Wilbert Rideau The Real Story

           Milo’s Rambles is some kind of website that deals with books, authors, and book reviews. Milo apparently is the lead book reviewer—and on March 1, 2011 he posted a review of Wilbert Rideau’s memoir, “In The Place of Justice” (Random House, 2010), which contained a number of factual errors and misrepresentations. Although very well written, Milo’s review is as factually flawed as Rideau’s memoir. I have posted previous blogs about the problem with prison memoirs and the journalists who review them (here and here). Once again I will dissect Milo’s review, pointing out its factual errors and misrepresentations.

            First, Milo stated that he found it “miraculous that [Rideau] managed not only to successfully educate himself  …” The notion that Rideau self-educated himself on death row with books smuggled to him by white sympathetic guards is utterly ridiculous, but it is a myth that reviewers like Milo find necessary to perpetuate (here and here). Milo himself points out that it was “incomprehensible to imagine” what Rideau went through being placed in that horrible “infamous Angola prison” during an era when the prison was run by “’rednecks.’” Yet Milo apparently believes Rideau’s claims that some of these sympathetic “rednecks” smuggled books to the most infamous killer on death row so he could self-educate. C’mon, Milo, get your head out of the clouds and come back to the real world.

            Second, Milo states that “by 1988 and having served four times longer than the national average for prisoner it became clear to Wilbert, if he hadn’t realised [sic] before, that he was being singled out for killing a white woman. When he was sentenced to death in 1962 he was one of 13 prisoners on death row in Angola – of those he remained the only prisoner who had not been released.” That is factually incorrect. Milo, like other Rideau’s reviewers, gobbled up Rideau’s statistics without first checking the facts. I debunked Rideau’s manipulation of the statistics he relied upon to claim he was a victim of racism by not being released from prison earlier (here).

            Third, Milo stated that while reading Rideau’s memoir, he was “struck” about how “honest” it was because Rideau didn’t “embellish the facts.” Milo, where did you get your frame of reference to separate embellishments from facts? The truth is that Rideau’s memoir is the most dishonest prison book ever published, littered with lies, misrepresentations, factual errors, embellishments (here, here, here, here and here). I dare Milo to factually refute any of the facts and analysis put forth in these blogs.

            Fourth, Milo endorses Rideau’s claim that he was guilty of committing some crime, but “vehemently” denied that “following a bank robbery in 1961 … he lined up the three hostages with the sole intent to kill.” Milo states that “nothing could be further from the truth.” Once again I have with several blogs debunked the Rideau lie that he robbed the bank on the spur of the moment and that he shot two of his victims and killed a third in a “panic attack” (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). And, again, I challenge Milo to factually refute these blogs.

            There are several more misrepresentations by Milo but his review does not warrant further dissection. I have made my case that, like most liberal book reviewers, Milo had a difficult time identifying truth from embellishment in Rideau’s memoir because he was so “caught up in the moment” of reading the so-called compelling story of America’s “most rehabilitated prisoner.” If he can ever find the courage to put both feet back on the ground, he may want to read these blogs because they tell the “real story” about Wilbert Rideau and his memoir.