we think of as Germany. Now this is that post-World War II environment, so far from any support system that he may have had, which, again going back looking at his childhood, he didn't really have one in the first place. Um, so this just probably only increased his feelings of isolation, because some of the stuff I did see was like he did go back to his mother at some point 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 and this kind of became a cycle for especially his early teen years.
Speaker 3:From what I've read and was able to find, so during this military service he commits his first known murder.
Speaker 3:In 1974, while he's stationed in Frankfurt, he kills a 13-year-old, james McClister.
Speaker 3:This crime marked the beginning of his pattern that would continue through Mouse's criminal career, the targeting of young male victims. And when I was looking into this case a little bit more, I saw that one source had said that he had beaten the victim with a board, but Mouse had claimed that it was an accident and it had something to do with a moped that was stolen. So I'm not sure how you could line that up where it was an accident. I don't know if he was trying to say that he fell off of the back of the moped or if there you know if there was a collision or exactly how that. It just mentioned that he claimed it was an accident and I guess, because he was saying it was an accident, he only got four years, which to me seems extraordinarily short for sentencing, especially like military wise. I mean he ends up getting released in 1977 and he asks not to be released. But as far as the military side of it and court court marshalling, I don't know anything about that. Do you know anything about?
Speaker 2:So some of the things that I've discussed when I was looking at this case is one they probably would have gotten him out of Germany as quick as possible because it's just that international incident and you don't want one of your own tried in a foreign country and then bringing him back here. They would have probably again, the evidence is in Germany, they're not going to go and collect Germany, they're probably at this time not going to be cooperative with the German police. And I'm not saying that's what happened here, but we've seen that a lot in military cases before, even in modern now, where there's cases that happen overseas and they quickly rush the person out. Now, where there's cases that happen overseas and they quickly rush the person out because you don't want that international incident to disrupt relations. And then you get the communities like get them, you know, get the military out.
Speaker 2:We don't the americans here, but the four years seems low. But again it would have been. They didn't have a lot of evidence to dispute him and at the same time punishing a service member. They don't know their cases. We were definitely more pro-our military people at the time, so it doesn't surprise me he got so little when it was hard to prove one way or another, they were going to side with the American over the German at the time.
Speaker 3:I wondered if maybe they believed his whole. It was an accident thing.
Speaker 2:And it's very possible. I couldn't find a lot about this 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 about that because the us military wasn't going to put a lot out and the germans would have to go back in records and stuff, because it's not something that's probably going to show up now. But yeah, there's a lot to that case in the small amount of time that even as an accident, that seems very low. But then at the end of it he's saying this like don't let me out, I'm a danger, and here we go, we're going to release you. It was just one time you said it was an accident which is crazy again.
Speaker 3: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 escalates dramatically and in 1979, he stabs his friend in Chicago. His friend is asleep, which you know. Again, it demonstrates that willingness to attack even the people who are close to him, even this friend who's asleep and obviously in a vulnerable position.
Speaker 2:And he chose the two kids in the institution as well. For no, there was no. From what we're told and what the documents show, there's no provocation for. So he just attacks people for no reason, and this is a sleeping friend, which we'll see later. You don't want to be this guy's friend right, right.
Speaker 3:Nothing good comes of it. You don't want to be anywhere close to him so that incident probably indicated, you know again, a deterioration in his ability to form and maintain those relationships. Later mouse admits that he lied on the stand, said he didn't do it and ultimately he's found not guilty of that crime in Chicago.
Speaker 2:Again, I don't understand this, and I guess this is more kind of an indictment on the justice system at the time. Like he gets four years for this killing in Germany. Then he stabs his friend, which his friend's like that dude stabbed me and they're like and he admits to lying on the stand and they're like no, you're not guilty, it was an accident. Maybe again, details are hard but we don't know if there was alcohol involved or anything like that. But somehow again he gets away with it.
Speaker 2:So we kind of fast forward a little 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. He doesn't know where he's at. This is many years later at this point. So instead, when he can't find him, he decides to drown a 15-year-old named Donald Jones in an Elgin quarry instead. And one thing I find interesting about this is you know, we're 20 something years later into his life, but he's doing exactly what his mother accused 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 a propensity to want to drown somebody, or did being accused of trying to drown somebody so much in his life, he decided I want to know what that actually is like.
Speaker 3:Which is an interesting question, because maybe he'd been trying to drown people for, you know, 10, 15 years and just finally actually was successful. Or, like you said, maybe he had never thought about it until somebody said, hey, we think you're trying to do this. And then he was like, hey, yeah, that's an interesting idea. I wonder what that would be like.
Speaker 2:you're trying to do this, and then he was like, hey, yeah, that's an interesting idea. I wonder what that would be like. And looking back, the germ the kid he killed in germany was like near a quarry, or in a forested area as well, which again I don't know for sure. I didn't see it, but now that I'm thinking back to it, I could have had a lake or river that he tried to get the kid to and the kid fought back.
Speaker 3:Yeah, what I had read was a forested area, so I think there is a lot or river that he tried to get the kid to and the kid fought back. Yeah, what I had read was a forested area.
Speaker 2:So I think there is a lot of things that looking back from his childhood and then coming here and that institutionalization and stuff that adds to the interest of this of how he drowns this kid and just how we can look at the psychology of how he was treated before and how it may have influenced this behavior. Because for a serial killer he doesn't have a pattern Like if we look, his kills are different. He stabs one guy, he's choking two friends, Like those people didn't die, but then he bludgeons one person, he drowns this one and then next his kill MO changes again his kill MO changes again.
Speaker 3:So later that year he goes on down to Texas and he stabs a 14-year-old boy. So these crimes not only show a pattern of targeting young male victims but also highlight how his mobility is aiding him in evading detection, Because if anybody's looking for him in Chicago, they're not looking for him in Texas. Nobody's got an eye out for him. So each time he moves it potentially allows him to escape any type of suspicion and start over again in a new location, which makes it more challenging for law enforcement to try to connect those crimes and identify any type of a pattern.
Speaker 3:But it's like you were saying, it's not like there was a certain identifiable pattern to begin with. So when he's down there in Texas he gets sentenced to five years for causing bodily injury to a child, and while he's in custody there they figure out he's connected to that stuff that happened in Illinois. So he's going to be extradited back to Illinois in 1982. And so it makes it more challenging for them to find a pattern. But just like we were talking about, there wasn't really a specific pattern to even be looking for, so go ahead, and not just that, you're also talking about a time period where jurisdictions didn't talk.
Speaker 2:I mean, you know, even in 2025, we have problems with like law enforcement kind of communicating. Even one jurisdiction over this is thousands of miles apart from each other, and even then they were able to make some type of connection, which is honestly to me very impressive that in the 80s they were able to make this connection bring him down with no pattern.
Speaker 3:Right, because it's not like you can say we're looking for somebody who stabs people, because they're not all the same, they're two completely different things. So in this Texas case he ends up getting sentenced to five years for causing bodily injury to a child. But while he's in custody they also figure out that he is tied to that Illinois case. So he ends up getting extradited in 1982. And when he goes back to Illinois they rule that he's unfit to stand trial. They commit him to a mental health facility and it takes about 10 years before he comes back around and enters his guilty plea. And so in 1994, he pleads guilty, he is sentenced to 35 years. He gets credit for the time he served in his mental health facilities plus any jail time he had done, which turns out to be 12 years, and he ends up getting released in 1999.
Speaker 3:And I tried to go back and figure out like how they calculated that and, if I'm being honest, most of the articles that I clicked on wanted me to pay money and I was too cheap to want to pay to read all those articles. But from what I can figure out, he did the 12 years credit for time served for what he had already done and then he got about five years that he would have served. So the 1982 to 1994 would have been 12. Then 1994, he gets sentenced and he's released in 99. So that's another five years. So that gets you to a total of 17. And it did say he had good time. If his good time was day for day 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 for day credit for time served, which most states won't let you do anymore. Most states. For a crime of violence you have to do 75 percent of the time you cannot do day for day credit.
Speaker 2:And that was one of the things that stuck out to me was this like a just a five year sentence? When he killed him, he stabbed the boy in Texas. I guess he didn't die.
Speaker 3:I don't think it was just it's just an aggravated assault.
Speaker 2: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 this guy's on a path and we have this prior criminal history. But then when you end up looking at this, you're sentenced to 35 years and you're served 12. Plus five, just plus five. So he's brought into custody in 1982 and in 17 years he's back on the streets. But again in this case, when he gets ready to be released, he says don't let me out.
Speaker 3:And there's a whole lot going on too during that 12 year period. So, like you know, I mentioned he was not fit to stand trial. Well, as we're going through there, there's all kinds of different things that are going on behind the scenes, like there's fifth amendment, sixth amendment, institutionalizedized questions, all of that. So we'll go go through the legal stuff first. Okay, when he is in custody in texas he is in custody in texas stabbing the boy he asks for counsel. Then he also makes statements about the case that happened in illinois. Then he waives extradition and when he waives extradition, and when he waives extradition, one of the forms he signs says that he's requesting counsel be appointed to represent him. Then he's transferred back to Illinois and while he's being transferred back to Illinois he makes additional incriminating statements and the defense filed a motion to suppress all of that after defense counsel was appointed at the indictment in illinois, at the arraignment excuse me, in illinois so I think, going back, maybe I gave too much credit to law enforcement here.
Speaker 3:This dumb ass just gave himself up, so okay so I don't caught that yeah, I don't know if he made the statements first and then they were like, oh, did you do something? Or if they were like, hey, we hear you guys are you're getting in trouble in Chicago, and he was like verbal vomit. This is what I did in Chicago.
Speaker 2:See, and this is why you have to go back and listen to our Miranda warnings, when we say don't say shit.
Speaker 3:And that's what I was just going to say, and especially when, but? And that's what.
Speaker 2:I was just going to say, and especially when. But I mean I can see where the court'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 health state into that. So I think it's interesting that he served what was it? Almost 12 years in a mental health institution. He serves the five years extra and he's saying don't let me out, this isn't a guy that committed a murder, that was simple. You have that criminal history. He's telling you I've done 12 years in a mental institution because I'm disturbed, I will do this again. And they're like oh no, man, we know better than you do about yourself and your own.
Speaker 3:I don't know, horrific murdering tendencies. We're going to let you out, which. I'll come back to that thought in a second, because I had that thought too. So when they go to trial, when they are at the trial level, the trial court says they're going to suppress all the statements that he made under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, both to the people in Texas and to the people during the transport from Texas to Illinois. It goes to the Court of Appeals, and to the people during the transport from Texas to Illinois it goes to the court of appeals. And at the court of appeals they say the stuff he said in Texas is good, it's in, you can use it.
Speaker 3:But when he signed the waiver for extradition where it requested counsel be appointed, at that point they could no longer use any statements from there going to Chicago. And if you think about it, it makes sense because otherwise you could say I want to have legal counsel and then from that point forward, anytime any police officer ever asked you about anything, you could say well, there was this one time I asked for a lawyer. So now you can't question me about anything, which clearly that wouldn't make sense. So the court of appeals, I thought, did a really good job of delineating this thought process, of saying, okay, he asked for counsel, he had counsel, but that was for that crime in Texas. If he wanted counsel for the next crime, he needed to ask for counsel for the next crime, separate from the one in Texas.
Speaker 2:So I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 2:That and I definitely agree to a point that they should have thrown out during transport. Like you said, he'd already asked for counsel, but it's especially you're talking a long car ride, like even if they flew him, there's plenty of time, especially if you're a trained officer, to kind of coax people to start telling you stuff because your natural instinct is to talk. So what doesn't seem like questioning in the beginning leads to you questioning him to get him to start talking, and then you could just do that to people. You could lock somebody in the car for 5, 10, 20 hours on a trip and just slowly get information out of them and be like, oh well, yeah, he asked counsel. We didn't ask any direct questions, but he just gave us all this stuff. Right, that's a very slippery slope.
Speaker 3:And that's not counting hotel stays or restaurant stops, like if it's a 20-hour drive, I doubt you're going to drive straight through 20 hours. You absolutely have to stop for gas and bathroom breaks, so it's going to be more time than just that. So that was one interesting part of it. Another one was the facility that he was at. One interesting part of it. Another one was the facility that he was at At one point in time.
Speaker 3:They file a motion, the defense files a motion regarding the facility where he's being held for his mental health treatment. So he begins at one place. He tries to escape in July of 1987. At that point the Illinois Department of Mental and Developmental Disabilities transfers him to a different facility. The different facility has higher security measures. He says that he's not getting the number of visitors, that he should be transferred back to the minimal security facility and that his transfer violated his due process rights, which the court says. No mental health facility can figure out what they're doing with you. We're not going to get involved in that. You tried to escape. Like they have to figure out what they're doing. We're not mental health professionals. They are. They'll figure it out.
Speaker 3:And so, part of me, you see all these motions being filed over that 12 years. And part of me thinks well, if he really wanted to stay in, that bad, why is he fighting all this stuff? You'd think if he really wanted to stay in he wouldn't be filing a motion to suppress all those statements. If he really wanted to stay in he wouldn't be filing motions saying put me back at the minimum security mental health facility. But at the same time you also have to keep in mind that those attorneys have obligations too, and if they don't file those things then it's ineffective assistance of counsel. And if they don't file those things and he successfully prosecuted, he can come back on appeal and say I had ineffective assistance of counsel and get those convictions overturned. So while it might seem like a big waste to do all this stuff for somebody who says they want to stay in, you kind of have to, or else he might use that as like what people would call a technicality to get out.
Speaker 2: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 mentally stable enough to say that he did it and that that's not a part of his mental illness? So it's kind of he's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. So I also find it very sad that he notices this about himself. But going back to the mental institution and the escape like I could see if he was, if he had checked himself in, like if he'd put himself in there because he knew he was mentally and needed help, and then they forced him to go to a different facility. But he's there under court order, so don't really see where they thought they had standing to be like, oh no, you have to take him back because he tried to escape, like right. 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 tried to escape from the jail, but you can't put him in solitary because that's just not right.
Speaker 2:Put him back where he can try and escape again right exactly it just seems like a very damned if you do, damned if you don't. Moronic statement to go with.
Speaker 3:It really does and I found some quotes, you know, as I was doing research. One came from the Illinois Department 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 said he did not meet the criteria to be placed in any other kind of facility. So there's a lot of people in the system along the way who see the bad things with him but they just can't seem to get what they. Again, it's a failure of the system. So he's eligible for that early release. The prosecutor argues that he needs to remain in custody. Mouse himself requests to remain in custody through a five-page letter that he writes, but he's still released.
Speaker 2:Which is again insane to me. It's like, how do you not see that this is going to fail horribly? It's like when a warning system on a plane tells you like hey, there's a problem, it may not fly, and you're like you know what? No, it's going to be fine. It's like I warned you I was going to have a problem and you still didn't listen to me. So following his release, mouse quickly returned to his violent behavior. Listen to me. So following his release, mouse quickly returned to his violent behavior. So, not even two years after his release, he attempts to murder a friend of his by hitting him with a pipe and the victim declines to assist in the prosecution. But this goes back to what I said earlier Like don't let this friend, don't let this dude stay with you. Like he started to stab one friend, choke two other people he knew. Now he's beat one with a metal pipe. If David calls and says, hey, I need a place to crash, this is not, it's not dude. Like I'll give you money for a hotel.
Speaker 3:That's exactly what I was thinking.
Speaker 2:But at the same time there is one thing that we see in psychopaths and I think this guy, when you look at his entire life, he is a psychopath. I don't know about that young age and we could debate all day and it would take a lot more research 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 of turned him this way? Or when we have reports of his mother being mentally disturbed, that it was just kind of a genetic thing. But like we see that he's not going to change, like there's no change in his behavior, there's no want to change. He's told you this and you release him back into the system and he's still able to make friends, though he's still able to gain people's trusts, his victim's trust, and that goes with that psychopath trait of that superficial charm and that ability to like, mimic people's behaviors and thoughts and emotions to get them to like you. Like I said, the victim declines to press charges. So two years later he continues to escalate. His crimes reach a horrific peak.
Speaker 2:So Mouse was arrested for the murders of three teenagers in Hammond, indiana 16-year-old James Regagni, 13-year-old Michael Dennis and 19-year-old Nick James this is how I know the mouse case that I didn't realize until I read this last part when we were talking about it in class. And that's because Indiana, because of this case, started a violent offender registry. Because Indiana, because of this case, started a violent offender registry Because this guy had been in so many systems and committed so many violent crimes that possibly he could have been watched or held Like. If we would have known that he had this pattern of violent behavior, maybe he never would have been released in the first place. So it was interesting. That was the first time I made the connection of wait. I heard this when I was in the police academy.
Speaker 3:Yeah, so that would have been in 2003 that he committed those murders in Hammond Indiana.
Speaker 2:Yes. So after attacking these people, these three young men, these crimes demonstrated just his continuous pattern of targeting young males, again suggesting a consistent motivation throughout his career of young male offenders, of young male victims. And again I don't know if that goes back to the younger child molestation and who may have done that to him, because that wasn't talked about. You know, we had instinctively would think, father, but was it an older sibling Then that attack, that or lack of a better word attack that happened inside the juvenile home by another young male. He seems the rest of his life to target young men, almost for retribution.
Speaker 2:The proximity of these murders occurring in hammond, indiana, also put a constraint with his earlier geographic spread, possibly indicating a chain in his modus operandi or a deterioration in his ability to evade detection. But I think part of that. I mean his age is he's much older now but he also never really had an MO. He used multiple, but we talked about that, you know drowning, stabbing. He attempts to beat somebody with a pipe, choking some other people. He doesn't. It just seems to be the act of killing someone that he enjoys more than anything else that he enjoys more than anything else.
Speaker 3:So the conclusion of his case comes in November of 2005, when he pleads guilty to the three Hammond murders and he was sentenced to three life terms. However, the story doesn't end there. On January, the 20th 2006, mouse commits suicide in his jail cell and he leaves behind a confession note.
Speaker 2:In it he admitted to killing five people and apologized to the victim's families 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 see anything. If anybody's tried to profile this after the fact or do post-mortems on looking back at his case so many years later to see if there may have been um. But I just feel like there has to be stuff we missed. But of course he's only going to confess to the five that he was known for Cause, but I I don't know that there was more. But I just feel that there were so many gaps in time and his propensity for violence that there had to be other things that weren't known about. So mouse suicide again raises questions about mental health care and suicide prevention and correction facilities. But I think with this individual he had been institutionalized for so long. I don't know if he would have been like on a watch for suicide um and his confession no, oh, go ahead.
Speaker 3:I was just gonna say. I don't know if they would have cared because, you have to remember, this is like early 2000s. Um, you know, it's hammond, indiana, was where he committed the crimes. I don't know for sure where he was being held but, um, you know, like michigan city, in that area, the jails that were in that area had a certain reputation at the time. I don't know how much they would have been keeping an eye on him or how much they would have intervened if they saw something well and again, I don't know if that had anything to do with this case, but I do know well.
Speaker 2:No, because that was a suicide. Um, but I do know that in around 2000 that time frame indiana took one of its prisons and made it strictly for sex offenders because of the assaults, batteries and murders that were happening of sex offenders in indiana jails and prisons. So that is kind of it did get so bad in indiana. It was kind of this known thing that they had to create its own special prison and of course, sex offenders in prison, especially anything to do with children, it did get so bad in Indiana. It was kind of this known thing that they had to create its own special prison and of course sex offenders in prison, especially anything to do with children, are targets Like even the most heinous criminals don't like child sex offenders or child offenders at all.
Speaker 3:So even if he wasn't suicidal, knowing he's inside there for killing multiple young men, I'm sure he would have had a huge target on his back and I'm sure that if he was going to die at the hands of other prisoners, it would not have been a swift and merciful death.
Speaker 2:No, no, I know, I mean you can go with that. And Indiana at that time period had multiple, even though her Baumeister was dead at this point young male murders, men that were murdering young males as well, that just wouldn't have fared well in prison. But again, that's his confession note provided some closure, but it left a lot of questions, like I said, to what were the extent of his crimes and are there things we don't know about?
Speaker 3:And the impact of this case goes far beyond his death because, as you mentioned, it led to the creation of Indiana's Violent Offender Registry, which includes sexual offenses and violent offenses, and those registrations have to be made with local law enforcement so that when somebody moves into a new area, local law enforcement are notified that this person has come to the area. And it's my understanding that that registration can be for either 10 years or for life, depending on the sentence and what the underlying offense is. And this demonstrates how one of these high profile cases can drive legislative changes which are aimed at improving public safety. We've talked about that a little bit before, like with the Amber Alert and some of the other cases that we've had, that sometimes tragedies will happen and something good comes of it that will help the rest of us later on, hopefully.
Speaker 2:And with this case like I can build off this because I worked in Indiana in law enforcement for a little while and because of this registry, almost every officer is assigned to so many offenders in their area that they're supposed to check on over time. So when a new offender comes in they're assigned to an officer and that officer is supposed to be responsible for going and at least making sure that they're still living at that address every once in a while and just do check-ins. So it's kind of another check-in balance that came out of this, but it made it more responsibility on law enforcement to keep track. It's not just oh, you're on this list, good luck, or you can look it up on the internet. Law enforcement is actively keeping tabs on these individuals.
Speaker 3:There was also I was gonna say there was also questions that got brought up too about sentencing and there was a big public backlash on this because, again back in that time period, this is when we had a lot of mandatory sentencing for drug offenders and we had a lot of prison overcrowding, so people were getting released early because we had too many people in our prisons and one of the things that brought up were questions about drug offenses and crime of violence cases and why we had the sentencing structure that we did.
Speaker 3:One source that I saw said that in 2001, 20% of those individuals in the 50 state prison systems were there for drug offenses and that was mostly because of federally mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. So that was one of the other things that people were mad about is they were looking at this case saying he got out after, you know, 17 years or five years or, depending how you're looking at it, half of 35 years he gets out. Why is he on the street? Why is it that this guy who's selling marijuana is got a maximum? You know he's got this mandatory life sentence for selling marijuana and this guy's killed two kids and somehow he's out on the street. What's up with that?
Speaker 2:Yeah, if he would have had a couple of ounces of weed in his pocket, if you look at the sentencing, he would have stayed in prison longer for that than he would have for the murders that he committed. It would have been the weed they really hammered him on, which says a lot Also, again, about that time period of the war on drugs and coming out of that. But it's a really disturbing case for that because again, not only did we let him out not we, but you know the system let him out, but at every step he kept saying don't release me. And again, again. That's probably what bothers me most about this case.
Speaker 2:But mine is like the horrific murders of, uh, innocent, uh young men. But just that, he was warning them, he was gonna do it. He, he gave them every indication like I'm gonna set the house on fire, get out of it. And they're like no, we're just gonna stay inside and we're gonna make it more dangerous for our children it was predictable and preventable so david mouse is classified as a serial killer just based on several factors.
Speaker 2:So he did kill at least three victims. Even though there's no specific ritual to it, there's still an mo of the age and things like that. So that's one factor that really goes to it. His murders occurred over an extended period of time, so there was a cooling off period, another event, a cooling off period, another event that again goes into that classification of serial killers. Mouse predominantly targeted male teenagers, showing a consistent victim profile. But also that dominance because obviously a 13-year-old, 15-year-old boy and this is a grown man with military training. So he's definitely targeting weaker people, not anybody that's going to give him any pushback and he's somehow able to lure them.
Speaker 2:Like we didn't go into detail about the Hammond case because that's we don't exactly go into the gruesome details, but if you really look at that case it was a very brutal set of circumstances and there was a lot of involvement in the community on looking for the victims. That brought the police to him and everything else. But overall it just shows the pattern that he had that who he was targeting, the length of time that he had in this, the number of victims. His killings took place at several different events and locations. We don't know if he ever went back like I don't know if he ever went back to germany to that first kill. It'd be interesting to know if he did again. It's so late now but I wonder if there's something there that he may have wanted to go back.
Speaker 2:We see that where that where serial killers would go back to the original crime scenes. But again, I don't know enough to be able to say that he had connections to the victims or if it was just the act of killing. Again, like with Dahmer, he didn't idolize but he fascinated about his victims. I don't know if he had that or if this was more of rage killings than it was sexual or graphic in what he was looking for, age killings than it was sexual or graphic in what he was looking for. So Mouth's case is particularly notable because again he repeated requests to remain incarcerated and recognizes his own dangerous tendencies, which is very interesting. He was very self-aware of what he was capable of doing.
Speaker 3:So in a diary he wrote, which they have, from October, the 30th of 2005, he says when I got locked up in the army and then especially when I got locked up in 1981, I knew I should never be let out again. I didn't know how to act around other people and I was never taught how to make friends and keep them. When an inmate says he doesn't want out, I hope that somebody listens.
Speaker 2:And that should really be put on the front of every criminal justice book. The awareness of our duty is to protect people and when somebody tells you who they are, you should probably listen to who they are, if not by their own words but by their actions. And he had both. He had his words that I will do this again and then his actions that multiple times he's incarcerated for violent attacks on people and murders and he's just. They just keep letting him out and it doesn't end specifically because the criminal justice system. It ends because he ends it on his own terms, which again kind of a psychopathic move right there, like I'm not going to let you take me out, I'm going to go out on my terms. But despite this, he was released multiple times and continued to commit murders, as he said he would. His patterns of behavior, victim selection and the span of his crimes firmly established that he was a serial killer in criminological terms.
Speaker 3:We're left with many questions. How could the system have failed so many times to keep a self-professed dangerous individual incarcerated? What more could have been done to prevent his crimes, and what can we learn from this case to better protect potential victims in the future?
Speaker 2:from this case to better protect potential victims in the future.
Speaker 2:And I think that's the biggest thing, like as an educator in this system, but as people that worked in this system is like looking at these failures and how to make sure it doesn't happen again because the sad thing is it still does happen. Like we still have violent offenders that are let out, sexual offenders that are let out, and some of them have been known to say like I'm not rehabilitated. But because the way our system'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 the thought police, but at the same time, again, if somebody's telling you they're going to do it, our system kind of needs to have those checks and balances and say, okay, then maybe we don't let you out, but then, as you said, you kind of then run the risk of do you get sued because you violated their rights? And sometimes they don't have to bring those cases. Somebody else can and all they would have to say is well, he was mentally ill and you took advantage of that.
Speaker 3:Or you end up getting a sentence overturned where you put him away for 35 years and 10 years into it somebody says that and now you have to let him out, even though he shouldn't be out, but you've lost the evidence because it's been 10 years.
Speaker 2:And I think like again, we're a short podcast you could probably do a whole documentary series on not just his crimes, because that's not ever what we focus on as much as here's where the system did well and didn't do, where that due process, those procedural laws were violated and actually just kind of helped this guy slip through the system in a way as well. And I think we talk a lot about statutory laws but we don't realize how much more impactful those procedural laws are in getting people out of the court system.
Speaker 3:Definitely.
Speaker 2:So this was another good episode. Horrible topic, horrible topic, horrible dude, but it's kind of a good topic to help people, I hope, that are listening to this, start thinking about the system, looking at the system and learning why criminal justice and the criminal justice system is important to understand. I want to thank you all so much for listening to our little podcast. This is created with love and passion for criminal justice and true crime. So if you're enjoying the podcast, please follow us, like or rate us on whatever system you're listening to us on, subscribe to our podcast and download episodes. Downloads are important for our growth, as is growing our listeners.
Speaker 2:So if you wouldn't mind, take the time to ask your friends, family, co-workers, tell them about us through word of mouth, social media. I don't care if you even scream at strangers on the streets. To help us kind of get out there who we are. If you're interested in learning more, you could visit our website at wwwdeviantcriminologycom. There you'll find some stuff about our backgrounds, references, show notes for each episode. You can also follow us on our Facebook page at Deviant Criminology. We also have an Instagram page, which is deviant underscore criminology. Or find me at drrichardweaver on Instagram. And as we grow. We hope to develop a community that will grow with us. So again, thank you for taking the time to listen and have a good week. Thank you.
