Assurance sur la mort

I also know Jim, I worked with him after he served his time and even though I believe he did his time and is regretful. I was very young when I worked with him and even though I have never been a push over or easily intimidated by others, Jim could achieve it easily, Jim often called my by his murdered wife's name, usually acting as if he didn't know he did it, once my employers wife overheard him calling me Patricia, she informed me that I looked like Patricia. And even though this made me extremely nervous he never acted out of line with me. Jim was always nice to me and taught me much about computers, but there was always a nervous feeling I could not shake when alone with him, a feeling that Jim likes to play psychological games with the people around him, I suspect like many people he likes to see how far he can push, but despite this he always behaved in courteous manner. I knew Jim over 15 years ago, while prison and trying to build a new life with the prison counselor he married was still relatively fresh, he endured a lot and needs to be left alone unless he's breaking the law. We all have demons, some more than others.

This is unreal. I know this case very well and even helped investigate it many years ago. The comment that Giesick was not pardoned was totally untrue. Unfortunately, Louisiana Legislators in their infinite wisdom passed a law that gave first offenders a full pardon upon completion of their sentences. Giesick definitely received his pardon over our objections.

As for doing our research, Giesick was never paroled. Never paroled!!! He was released after nearly 12 years under the good time law. He had completed his sentence with nearly 9 years of good time credit. These are the facts and any reference to his receiving a parole is fictitious or not properly researched by someone who only claims to know the facts.

As for the plea bargain, it was the only path to get the really guilty person, Sam Corey. Had Giesick not agreed to the plea bargain, there would have been no conviction for either. And if anyone wishes to condemn those of us who helped get the plea bargain they need to do their research and seek their facts. Just like the book, stating things in this column doesn't make them facts. And what about the three others involved that served not a day in prison and were not charged at all? To make such flagrant statements you need to be better informed. We worked hard on this case to get a conviction and simply do not deserve this criticism from someone falsely claiming to be knowledgeable in this matter.

As for the book, we addressed the inaccuracies with the publisher, author, and the authorities. Did your "research" show this? No, it didn't or these comments would not appear in this area of the internet.

As a retired investigator, I can only feel that someone is using this venue to air a grudge against Giesick and I'm dismayed that the owners of this venue allowed it to happen.

And for the record, I have met with Giesick on many occasions since his release. I can personally vouch that he neither scams, cons, lies to, or cheats anyone that I am aware of. Correct me with facts based on your research and I will be open to checking your facts.

Let's put this to sleep. Giesick has paid his debt to society under the law and deserves to be left alone. He's a productive member of our society in spite of the unchristian attacks on him based on 32 year old facts that have since had the "benefit of a doubt" cast on them.

Many years ago I worked with Jim before he married at a Sears store and he was a very pleasant and friendly person.He got along well with others and had a good sense of humor. I was very surprised to hear what happened in New Orleans and hadn't heard any more about the case since that time, I am glad to hear he is out and getting another chance to have a better life.I didn't know that a book was written or a movie was made about him so I can't say one way or the other if it is correct. All we can go by is what we read or hear on the news etc., and sometimes that isn't correct.So you have to draw your own conclusions as to what really transpired. I agree that he has paid his debt to society and wish him the best in the future.

John Dillmann was a highly-decorated, veteran Homicide Detective for the New Orleans Police Department. This movie, based on Dillmann's true crime book of the same name, details one of his more interesting cases. It actually happened in much the way it is depicted here, except that it actually happened in New Orleans, Louisiana, and not Phoenix, Arizona. It should be noted that Dillmann in real life is a lot more professional than he's depicted in this movie.

This incident was first reported as a 'routine' hit-and-run fatality accident in East New Orleans, and due to pressure from the victim's family, the case got bumped over to the Homicide Division. The victim, by the way, was a very pretty girl visiting New Orleans on her honeymoon! Dillmann got the case and, after speaking with the girl's family and checking the incident report, quickly realized that something far more sinister had actually transpired. The book is excellent; I wish the movie was as high quality an item.

I rate it 7 out of 10.

I cannot believe the interest in a case that is over 30 years old and a book that had one publishing; then declared not completely true. Even the subsequent movie had disclaimers saying such. The last comment indicated that the author of that comment considered this book to be the absolute truth in this matter and not glorified by the police officer to make his book sell. Surely, you can see thorough the facade.

This is an easy book to read. It is an easy book to want to completely believe. It's a book. It's not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! If you weren't there in person, you cannot make such comments just because you read this book and choose to believe it's every word.

Yes, this was horrific. But the last person making comments is not aware of Louisiana's First Offenders law. All First Offenders received a pardon automatically. Period, end of discussion. That law has since been changed, but it certainly applied to this case. So who's scamming whom? Who's the liar? Why? The computer store owner had a convicted child molester and registered sex offender working for him and still make Giesick out to be the monster. If Giesick were doing the things spoken of, the papers would be saying these things, not you. And the computer store owner lost his legal case against Giesick because he, himself committed perjury. Let's move on in life and find more pleasant things to occupy our thoughts.

Also, it's obvious that the majority of the folks that know of this case do not share this opinion of Giesick. If you do share this opinion of Giesick you obviously have never met the man or taken the time to know him. You obviously are easily duped if you can read a book about total strangers and have such a painful and distraught thought process. Counseling can cure these illnesses.

I agree with the earlier good comments about Giesick. I read the book. I met Giesick and formed my own opinions of him. He neither lied, cheated, conned, scammed, or duped me. I suggest you take the time to meet him and take into account the really good things that God has accomplished through him since this incidence took place.

If my memory serves me right, there was an article in one of the Lousiana papers with a picture of Patricia's parents meeting with Giesick after his release. They were quoted as forgiving him for what he had done. If they showed such compassion, I'm sure I can too. Many people that know him now have said how much they like him. I'm sure that they would like you, too. They would like you even with the damning remarks on their Christian compassion.

And Pflugerville is in the Austin area.