No Parole for Killers, No Matter How Old

by Kerry Doherty

Autumn, with its crisp temperatures, pumpkin spice and vibrant colors, seems to be everyone’s favorite season.

Not Paige O’Shaughnessy’s.

In fact, each year when the season changes she’s reminded of the hellish fall of 2000. That was the year her husband, Timothy O’Shaughnessy, 40, was murdered in his downtown Norfolk office.

It was Tuesday, November 7, when he was killed by an unhinged former employee bearing a grudge, a golf club and a gun.

Paige O’Shaughnessy was left alone to raise their four sons, ages 9 months, 2 1/2 years old, 4 1/2 years old and six.

The killer was stockbroker Joseph Ludlam. He beat the man who’d fired him from his job five weeks earlier and when the golf club broke, he stabbed O’Shaughnessy with the shaft and then shot him. Twice.

Ludlam stole O’Shaughnessy’s wallet, car keys and car and sped to his parents’ house in South Carolina where he holed up for 18 hours. He was finally arrested and charged with capital murder.

After numerous delays, Ludlam’s murder trial was finally set. But on Columbus Day of 2002 then-Commonwealth’s Attorney for Norfolk, Jack Doyle (now a retired circuit court judge), contacted the widow and said Ludlam had agreed to plead guilty to first degree murder and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony in return for a prison term of no more than 40 years.

She’d be spared the ordeal of a trial, the state would be spared the expense and the murderer would be locked up for a very long time.

Mrs. O’Shaughnessy recalls the prosecutor reassuring her that, “He’ll be an old man when he gets out.”

“This gives us an assured conviction, and he waives his rights to appeal,” Doyle told The Daily Press at the time. “Forty years is virtually a life sentence.”

Not exactly.

There was one factor no one mentioned: geriatric parole.

Fast forward to Columbus Day of this year and Paige O’Shaughnessy was in California. At 6:30 a.m. she got a call from an unknown 800 number. When she checked her voicemail, she was speechless:

Parole? Since when does 23 years equal 40, she wondered.

Suddenly it was the horrific fall of 2000 all over again. The shock and fear were back. Along with the thought that her husband’s cold-blooded killer might be on the loose again.

How could this happen in Virginia, she wanted to know, which had abolished parole in 1996?

Turns out Ludlam hit the Virginia inmate jackpot: his 60th birthday was coming up. He was eligible for geriatric parole.

Paige O’Shaughnessy was livid. Why should the man who left her little boys fatherless and her a young widow, who plotted and killed his former boss, ever get out of prison, let alone 18 years early?

She’d read about the freeing spree the last parole board engaged in. When murderers – including a cop killer – were released. In fact, it was in the midst of those news stories that she’d checked in with the corrections department to make sure Ludlam was not on the list of those who were out. She’d updated her cell phone number at that time. If she hadn’t, she may not have known about Ludlam’s hearing.

“No one told me about geriatric parole back then (in 2002),” she told me yesterday “I wouldn’t have agreed to the deal if they had.”

Immediately after receiving the notification about Ludlam’s hearing O’Shaughnessy tried to reach the parole board to register her objection. She also contacted the Norfolk’s Commonwealth attorney’s office, which she said seemed decidedly uninterested in the case.

But when she phoned the office of Virginia’s Attorney General, she was able to talk to one of the top state prosecutors who is helping her keep Ludlam behind bars.

Ludlam’s parole hearing is scheduled for Nov. 8th and Paige O’Shaughnessy is determined to be there. She wants the members of the board to see her face. She wants them to understand what this killer did to her family. Three of her four sons have almost no memory of their dad.

The killer who devastated her family should stay in prison until his sentence is up. she says.

“As far as I’m concerned he’s a danger to society,” Paige O’Shaughnessy says. “If they let him out what will he do? He won’t be able to get a job. How many people want to hire a 60-year-old murderer?”

How many want a 60-year-old killer living next door?

Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s parole board is not the bleeding-heart mess that Ralph Northam’s was. But once parole hearings start they recur and Paige O’Shaughnessy is rattled.

Elections can change everything. The possibility that this cold-blooded killer could be freed before his entire sentence is served is a real possibility.

Virginia’s parole board needs to do simple math: 23 does not equal 40.

Republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

18 responses to “No Parole for Killers, No Matter How Old”

  1. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    Good luck to her and the folks at the AG’s office. She deserves her say and I hope they listen.

  2. Parole boards are all that stand between us, and the most brutal killers imaginable. Inmates often come up for parole many times. It only takes once to put the public in grave danger.

    Charles Manson Denied Parole After Saying He Is a ‘Very Dangerous Man’

    Manson, now a gray haired 77, was denied parole for the 12th time. He is serving a life sentence for seven murders in the 1969 “Helter Skelter” killing spree in Los Angeles.

    “I’m special. I’m not like the average inmate,” Peck read. “I have spent my life in prison. I have put five people in the grave. I am a very dangerous man.”

    “This panel agrees with that statement,” Peck said.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/charles-manson-denied-parole-dangerous-man/story?id=16111128

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      He dead BTW.

      1. Thanks, but I am well aware of that.

        I was demonstrating a point using a name most people would recognize.

  3. No murderer behind bars every killed a law abiding citizen in open society…. prove me wrong.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Aside from spouses? The itch that can’t be scratch any other way. It’s amazing the number of people who murder their sigother for the dumbest of reasons with big red signs that say “I did it”.

      1. “Aside from spouses?”

        Not sure that answers his challenge.

        I believe a correct answer would be prison guards. I have friends and relatives who are prison guards. Tough job, and one I wouldn’t want. It’s a valuable service, however.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar

        A friend works for Virginia forensics. He says Louisa is the place to move to kill your spouse. They get cases from ‘wisa like “The revolver fell off the nightstand and shot him 3 times” and no arrest.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Apparently in Philadelphia, it is possible to commit suicide by multiple stabs, including in the back.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar

            Is this a great country or what?

  4. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    But wait…all the never-ending political ads tell me that the various Democrat l**r candidates support law enforcement, when they aren’t telling me the most important issue facing Virginia is the unfettered right to kill babies.
    We live in a very sick, dishonest society.

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Geriatric parole (technically, it is called “conditional release”) has been around since 1994. It was part of the legislation that abolished regular parole. The Commonwealth’s attorney or the victim services unit should have informed Ms. Ludlam about this possibility.

    Unless the Parole Board has drastically changed its procedures since 2019, the offender will not dramatically appear before the Board as shown in the movies. Rather, he will be interviewed by a Board member or, more likely, a parole examiner, who will make a recommendation to the Board. The Board will always schedule a meeting between a Board member and a victim, if requested.

    Being eligible for geriatric conditional release does not mean that it will be granted. Given the circumstances described, I would be very surprised if it were granted in this case.

    Normally, offenders eligible for parole or conditional release are reviewed annually. However, the Board has the discretion to set review every three years for offenders with 10 or more years left to serve on their sentenced.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Is this Code no longer valid…?

      “E1. Any person who has been convicted of murder in the first degree, rape in violation of § 18.2-61, forcible sodomy, animate or inanimate object sexual penetration or aggravated sexual battery and who has been sentenced to a term of years shall, upon a first commitment to the Department of Corrections, be eligible for parole after serving two-thirds of the term of imprisonment imposed or after serving fourteen years of the term of imprisonment imposed if two-thirds of the term of imprisonment imposed is more than fourteen years.”

      https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title53.1/chapter4/article3/#:~:text=1.,2.

      1. Is this Code no longer valid…?

        Yes, but the part you quoted does not apply to Mr. Ludlum.

        He is subject to § 53.1-165.1. A.

        § 53.1-165.1. Limitation on the application of parole statutes.

        A. The provisions of this article, except §§ 53.1-160 and 53.1-160.1, shall not apply to any sentence imposed or to any prisoner incarcerated upon a conviction for a felony offense committed on or after January 1, 1995. Any person sentenced to a term of incarceration for a felony offense committed on or after January 1, 1995, shall not be eligible for parole upon that offense.

        https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title53.1/chapter4/section53.1-165.1/

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Thank you – google was failing me.

          1. No worries. The search engine within LIS is kind of iffy sometimes as well.

  6. DJRippert Avatar

    I get it. Kerry is trying to “stir the pot” a bit, ahead of the parole hearing.

    But a hearing isn’t parole. It’s just a hearing.

    I look forward to reading Kerry’s post after the parole hearing – regardless of which way it goes.

    As for the specific case, I don’t know how I’d vote if I was on the parole board. Did Joseph Ludlum have a long rap sheet before he murdered Timothy O’Shaughnessy? How has he behaved over his 23 years in prison? Is he really still a danger to society?

    The answers to these questions could be: a) a long rap sheet, b) lots of issues while in prison, and c) Yeah, he’s still scary.

    But those are the questions that need to be asked – wether he gets parole after 23 years, 26 years, 29 years, etc.

    As for the incomplete explanation given to Mrs. O’Shaughnessy regarding the nature of parole – shame on whoever (presumably from the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office) failed to provide a full explanation. It sounds like yet more government incompetence. But hey – let’s raise taxes so we can hire more incompetents to do more incompetent things.

    And yes … I do know there are capable and dedicated people in government. Let’s fire the bozos and let the capable and dedicated government employees run the show. Lower taxes. Fewer bozos for the capable government workers to debate. Better service for the citizens that need state government service.

    Sounds like a win-win-win.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Those are exactly the questions that Parole Board members consider. However, there is another subjective question they always consider: Has the offender served enough time considering the nature of the offense? It is a balancing act between punishment and whether the offender would pose a threat to society if released.

      As for your comment on the competency of government officials, the Commonwealth’s attorney is an elected position. If there were a “bozo” in that position then, the citizens put him there.

Leave a Reply