A St. Paul man has pleaded guilty to fatally shooting his wife at the couple’s home in 2021, telling police at the time he became angry when she didn’t take his concerns over their daughter seriously.

Johnny Ray Aldridge, 49, entered the plea Monday to second-degree intentional murder of 41-year-old Caitlin Aldridge. A trial was set to begin that day in Ramsey County District Court.

As part of a plea deal, prosecutors agreed to seek a sentence at the low end of state guidelines, which carry a minimum of nearly 21 years in prison. His attorneys can argue for a downward departure at sentencing, which is scheduled for June 28.

Aldridge has been civilly committed as mentally ill since 2022 and is currently at Anoka-Metro Regional Treatment Center, according to court records. He was found to be competent to stand trial in March 2023.

A call to his public defender for comment was not returned Tuesday.

Caitlin Aldridge grew up on St. Paul’s West Side and graduated from Cretin-Derham Hall in 1998 and University of Minnesota-Morris four years later, her obituary says. She worked on the youth programs team at the YWCA of Minneapolis, where she “built lasting friendships with her colleagues and young people.”

“Caitlin, known to most as Casey, was quietly tenacious, dedicated and deeply kind,” her obituary says.

Unfounded concerns

Johnny Aldridge went to the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center about 3 a.m. Sept. 28, 2021, and called 911, saying that he had killed his wife at their home in the 30 block of Winnipeg Avenue on St. Paul’s North End, according to the criminal complaint. Officers took him into custody without incident.

They found a firearm in his vehicle’s console, and Aldridge told officers it was the gun he used to shoot his wife of 11 years.

Officers found Caitlin Aldridge dead in an upstairs bedroom of the home. She had a gunshot wound to her head.

The couple’s 13-year-old daughter was home, but had slept through the incident. Police led her out of the home, shielding her from the crime scene.

Throughout interviews, Johnny Aldridge appeared to be obsessed with claims that people were trying to harm his daughter, police said. He believed his wife was somehow involved.

Johnny Ray Aldridge (Courtesy of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office)

Aldridge told police that when he expressed his concerns to his wife, she laughed.

His wife’s “response angered Aldridge so much he shot her once in the back of the head with the gun he kept beneath his pillow,” the complaint states.

Investigators learned that Aldridge’s concerns over their daughter were unfounded.

The daughter told police Aldridge had PTSD and hadn’t been himself since he had been shot in the hand in June. He and a friend reported they were sitting in Aldridge’s garage when they saw someone shooting out the window of a passing vehicle, according to a police report. It appeared that a neighbor’s house was possibly the target, police said.

After that, he began carrying a gun, acting scared and leaving home for periods of time. He left twice during the summer, the complaint states. The daughter said he would get mad easily and that it had been hard on her mother because they had been fighting over small things the past few days, the complaint states.

Police records show Aldridge had called 911 twice on July 24 with unfounded emergencies, and an operator indicated at the time that he was possibly “a person in crisis.” He called saying he thought his wife was tracking his phone and that she was with someone who was trying to kill him. He called later, saying he believed someone might be inside the house who had kidnapped his wife.

Court records show Johnny Aldridge has been convicted of traffic violations, including eight for driving with a suspended or revoked license.

Related Articles

Man accused of 2023 Forest Lake hit-and-run death pleads not guilty

St. Paul woman sentenced to 4 years in prison for fatally stabbing boyfriend during drunken fight

St. Paul teen charged in forceful robbery of woman to steal her dog, Clementine

4 officers killed in North Carolina were at disadvantage as shots rained from above, police say

Supporters, opponents of state trooper charged with murder face off at Minneapolis courthouse

“Programs and policies to facilitate intra-state transfers of asylum-seekers would be a win-win, both for small cities that need an injection of people and economic drawing power, and for large cities that have traditionally been a magnet for immigrants and refugees, but are currently overwhelmed by the influx of new arrivals.”

CityViews are readers’ opinions, not those of City Limits. Add your voice today!

City spending on immigrants and asylum seekers will be a focal point for upcoming deliberations on the city’s fiscal year 2025 budget. As reported in Daniel Parra’s March 6 City Limits article, the city’s Asylum Seeker Funding Tracker reports that, as of January, “…the city has opened 216  emergency shelter sites and spent approximately $3.77 billion on efforts to shelter newly arrived immigrants.”

Clearly, the city and state cannot sustain this level of financial support indefinitely. But focusing on dollars risks ignoring the importance of strategic relationships that could be an important part of the solution.

Data consistently shows a positive economic impact in big cities with high concentrations of immigrants and refugees. The impact on small and mid-sized cities—places like Akron in Ohio and Lewiston in Maine—are often overlooked. But what about closer to home?

Using data from the most recent American Community Survey, the Census Bureau projects that, with the exception of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy Capital District, every region of New York State has had a net loss of population since the 2020 Census. If not for the substantial in-migration of people from other places, the state would have had even greater population loss.

With a total population of about 65,000, Utica sits at the foot of the Adirondack Mountains in Mohawk Valley, about 250 miles northwest of New York City. Once a manufacturing hub, it began losing population in the mid-1900s and by the 70s was a city in steep decline, having lost a third of its population and much of its job base.

About that time, a local nonprofit organization, the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees, became known as a place where other non-governmental organizations could refer refugees from southeast Asia for services and help resettling in upstate New York. The Center’s constituents soon expanded to include people from the former Soviet Union, Bosnia, and other war-ravaged places. Now it helps resettle families from Afghanistan and Ukraine.

Today, one out of every four Utica residents is a resettled refugee, the population is  growing, and whole neighborhoods have been revitalized. The city is experiencing the best kind of economic growth: the kind that’s not dependent on a handful of large corporations that can pick up and leave for cheaper wages and sunnier climates. Utica’s job growth is partly driven by a diverse and dense network of small businesses (many of them started by entrepreneurial-minded refugees), along with larger employers who are attracted by the stability of its working age population.

Programs and policies to facilitate intra-state transfers of asylum-seekers would be a win-win, both for small cities that need an injection of people and economic drawing power, and for large cities that have traditionally been a magnet for immigrants and refugees, but are currently overwhelmed by the influx of new arrivals.

The mayor and governor should jointly assign a senior level point person to start conversations with public officials in small cities where population and jobs are shrinking and if interested, work with them to pressure Washington D.C. for money and to smooth bureaucratic snafus like work authorizations. Recruit prominent small city business leaders for their vocal (and financial) support. Work with local chambers of commerce and religious leaders. Those who are reluctant to engage due to fear of anti-immigrant backlash can step aside, and let creative, forward-thinking leaders step in.

The best place to start this relationship-building is with effective and trusted community  organizations. One example is in the works: the Arc of Chemung-Schuyler and the Community Foundation of Elmira-Corning and the Finger Lakes are floating a pilot program that would resettle a small number of asylum-seeker families from New York City to Watkins Glen, with appropriate services and support. Groups like the Arc are the on-the-ground partners who will make it work.

Fortunately, recognizing that statewide networks are essential for getting anything done in Albany, a few New York City-based nonprofits have done a good job of connecting with like-minded groups upstate. These groups, like Make the Road, NY Immigration Coalition, VOCAL, and others, can help connect Mayor Eric Adams’ top advisors to groups throughout our vast state.

Transformations like these won’t happen overnight. It will take sustained effort and significant investments in people and infrastructure. But while waiting for Congress to get its act together, we can get started now on these and other important first steps towards long-term solutions.

Patricia Swann is an independent consultant. She anchored grantmaking for the New York Community Trust in the areas of community development, affordable housing, civic affairs, and nonprofit capacity-building for more than 20 years. She is a member of the GoVoteNYC Advisory Committee, former chair of the New York State Census Equity Fund, and former co-chair of the Change Capital Fund. 

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — U.S. diplomacy to end the war in the Gaza Strip and forge a new relationship with Saudi Arabia has been converging in recent weeks into a single giant choice for Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: What do you want more — Rafah or Riyadh?

Do you want to mount a full-scale invasion of Rafah to try to finish off Hamas — if that is even possible — without offering any Israeli exit strategy from Gaza or any political horizon for a two-state solution with non-Hamas-led Palestinians? If you go this route, it will only compound Israel’s global isolation and force a real breach with the Biden administration.

Or do you want normalization with Saudi Arabia, an Arab peacekeeping force for Gaza and a U.S.-led security alliance against Iran? This would come with a different price: a commitment from your government to work toward a Palestinian state with a reformed Palestinian Authority — but with the benefit of embedding Israel in the widest U.S.-Arab-Israeli defense coalition the Jewish state has ever enjoyed and the biggest bridge to the rest of the Muslim world Israel has ever been offered, while creating at least some hope that the conflict with the Palestinians will not be a “forever war.’’

This is one of the most fateful choices Israel has ever had to make. And what I find both disturbing and depressing is that there is no major Israeli leader today in the ruling coalition, the opposition or the military who is consistently helping Israelis understand that choice — a global pariah or a Middle East partner — or explaining why it should choose the second.

Revenge is not a strategy

I appreciate how traumatized Israelis are by the vicious Hamas murders, rapes and kidnappings of Oct. 7. It is not surprising to me that many people there just want revenge, and their hearts have hardened to a degree that they can’t see or care about all of the civilians, including thousands of children, who have been killed in Gaza as Israel has plowed through to try to eliminate Hamas. All of this has been further hardened by Hamas’ refusal so far to release the remaining hostages.

But revenge is not a strategy. It is pure insanity that Israel is now more than six months into this war and the Israeli military leadership — and virtually the entire political class — have allowed Netanyahu to continue to pursue a “total victory” there, including probably soon plunging deep into Rafah, without any exit plan or Arab partner lined up to step in once the war ends. If Israel ends up with an indefinite occupation of both Gaza and the West Bank, it would be a toxic military, economic and moral overstretch that would delight Israel’s most dangerous foe, Iran, and repel all its allies in the West and the Arab world.

Prolonged war isn’t in the interests of moderate Arab states

Early in the war, Israeli military and political leaders would tell you that moderate Arab leaders wanted Israel to wipe out Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood that is detested by every Arab monarch. Sure, they would have liked Hamas gone — if it could have been done in a few weeks with few civilian casualties.

It’s now clear that it can’t be, and prolonging the war is not in the interest of the moderate Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia.

From the conversations I’ve been having here in Riyadh and in Washington, I’d describe Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s view of the Israeli invasion of Gaza today like this: Get out as soon as possible. All Israel is doing at this point is killing more and more civilians, turning Saudis who favored normalization with Israel against it, creating more recruits for al-Qaida and the Islamic State group, empowering Iran and its allies, fomenting instability and driving away much-needed foreign investment from this region. The idea of wiping out Hamas “once and for all” is a pipe dream, in the Saudi view. If Israel wants to continue to do special operations in Gaza to get the leadership, no problem. But no boots permanently on the ground. Please get to a full cease-fire and hostage release as soon as possible and focus instead on the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli-Palestinian security-normalization deal.

That is the other road that Israel could take right now — the one that no major Israeli opposition leader is arguing for as the top priority, but the one that the Biden administration and the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Bahrainis, Moroccans and Emiratis are rooting for. Its success is by no means a sure thing, but neither is the “total victory” that Netanyahu is promising.

Go after the leadership, spare civilians

This other road starts with Israel forgoing any total military invasion of Rafah, which is right up against the border with Egypt and is the main route through which humanitarian relief enters Gaza by trucks. The area is home to more than 200,000 permanent residents and now also more than 1 million refugees from northern Gaza. It is also where the last four most intact Hamas battalions are said to be dug in and, maybe, its leader Yehia Sinwar.

The Biden administration has been telling Netanyahu publicly that he must not engage in a full-scale invasion of Rafah without a credible plan to get those 1 million-plus civilians out of the way — and Israel has yet to present such a plan. But privately they are being more blunt and telling Israel: No massive invasion of Rafah, period.

A senior U.S. official put it to me this way: “We are not saying to Israel just leave Hamas be. We are saying that we believe there is a more targeted way to go after the leadership, without leveling Rafah block by block.” The Biden team, he insisted, is not trying to spare the Hamas bosses — just spare Gaza another spasm of mass civilian losses.

Let’s remember, the official added, that Israel thought Hamas’ leaders were in Khan Younis and it destroyed much of that town looking for them and not finding them. And they did the same with Gaza City in the north. What happened? Sure, a lot of Hamas fighters there were killed, but many others just dissolved into the ruins and have now popped up anew — so much so that a Hamas unit on April 18 was able to fire a rocket from Beit Lahia in northern Gaza toward the Israeli city of Ashkelon.

A permanent Gaza insurgency and humanitarian crisis?

U.S. officials are convinced that if Israel now smashes up all of Rafah, after having done the same to big parts of Khan Younis and Gaza City, and has no credible Palestinian partner to relieve it of the security burden of governing a broken Gaza, it will be making the kind of mistake the United States made in Iraq and end up dealing with a permanent insurgency on top of a permanent humanitarian crisis. But there would be one critical difference: The United States is a superpower that could fail in Iraq and bounce back. For Israel, a permanent Gaza insurgency would be crippling, especially with no friends left.

And that is why U.S. officials tell me that if Israel does mount a major military operation in Rafah, over the administration’s objections, President Joe Biden would consider restricting certain arms sales to Israel.

This is not only because the Biden administration wants to avoid more civilian casualties in Gaza out of humanitarian concerns, or because they would further inflame global public opinion against Israel and make it even more difficult for the Biden team to defend Israel. It’s because the administration believes that a full-scale Israeli invasion of Rafah will both undermine prospects for a new hostage exchange, for which officials say there are now some fresh glimmers of hope, and destroy three vital projects it has been working on to enhance Israel’s long-term security.

First, Arab peacekeepers

The first is an Arab peacekeeping force that could replace Israeli troops in Gaza, so that Israel can get out and not be stuck occupying both Gaza and the West Bank forever.

Several Arab states have been discussing sending peacekeeping troops to Gaza to replace Israeli troops, who would have to leave — provided there is a permanent cease-fire — and the presence of the troops would be formally blessed by a joint decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the umbrella body bringing together most Palestinian factions, and the Palestinian Authority. The Arab states would also most likely insist on some U.S. military logistical assistance.

Nothing has been decided yet, but the idea is under active consideration.

Second, a security deal with the Saudis

The second is the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic-security deal that the administration is close to finalizing the terms of with the Saudi crown prince. It has several components, but the three key U.S.-Saudi ones are:

1) A mutual defense pact between the United States and Saudi Arabia that would take any ambiguity out of what America would do if Iran attacked Saudi Arabia. The United States would come to Riyadh’s defense, and vice versa.

2) Streamlining Saudi access to the most advanced U.S. weapons.

3) A tightly controlled civilian nuclear deal that would allow Saudi Arabia to reprocess its own uranium deposits for use in its own civilian nuclear reactor.

In return, the Saudis would curb Chinese investment inside Saudi Arabia as well as any military ties and build its next-generation defense systems entirely with U.S. weaponry, which would be a boon for American defense manufacturers and make the two armies entirely interoperable. The Saudis, with their abundant cheap energy and physical space, would like to host some of the massive data processing centers required by U.S. tech companies to exploit artificial intelligence, at a time when domestic U.S. energy costs and physical space are becoming so scarce that new data centers are becoming harder and harder to build at home. Saudi Arabia would also normalize relations with Israel, provided that Netanyahu committed to work toward a two-state solution with an overhauled Palestinian Authority.

Third, allies against Iranian missiles

And last, the United States would bring together Israel, Saudi Arabia, other moderate Arab states and key European allies into a single, integrated security architecture to counter Iranian missile threats the way they did on an ad hoc basis when Iran attacked Israel on April 13 in retaliation for an Israeli strike on some senior Iranian military leaders suspected of running operations against Israel, who were meeting at an Iranian diplomatic compound in Syria.

This coalition will not come together on any continued basis without Israel getting out of Gaza and committing to work toward Palestinian statehood. There is no way Arab states can be seen to be permanently protecting Israel from Iran if Israel is permanently occupying Gaza and the West Bank. U.S. and Saudi officials also know that without Israel in the deal, the U.S.-Saudi security components are not likely to ever get through Congress.

The Biden team wants to complete the U.S.-Saudi part of the deal so that it can act like the opposition party that Israel does not have right now and be able to say to Netanyahu: You can be remembered as the leader who presided over Israel’s worst military catastrophe on Oct. 7 or the leader who led Israel out of Gaza and opened the road to normalization between Israel and the most important Muslim state. Your choice. And it wants to offer this choice publicly so that every Israeli can see it.

What leaders are for

So let me end where I began: Israel’s long-term interests are in Riyadh, not Rafah.

Of course, neither is a sure thing and both come with risks. And I know that it’s not so easy for Israelis to weigh them when so many global protesters these days are hammering Israel for its bad behavior in Gaza and giving Hamas a free pass. But that’s what leaders are for: to make the case that the road to Riyadh has a much bigger payoff at the end than the road to Rafah, which will be a dead end in every sense of the term.

I totally respect that Israelis are the ones who will have to live with the choice. I just want to make sure they know they have one.

Thomas Friedman, born in Minneapolis and raised in St. Louis Park, writes a column for the New York Times.

Related Articles

Bruce Yandle: Halt, they cried! But the inflation tide continues

Lisa Jarvis: Idaho’s abortion ban is based on legal delusion and medical myth

Jamelle Bouie: Is the president above the law? The answer is no.

Stephen L. Carter: Should Donald Trump’s jury really remain anonymous?

James Stavridis: Ukraine just got $61 billion. Here’s what it should buy