# Homolka unleashed



## army_paralegal (3 Jun 2005)

JOLIETTE, Que. (CP) - Karla Homolka, Canada's most infamous female convict, grimaced tightly Friday when a judge told her she'd be forbidden from consorting with violent criminals as part of a range of restrictions upon her release from jail in about a month. 


Homolka also raised her shoulders slightly when a Quebec judge told she can't contact her onetime partner in crime and ex-husband, Paul Bernardo, who's been declared a dangerous offender and is serving a life sentence for the sex slayings of two southern Ontario schoolgirls in the early 1990s.

Judge Jean Beaulieu also ordered Homolka to stay in touch with police about her whereabouts, avoid consorting with children under 16 and to stay away from her victims for at least a 12-month period.

The ruling came after an extraordinary two-day hearing that saw Homolka step into the public eye for the first time since 1995, when she testified against Bernardo at his first-degree murder trial in the deaths of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.

She is close to completing her full 12-year manslaughter sentence for her part in the crimes. Authorities will have to reapply to the court again in a year to have the restrictions placed upon her again under Section 810 of the Criminal Code.

News of restrictions, however short-term, was greeted with relief by the families of the victims, their lawyer said.

"They're very pleased with the decisions," Tim Danson said outside the courtroom.

Ontario officials were also delighted.

"Today Canada's justice system acted - not reacted - acted to prevent harm upon Homolka's release and to protect the public upon Homolka's release," Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant said in Toronto.

Homolka, 35, showed little emotion as Beaulieu told court that the Ontario Crown's fears that she might reoffend were reasonable before proceeding to read out restrictions that included a requirement that she undergo therapy and give police 96 hours' notice if she wants to leave Quebec.

She's also forbidden from consuming drugs other than prescription medication.

Homolka's lawyer, Sylvie Bordelais, said Homolka would respect the conditions, calling her an "obedient citizen."

"She never wanted to do anything wrong and she doesn't want to raise the animosity and fear or any bad feelings people might have regarding her," Bordelais said outside court.

"The only thing that she wanted was to see her family, to see her nephew and her niece ... that was her main concern."

Bordelais didn't say whether she planned to appeal the ruling.

The hearing in this community north of Montreal heard psychiatrists for Homolka portray her as a victim who was under the control of her violent and psychopathic husband during the abductions and sex slayings of French and Mahaffy.

The Crown argued that Homolka remains a serious public danger who should be kept under close surveillance when she is released in about a month.

But a psychiatrist who evaluated Homolka last month said Friday the schoolgirl killer is neither a psychopath nor a serious threat to reoffend. 

Louis Morissette portrayed Homolka as a woman with low self-esteem who participated in violent sexual crimes because she was afraid of losing Bernardo. 

"The experts mostly agree, if she hadn't met Bernardo, it would never have happened," Morissette told the hearing. 

On Friday, Homolka, dressed in a charcoal-coloured blouse and grey pants, smiled a few times from the prisoner's dock but showed little other emotion as Morissette described her as a narcissist. 

Morissette met Homolka twice last month and reviewed her entire psychological history. 

"Is she dangerous in the short term? No. If you tell me is she is at risk to make a bad relationship choice and of doing something bad, that's her vulnerability. And she has to be followed." 

Beaulieu, who did not intervene very often during the morning testimony, said his role is to protect society. 

"Here we are in 2005 and she's come back to the same pattern," Beaulieu said. "She's back with a partner who is acting in the same style as the old one." 

Beaulieu was referring to Homolka's relationship with Jean-Paul Gerbet, who is up for parole in 2008 for the murder of his girlfriend seven years ago. 

Morissette played down reports of a sexual history between the two and testified that is not the story he was told. 

"When you ask Madame Teale (Homolka), it was a kiss in the library that was seen by a guard." 

Court heard Thursday that Homolka had a nude photo of Gerbet in her cell, as well as a pair of his underwear. 

But Morissette said the photo was one that showed Gerbet naked from the waist up in a swimming pool. He added the two exchanged "clean underwear." 

"Is this abnormal?" Morissette said. "That's the question." 

Morissette said Homolka knows she can't have a relationship with Gerbet because he will be deported to his native France when he is released from prison. 

The two exchanged letters as recently as two weeks ago. 

"These are things that must be discussed," Morissette said. "She doesn't hide it. She discusses it." 

In an afternoon exchange, the Crown cross-examined Morissette and brought up a 1996 counselling session in which Homolka described the kind of man she would like to meet. 

"Mrs. Teale has established criteria selection for her next eventual partner," the document said. "She wishes to find a man who believes in the moral values of marriage, wants children, is loyal, is educated, loves his mother, has a good attitude toward women, doesn't have a history of abuse in his family, no criminal record, who is loved by her family and loves pets and, if possible, is good looking." 

"This isn't a good description of Jean-Paul Gerbet." 

In her closing arguments, Homolka's lawyer argued that her client's rights would be violated if restrictions were placed on her freedom. 

"She's conscious of the fact that she does everything possible to never find herself in the situation she was in," said Bordelais, adding that Canadians should learn to understand she has changed and is no longer dangerous. 

Homolka and Gerbet met at Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, a maximum-security institution north of Montreal during Homolka's stay there between 2001 and 2003. She had been transferred there after the publication of photos of her at a birthday party at the Joliette Institute sparked public outrage. 

Morissette also told court Homolka had a lengthy lesbian relationship at Joliette. 

Homolka has been incarcerated in Joliette, 75 kilometres north of Montreal, but there were unconfirmed reports Homolka did not return to the prison Thursday night and, instead, slept at Ste-Anne-des-Plaines. 

On Friday, the president of the union representing prison guards in Quebec said Homolka was the target of death threats a few weeks ago. 

"The information we received was that the inmate in question did receive death threats," said Sylvain Martel. "Corrections Canada set up additional security measures to protect prison guards at the Joliette Institute." 

Martel said the threats came from outside the penitentiary. 

Homolka's controversial plea bargain with the Crown was made before authorities learned of the horrific images of torture and rape caught on videotape and hidden in the couple's southern Ontario home - tapes that also cast a different light on the woman who had portrayed herself as a battered wife. 

- 

JOLIETTE, Que. (CP) - A judge ruled Friday that Karla Homolka will face certain restrictions over the next 12 months. Homolka must: 

-Check in with police once a month. 

-Give police her address and tell them about her job and roommates. 

-Advise police of any change in her name or address. 

-Stay way from drugs. 

-Not work anywhere she would have access to barbiturates. 

-Not work with people under 16 or have any ties of authority with anyone under 16. 

-Undergo regular therapy. 

-Give a DNA sample. 

-Stay away from the families of her victims. 

-Not associate with violent criminals. 

-Give police 96 hours' notice if she wants to leave Quebec.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (3 Jun 2005)

Does anyone else think this waste of money could've been stopped twelve years ago with a 50 cent bullet?


----------



## paracowboy (3 Jun 2005)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Does anyone else think this waste of money could've been stopped twelve years ago with a 50 cent bullet?


yup. Or an axe. Or a rope. They're re-useable, and there's still a lot of people need killin'.


----------



## condor888000 (4 Jun 2005)

They may need it......but in her case I doubt it would have happened anyway as she had a deal to testify against Bernardo...........At least shes not off scot free..........


----------



## paracowboy (4 Jun 2005)

condor888000 said:
			
		

> At least shes not off scot free..........


no? And, of course, little Miss Psycho is going to follow all of the conditions on her release because she has *such* respect for the Law.


----------



## beach_bum (4 Jun 2005)

Well, what was the description for her "obedient citizen"?  I think that was what her lawyer called her.  Bah!   :rage:


----------



## condor888000 (4 Jun 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> no? And, of course, little Miss Psycho is going to follow all of the conditions on her release because she has *such* respect for the Law.



Take it up with the prosecutors who made the deal with the devil, not with me. I think the only thing she should see outside of a prison for the rest of her life should be a nice little hole, 3'x 6'x 6' deep................even thats too good for her.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Jun 2005)

condor888000 said:
			
		

> Take it up with the prosecutors who made the deal with the devil, not with me. I think the only thing she should see outside of a prison for the rest of her life should be a nice little hole, 3'x 6'x 6' deep................even thats too good for her.


that *was* snippy wasn't it? Apologies. It wasn't aimed at you. 
But I can't reach the people I want to throttle.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 Jun 2005)

She's no different than any other murdering pedophile so why treat her different. I say let her out to roam and ensure that everywhere she goes is widely publicised with her picture on telephone poles and let mob justice deal with her. Soon she will be begging to go back to prison.


----------



## condor888000 (4 Jun 2005)

That works fine.......unless she finds herself another victim. Granted, everyone and their dog is gonna be watching her...but you never can tell what'll happen.....


----------



## paracowboy (4 Jun 2005)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> She's no different than any other murdering pedophile so why treat her different. I say let her out to roam and ensure that everywhere she goes is widely publicised with her picture on telephone poles and let mob justice deal with her.


has this actually worked? I've heard nothing of any lynchings, beatings, or other common-sense approaches. (Although, a few years back, we almost had one in my home town, but he skipped out an hour or so before the torch-bearing mob got there.) Am I just missing them? 
The only cure for pedophilia is death. The sooner, the better for any future victims.


----------



## DogOfWar (4 Jun 2005)

Quite frankly Im sickened by the fact that they have imposed these resrtictions. She has completed her sentance. If everyone is so upset she is getting out then we should overhaul the system so that this doesnt happen again. The idea that she does all the time given her and then we go back and restrict afterwards is a miscarriage. I dont care what your emotions are saying. This is not how the system is supposed to work. If she was such a danger then 12 years ago they should have gone the whole 9 with her. The bargin was a farce.  And should never have happened. But it did and we have to live with it. 

Actually I guess we dont have too. Because now we are free to go back and add on to the sentance.   When you complete your sentance you are supposed to be released no restrictions. It starts with Karla and then it becomes common place in the system. She should be registered as a sex offender and punted.


----------



## Gunnar (4 Jun 2005)

I agree with Beadwindow.  Not that she doesn't deserve all this crap...but because she has completed her sentence.  Now the state has decided that it can arbitrarily assign extra conditions on her release, AFTER the fact.  This is wrong.

Is this wrong because she's such a good person?  No.  Is this wrong because she's not a danger to the public?  No.  It's wrong because society, us, is supposed to be the "good guys", which means that we adhere to difficult but clear-cut standards, such as letting convicted criminals free at the end of their sentence...because it is right in principle.

Wouldn't be sad if she got hit by a bus tomorrow, or if she were lynched....but law and order would require that her lynchers be prosecuted.

In any case, if you don't like the sentence she was given, and the degree she got at taxpayer expense, then perhaps that sentence shouldn't have been handed out in the first place.  Bad decision, sure, but the mark of an adult, and mature society is that you live with your bad decisions.  Don't say..."oh, I made a mistake, let me fix that at someone else's expense"--because tomorrow it could be you.

That's all.


----------



## Sheerin (4 Jun 2005)

I agree with both Gunnar and Beadwindow.  She's paid her debt to society and as such the government has absolutely no right to add on additional restrictions.  I think it was a huge miscarriage of justice that she got a 12 year walk as opposed to Dangerous Offender status, but what is done is done.  With any luck she'll live out the rest of her life as a law abiding citizen. 

About the plea negotiation, I'm of the firm belief that the trial judge should have rejected it but sadly that didn't happen.  At least Paul Bernardo won't be leaving prison alive.


----------



## Slim (13 Jun 2005)

Hey All

To be honest I believe that her post-prison restrictions have been imposed for political reasons as much as for public safety.

Just my humble opinion though.

Slim


----------



## Andyboy (14 Jun 2005)

I am not a party to the deal that Homolka made with the Crown but perhaps part of the deal was that at the end of her sentence she would be released with "conditions". Perhaps the fact that her lawyer(s) haven't put up much of a fuss over the conditions is an idication that they are kosher. 

For the record I don't believe that Homolka has paid her debt to society as some posters here have claimed. Justice is meant to be served to the victims, not the murderers, if it isn't fair to her well so be it. This isn't a case of the system not being fair to her, it is a case of the system ot being fair to her victims, current and future. 

By the way, I went to the same school as Homolka and remember pretty vividly hearing the announcement that Tammy had died. Her locker was just three down from mine and the sight of her friends sobbing in the halls was pretty tough to watch. I didn't know either of them, Karla was a few years older, Tammy a few years younger but the shock and grief was staggering. So was the terror that gripped St.Catharines when schoolgirls started disappearing. It may be hard to believe but we were genuinely living in fear for a long time. Those schoolgirls were the same age as some of my friends. Homolka is an example of the worst of human nature and should be removed from society. Permanently.


----------



## c4th (14 Jun 2005)

.300 WinMag is a good caliber for release restrictions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jun 2005)

Quote from Slim,
_To be honest I believe that her post-prison restrictions have been imposed for political reasons as much as for public safety._

...its all about political reasons here, my friend, dirtbags just like her/him get released to halfway houses across this country everyday, only thier pictures and stories won't make for good shock/schlock reading.[ and political points]
Notice how quiet the federal govt. is?.....hmmm,


----------



## Gunnar (14 Jun 2005)

> I am not a party to the deal that Homolka made with the Crown....



Actually, you are.  Living under a society and accepting its laws makes you a party to it.  The Crown is merely representing your interests as a member of the society we call 'Canada'.  If you don't like it, well, this is a democracy...you get to vote, protest, write letters & etc...



> For the record I don't believe that Homolka has paid her debt to society as some posters here have claimed. Justice is meant to be served to the victims, not the murderers, if it isn't fair to her well so be it. This isn't a case of the system not being fair to her, it is a case of the system ot being fair to her victims, current and future.



For the record, I happen to agree with you.  However, she HAS paid her debt to society as defined by the rules of that society, i.e., the law, her deal, etc.  If we can renege on what those rules mean, then we no longer have a society, but mob rule.



> Homolka is an example of the worst of human nature and should be removed from society. Permanently.



Apparently there are consequences to playing a passive role in a free and democratic society...the active ones steer the society in a direction that allows this sort of thing to happen.  Not pointing at you particularly, just at the people who keep voting for kinder, gentler politicians who make this possible...without ever looking at the ultimate consequences of their actions.  Well guys, here's a consequence...but since society is a game with commonly accepted rules, you either play the game, or you don't.  If you don't, you're an outlaw or a vigilante...and the game-players will rightly view you as a threat.  If you DO, then Karla is free to do as she wishes, by the rules of society.  If you don't like the rules, well...this game has a built-in change mechanism...but you need to organise a lot of people away from their televisions and make them think to do that....

The laws of society are like making filtered coffee.  We agree on a set of commonly accepted principles for the filter, and we get to drink whatever comes through it.  If sometimes stuff gets through the filter, you need to improve your filtration mechanism...but you can't *unmake* the coffee once you're run it through a faulty filter.  You can refuse to drink the coffee yourself, i.e., don't associate, approve of, or have anything to do with Homolka...but you can't put the coffee back in the beans until you get the filter right...this pot is made.  Accept it, and move on.  Don't make coffee that way in future!


----------



## dutchie (14 Jun 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> For the record I don't believe that Homolka has paid her debt to society as some posters here have claimed.



Technically, she has. Whether or not the 'price' was high enough or not, that is up for debate. Whether she has paid the bill given to her by our 'Justice' system is not debatable as she served everyday of her sentence.



			
				Andyboy said:
			
		

> Justice is meant to be served to the victims, not the murderers, if it isn't fair to her well so be it. This isn't a case of the system not being fair to her, it is a case of the system ot being fair to her victims, current and future.



Right or wrong, our Justice System is not intended to be accountable to victims. Offences under the Criminal Code (such as murder and rape) are offences against the Crown, not the victim, hence the 'Regina vs. Bernardo' and not 'French vs. Bernardo' or 'Homolka vs. Bernardo' or 'Mahaffey vs. Bernardo'. Under the established system, victims are merely witnesses to the crime against the Crown, no different than any other witness. 

Regarding fairness to the victims, well, unfortunately, this is irrelevant under our system.

What would I like to see happen to her? Dangerous Offender/Sex Offender status is about the only 'legal' thing they can do. Of course if someone 'accidentally' ran her over, well, I wouldn't shed a tear.


----------



## DogOfWar (14 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Right or wrong, our Justice System is not intended to be accountable to victims. Offences under the Criminal Code (such as murder and rape) are offences against the Crown, not the victim, hence the 'Regina vs. Bernardo' and not 'French vs. Bernardo' or 'Homolka vs. Bernardo' or 'Mahaffey vs. Bernardo'. Under the established system, victims are merely witnesses to the crime against the Crown, no different than any other witness.



Thats a good point. Also in Canada the corrections model is rehabilatative not retributive, its is never supposed to be abut "paying a debt" it about trying to make her shun her criminal tendancies. Judges sometimes take the victims into account when handing down a sentance but generally speaking its about getting the "offender" help. Like forced legal healthcare. Like it, lump it, or disagree that the way corrections in Canada is set up.

The court said "Karla does 15 years" and she should only have to do 15years. People just as bad as her get released everyweek. Where were the extra relaese conditions on Mr.Sleigh in Edmonton? Or Rozko?


----------



## Andyboy (15 Jun 2005)

When I said I was "not a party to" I meant I have not read the deal as agreed to by her and her lawyers. The original deal could have included release condidtions could it not? If that is the case then there would be nothing wrong with conditions being attached to her release. In fact I would be surprised if if it was not commonplace for conditions to be attached to ciminals when their time was up. Has anyone here seen a copy of the agreement? 

My point about her debt to society is exactly that. Her debt to the crown in terms of incarceration may have been paid, but her debt to society has not, if it had been society would have no problem with her being released and we wouldn't even be talking about it. The debt was artificially reduced.

Beadwindow: I don't know who those people you mentioned are but knowing some of the details of what Homolka did I would be very very surprised if "People just as bad as her get released everyweek". Homolka and Bernardo were particularly heinous individuals. It wasn't "just" rape and murder.

Incidently Homolka was never convicted of raping and murdering her sisterm, no one was.   


Edited to add: Not that it matters but I won't be adding to my posts on this thread, I would really prefer not to discuss the matter any more. The entire episode of Homolka's release dredges up a lot of really unpleasantness that I would prefer not to think about. As much as it pains me to say so I think if the details, all of the details, including parts of the tapes, had been released Homolka not one person on here would be opposed to the "restrictions".


----------



## X Royal (15 Jun 2005)

The bottom line is she did the crime and then did the time. Don't blame her for the excellent deal she got. That was a major political blunder. To change the deal now only increases the chances that the next Bernardo may walk because who will believe any plea bargain in the future. This case was not referred to as a "deal with the devil" without cause but a deal should be a deal.
Lets only hope that our politicians get together to prevent this in the future.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Nov 2005)

Am I the only one that feels this judge made a MONSTROUS error?  She can now, effectively, move among us and our children, unfettered.  She has already gone to ground.  Anyone who feels this psycho has been rehabilitated, is, to be blunt, a raving loon.  Just needed to get this off my chest....


----------



## Pte_Martin (30 Nov 2005)

i totally agree I'm friends with Kristen French's brother he's a good guy. I hate to see Homolka out!


----------



## ambex (30 Nov 2005)

Here is the story as it appears on yahoo.com  http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051130/ca_pr_on_na/crime_homolka_appeal



"NELSON WYATT 51 minutes ago

MONTREAL (CP) - The mother of one of Karla Homolka's teenage victims said she felt "kicked in the stomach" on Wednesday after a judge ruled the schoolgirl killer can come and go with no restrictions.
ADVERTISEMENT

The families of slain teenagers Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy reacted with horror to news that Homolka no longer has to report to the police and can even contact them and her ex-husband Paul Bernardo.

"The shock and disbelief and anguish that they expressed to me on the phone this morning was very painful to hear," Tim Danson, the families' lawyer, said in Toronto.

Danson said Debbie Mahaffy, Leslie's mother, told him 'I feel that I have been kicked in the stomach.' "

Justice James Brunton of Quebec Superior Court acknowledged in his ruling the possibility that Homolka, who now goes under the name Karla Leanne Teale, could reoffend one day.

"However, her development over the last 12 years demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that this is unlikely to occur. She does not represent a real and imminent danger to commit a personal injury offence. . The appeal should be granted."

Homolka left prison in July after completing a 12-year sentence for manslaughter in the sordid sex slayings of French and Mahaffy in the 1990s.

The restrictions under Criminal Code provisions were handed down in June after another judge ruled Homolka still posed a risk to the community.

The restrictions included having to report her whereabouts and travel plans to police on a regular basis. She was also to provide a DNA sample when she left prison but it was not clear if that was done.

Lawyers for Homolka were not immediately available for comment.

Niagara Region police Insp. Brian Eckhardt, who worked to help impose the restrictions, said he feels powerless to protect the community of St. Catharines, Ont., where the killings took place.

"We have no idea now whether or not she is coming to this area," Eckhardt told Global TV. "So our ability to protect the citizens of this area are diminished and certainly our ability to protect her has been eliminated."

Danson described Brunton's decision as "very serious and thoughtful" but said the judge made legal errors.

Danson said the families believe the application for the restrictions was bungled and they should have been allowed to intervene.

He also suggested the current federal election campaign is a good time to start a public debate about Sec. 810 of the Criminal Code, which grants the restrictions.

Joanne Marceau, a spokeswoman for the Quebec Justice Department, said several options are being considered, including an appeal and an attempt to seek another set of conditions.

"We will take a decision very, very promptly," she said, although she did not rule out letting Brunton's decision stand.

"We have to consider that this woman is free since more than six months," Marceau said.

"The information we have since she was released (is) that she has always respected the conditions that were imposed on her. She seems to have been a good citizen for now."

Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant said he hopes the decision will be appealed.

"Believe me, this is not over," he said. "It's not over in Quebec, it certainly is not over in the province of Ontario," said Bryant, adding he would contact the Quebec attorney general.

Bryant said the Ontario government had been confident the restrictions would be upheld.

"To say that I'm disappointed would be an understatement," Bryant said. "I am urging an appeal of this decision.

"And furthermore, we will continue to do everything we can to protect the public under these circumstances."

Under Brunton's ruling, Homolka can go where she pleases and see anyone she wants.

The ruling also means Homolka can contact Bernardo, who is serving a life sentence for the schoolgirl killings.

Brunton suggested the lower court decision granting the restrictions lacked balance in that there was not much favourable to Homolka presented at the hearing.

"This was a complex case which called for the analysis of the development, or lack thereof, of Ms. Teale over a period of 12 years. The proof presented was not exclusively negative from Ms. Teale's point of view."

Homolka and Bernardo took the surname Teale from a movie in the 1990s. The character with the name Teale was a serial killer.

Several media initially reported eight of the 14 conditions were struck down but Brunton confirmed he had voided them all.

Ontario Conservative justice critic Bob Runciman said he believes the conditions on Homolka were valid.

"From our perspective and the perspective of most Ontarians, we felt the conditions, the restrictions placed on her were reasonable and were justified," he said in Toronto. "I think it's going to be of great concern to victims' families for sure."

Runciman criticized the Ontario government for not paying to allow the families of Homolka's victims to attend the appeal hearing.

"If the families were there I think it would've elevated the issue with respect to the decision being taken by the judge."

Homolka is believed to be living in the Montreal area."


Personally I think this was a bad idea on the judges part. I think that society has to stop putting criminals rights in front of everyone elses. Yes innocent until proven guilty but once proven guilty (for things like murder/rape/child molestation etc) you should have your rights severly restriced if not taken away altogether.  To think that she can now contact the families of those she helped kill is giving my gut an unpleasent fealing. Violent criminals should be monitored for the rest of thier lives once released from jail.


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Nov 2005)

What the hell is wrong with our judicial system?  I hadn't heard about this until now, but I JUST finished reading an article about a man in toronto who's been aquited of sexual assault on the grounds that he's a "sexsomniac".  That's right, he "fell asleep and didn't realize he had raped anyone untill he woke up and realized he still had a condom on".

We need a better way to select judges.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (30 Nov 2005)

More to this is whats going on in that province ! that wouldn't happen in Ont. thats for sure! So when she does this again that judge should be her next cell mate!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2005)

A little wake up call to those with kids.....there are lots of others out there just as bad as her who you don't have pictures and descriptions of............Just think what the Govt. does to those the press doesn't follow, out in 2 maybe, 4 max.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2005)

Fax me a picture     - We just found the drivers for the crash cars of paracowboys operational offensive driving course.


----------



## Britney Spears (30 Nov 2005)

So Kat, what are your credentials in the field of Criminal Psychiatry? Have you reviewed all the evidence, given by certified medical professionals and first hand witnesses under oath, and done a detailed study of Holmolka's case?  

I just had my car broken into a few weeks ago. I think all car thieves convicted should have a mandatory sentence of 2 x broken kneecaps and 20 lashes with a rattan cane. But the stupid liberal justice system never listens to me.......


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Nov 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> So Kat, what are your credentials in the field of Criminal Psychiatry? Have you reviewed all the evidence, given by certified medical professionals and first hand witnesses under oath, and done a detailed study of Holmolka's case?
> 
> I just had my car broken into a few weeks ago. I think all car thieves convicted should have a mandatory sentence of 2 x broken kneecaps and 20 lashes with a rattan cane. But the stupid liberal justice system never listens to me.......



You just love playing devils advocate don't you? 

For the record, every document I've ever seen shows no indication that Homolka has ever accepted responsibility for her crimes, nor shown any genuine remorse.  In fact, if I remember correctly (and I'll look for a link to back this up) she once implied that the one victim who survived should also have been killed.  To me, that's more than a good enough reason to keep her locked away forever.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2005)

Britney, lets clear one thing up right now, and I know of what I speak, who pays for all of the above people that you listed and what is $ the $ overriding $ factor $ that $ thier $ employer $ wishes to see happen?


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Dec 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> So Kat, what are your credentials in the field of Criminal Psychiatry? Have you reviewed all the evidence, given by certified medical professionals and first hand witnesses under oath, and done a detailed study of Holmolka's case?
> 
> I just had my car broken into a few weeks ago. I think all car thieves convicted should have a mandatory sentence of 2 x broken kneecaps and 20 lashes with a rattan cane. But the stupid liberal justice system never listens to me.......



Absolutely none, just an uneducated Western redneck talking out my sphincter bushing again.  Sorry I brought it up...carry on


edited in the interest of not starting yet another poo fight


----------



## redleafjumper (1 Dec 2005)

The mistake was made years ago when she and the crown plea-bargained a twelve year sentence.  She has served her time, and while I don't like it any more than anyone else, she has received the punishment that our society assigned her for her crime.  Yes it was a woefully inadequate sentence, and no I don't want her ilk in my backyard, but hey, the problem isn't that she can now do what she wants, the problem is that she should have been given a sentence that fit her crimes in the first instance. 

The prosection then screwed this up, not the judge now.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

Bruce $ what $ are $ you $ trying $ to $ say?  I $ don't $ think $ I $ get $ the $ gist $ of $ your $ statement.  ;D


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Dec 2005)

> who pays for all of the above people that you listed



The same people who pay me to stand around all day in a relish suit I imagine.



> what is $ the $ overriding $ factor $ that $ thier $ employer $ wishes to see happen?



So that's it? We are letting people out who shouldn't be let out to save money? 



> Would you want your kids to be playing with her, or any other child rapist/murderer?



How is that relevent to anything? Is that the litmus test for whether we lock someone up behind bars? 



> 'Changed' or not, there are some people who should NEVER be allowed back into society.



And you are of course more qualified to judge that than, um, the JUDGE. All that time spent watching Court TV is really paying off for you huh?


----------



## ambex (1 Dec 2005)

According to the article I posted she changed her last name to Teale which is a reference from a movie in the 1990s where the character with the name Teale was a serial killer.  Now I dont have any fancy degrees to back up my opinion but I would have to say that since she has not changed her name to something more appropriate she hasnt yet changed the way she looks at life.

BTW didnt the prosecution have to make that deal with her because at the time one of the lawyers involved had been withholding evidence that would have put both of them away which he/she presented after the deal had been made?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Dec 2005)

Quote from BS,
_So that's it? We are letting people out who shouldn't be let out to save money?_ 

When the rhetoric is cut, this is job 1............and just to put it so I'm not just tilting to the "lock em up" forever side all the way, it is DAMN EXPENSIVE....it can range anywhere from 85 to 700 dollars per day per inmate depending on the needs......do some multipling and it comes to some scary numbers.


----------



## kcdist (1 Dec 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> When the rhetoric is cut, this is job 1............and just to put it so I'm not just tilting to the "lock em up" forever side all the way, it is DAMN EXPENSIVE....it can range anywhere from 85 to 700 dollars per day per inmate depending on the needs......do some multipling and it comes to some scary numbers.



Incarceration is indeed expensive. However, over the long run, it is the cheapest of options.

As a former police officer, I can categorically state that the great majority of serious, and even minor offenders I dealt with in eight years on the job had _extensive_ criminal convictions. Of course, I mentioned convictions. In our system, it is fully possible to have committed ten separate crimes, admit to them, and, in a plea bargain, be convicted of only one. It was not uncommon to run a CPIC (criminal record) check on a recent arrest and have the list of convictions exceed three feet double spaced.

It is my theory that, unlike the United States, Canadians are overwhelmingly law abiding. I believe that perhaps one or two percent of the population is responsible for the majority of crime in this country. Although portrayed as Draconian, the three strike law in some U.S. states would be very effective in Canada. We do not have an endless supply of citizens willing to break the law on a regular basis. Once that small percentage was permanently off the street, I think we could even reduce the numbers of police officers relative to the population.

Although it costs the salary of a police officer to keep someone locked up on a full time basis, one bad guy can keep a dozen police officers permanently employed, not to mention court cost and legal aid.

A final thought on Holmoka. Based on the pathetic sentences handed out for serious offenses against persons, I continue to be amazed that vigilante justice is not more prevalent in our society. As I have frequently stated, if someone ever harmed one of my children, it is not the police nor the legal system they would have to be worried about.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (8 Dec 2005)

Isnt she looking alot like Madona with her new look these days. Im waiting to see her on the streets of Moncton in short order now that her cover is blown in PQ (no pun intended).


----------



## silentbutdeadly (8 Dec 2005)

This makes me think that Quebec should leave! because there not about to appeal this either now!


----------



## midgetcop (12 Dec 2005)

ambex said:
			
		

> According to the article I posted she changed her last name to Teale which is a reference from a movie in the 1990s where the character with the name Teale was a serial killer.  Now I dont have any fancy degrees to back up my opinion but I would have to say that since she has not changed her name to something more appropriate she hasnt yet changed the way she looks at life.



Are you freakin' kidding me? That's the name that Paul Bernardo tried to change his name to before either were charged in the murders. 



> BTW didnt the prosecution have to make that deal with her because at the time one of the lawyers involved had been withholding evidence that would have put both of them away which he/she presented after the deal had been made?



The prosecution made the deal because they wanted to use Karla's testimony to put Paul away. At the time, they did not believe that she was a totally willing partner in crime. The DEFENSE lawyers hid the videotapes on both murders and at the time nobody knew about the murder of Karla's younger sister.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (13 Dec 2005)

She was not just a willing partner she was the murderer not PB. All he is is a sick rapist. She truely got away with murder.


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Dec 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from BS,
> _So that's it? We are letting people out who shouldn't be let out to save money?_
> 
> When the rhetoric is cut, this is job 1............and just to put it so I'm not just tilting to the "lock em up" forever side all the way, it is DAMN EXPENSIVE....it can range anywhere from 85 to 700 dollars per day per inmate depending on the needs......do some multipling and it comes to some scary numbers.



Forced labour camps could change the $$$ problem.  How about Mine clearing for parole, you make it to the otherside, we'll let you move onto the next.  Death penality, immediate sentances with absolute DNA, video proof.  Hand caught in the cookie jar? Lopp it of.

Rant over, Ben


----------



## Springroll (13 Dec 2005)

kcdist said:
			
		

> Incarceration is indeed expensive. However, over the long run, it is the cheapest of options.



I can think of a cheaper method, but I think it may get some people in trouble...


----------



## Journeyman (13 Dec 2005)

I think this discussion is completely inappropriate......

Nahhhh

If we could have people like this do sit-ups on a 300-yd range - - "firing point, watch and shoot, watch and shoot..."  hmmmmm


----------



## midgetcop (13 Dec 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> She was not just a willing partner she was the murderer not PB. All he is is a sick rapist. She truely got away with murder.



She was not the actual murderer (as far as what's known), but she turned out to be more of a participant that prosecutors originally thought. 

Given the info that they had at the time, I don't disagree with the plea bargain originally made. It's an easy misconception to think that a wife is beaten into compliance, that she's physically/emotionally abused into the crime. Karla was a smart woman, and jumped on that bandwagon. 

Really, we're never truly going to know the extent of Karla's total participation in the murders, because it's her word against Paul's. 

But from a totally legal viewpoint - she has done her time, and there's nothing more we can do about it unless she commits another crime.


----------



## Old Ranger (13 Dec 2005)

So nab her for "J" walking and escalate it to assaulting a Police Officer..

There are many forms of Street Justice.  It's how you play to the legal system and the politics.


----------



## silverbach (14 Dec 2005)

None of this had to do with politics. By definition, courts are independent of the executive and legislative branch. Therefore, all we can do is bark at the system. But let me tell you this: there are plenty of cases like the Homolka case, but this one got a lot of publicity as opposed to the others. Bottom question is: who would you want walking 12 years later...Homolka or Bernardo.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2005)

> Bottom question is: who would you want walking 12 years later...Homolka or Bernardo.



How about the both of them walking into a noose made for him and her.   Maybe a nice little bow on it.   Merry Christmas, here's some sunscreen. You'll need it for where you're going.


----------



## silverbach (19 Dec 2005)

Well, I don't know if that last reply was directed to me, but if that's the case, you might want to rephrase that because I didn't understand anything of it.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2005)

He was suggesting a noose for two, a his and hers, for the pair.  The sunscreen is for them to use in "HELL".  It was aimed at Bernardo and Homolka, not you.


----------



## silverbach (19 Dec 2005)

oopps...sorry I missed that, being french-canadian and all ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Dec 2005)

Do you forget how Karla's lawyer hid some video tapes that should have been used as evidence because with them it would have been a slam dunk and both of those sick degenerates would have been put away as dangerous offenders, not just the male one.  That is where alot of people get hung up on the idea that she has not yet paid her debt.  Her deal was predicated on a false hood that she was forced into the acts as some sort of by-proxy victim.  The videos clearly showed that she was a very willing participant.  
Plus, people keep refering to the Justice system.  No such thing, exept on paper.  It is a legal system.  If you want to be mad at someone, blame the judges (again).  It is the defense lawyers job to get the best deal possible.  It is up to the judges to shoot it down and say "no, that is unreasonable".  
And dont expect anyone to take matters into their own hands any time soon.  If Canadians were that motivated, Jean Chretien would have been turned into a fine red mist a long time ago.  With any luck, she will just end up another trash crack whore living off the street and die a slow high five and hep C death.  We can only pray that no one else gets grabbed again.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2005)

> He was suggesting a noose for two, a his and hers, for the pair.  The sunscreen is for them to use in "HELL".  It was aimed at Bernardo and Homolka, not you.



Yes, thank you.


I hope every single community this woman tries to live in rises up against her and makes every living moment for her hell. 
The more I see shit like this the more I think the legal system and "justice" are not on the same page.  Have fun living in hiding the rest of your life Karla.


----------



## silverbach (19 Dec 2005)

She did her time; may be we should, as a society, understand that, 'cause really, there are hundreds of cases like hers every year in North America, but you don't hear about them as much...doesn't make it easier though for the people who followed their trials (family, friends, ...). This system works. The judge gave her 12 years as he was binded by previous court decisions...and as a criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that before making that joint recommandation, the victim's family were consulted...if they didn't have a problem with 12 years, may be we shouldn't, especially that she did the full 12, and not 2/3 o fit, as it is usually the case before being paroled.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2005)

> She did her time; may be we should, as a society, understand that, 'cause really, there are hundreds of cases like hers every year in North America, but you don't hear about them as much



Some people can feel she did her time.  I'm sure some people feel that her big bad boyfriend forced this on her and she's a victim.  To each their own.
My unimportant opinion is that she's a monster and she deserved to die. Did her time? Not in my books heh
We'll have to agree to disagree my friend


----------



## silverbach (20 Dec 2005)

I'm right there with you on that one: everyone is entitled to his/her opinion...isn't life beautiful in Canada...but as judges say before sentencing, a sentence, especially in murder cases, will never repair the harm done...but really, repairing is not a function of sentencing; it's about punishment & rehabilitation, and all psychologists involved in her case said she was...so who are we to say that she is still dangerous...that's the same as saying that a commander officer doesn't know what he's talking about when he tell his staff to do things in a certain way.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2005)

Spoken like a true defense counsel.  Edit out the facts that dont support your case.  She most certainly WAS NOT rehabilitated and I dont remember anyone saying she was.  And the reason that she did the full 12 years is not because of some sort of systemic toughness, but rather that she was such a remorseles bitch and refused to partake in ANY counselling whatsoever is what made her not be eligible for parole.  
And so far as Judges and sentancing, you know full well that Judges almost always wait until a different date to give their sentances for person offences.  They call it nice things like "pre sentance report" and "victim impact statemen" but the reality is that on the sentancing date, the only people in the room are usually the A$$hat, their lawyer, the Crown (another lawyer) and the Judge (worse than a lawyer).  They dont bother to check out things read out for the convicted like "I cant go to jail, I have a job" (they dont) and "I have gone to counselling on my own since that happened" and they didnt.  You lawyers trot it out as gospel, because the "client" said so and you are too happy to lob it out because you know it cant come back to bite you.  All fun stuff that comes up on the date that is usually a couple of weeks after the trial.  That way the average citizen cant see how bad they got shafted when it comes to the sentance given out.  Smoke, mirrors and bulls_it.  
Karla served her sentance.  She did not repay dick all to society.  IF you have the stones, review the transcripts from the trial in the torture/murder tapes and the unfathomable evil those two caused.  Even the Islamic extremists arent that sick.  
Or maybe you are just one of these pesty types that just likes to kick a bee's nest to see what happens.
And its a "commandING officer".  Try to keep up with the lingo.


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

Wonder if it's a coincidence, but everybody in this country that cannot get over this Homolka case comes from Ontario...Journalists from Toronto came all the way from Toronto to cover the news of her coming out of Ste-Anne-des-Plaines...how obssesive is that, and for what purpose...to feed the angry Ontario citizens...

Get over it, Lt...Homolka is nothing but the tip of the tip of the iceberg in our criminal justice system.

If you wanna loose it over injustice, write about this idiot who shot a young police officer last week because a judge allowed him to have access to a gun as long as it was stored at a third parties' residence...

...and forget Karla, once and for all, in the name of justice


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2005)

yes yes, forget karla. She's the victim here folks.

Justice would have saw her 6 feet under. 



> Spoken like a true defense counsel.  Edit out the facts that dont support your case.  She most certainly WAS NOT rehabilitated and I dont remember anyone saying she was.  And the reason that she did the full 12 years is not because of some sort of systemic toughness, but rather that she was such a remorseles bitch and refused to partake in ANY counselling whatsoever is what made her not be eligible for parole.



Well said.



> If you wanna loose it over injustice, write about this idiot who shot a young police officer last week because a judge allowed him to have access to a gun as long as it was stored at a third parties' residence...



The judge probably shit the bed with that one. Did he pull the trigger though?  
Criminals are responsible for their own actions.


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

Since some of you seems to agree with Zipperhead when he said:

Spoken like a true defense counsel.  Edit out the facts that dont support your case.  *She most certainly WAS NOT rehabilitated * and *I dont remember anyone saying she was*.  And the reason that she did the full 12 years is not because of some sort of systemic toughness, but rather that she was such a remorseles ***** and *refused to partake in ANY counselling * whatsoever is what made her not be eligible for parole. 

..., let me give you a couple of facts that you might have let out when you replied:

1)	As far as rehabilitation is concerned, NOTHING came out from the carceral authority to the effect that she wasn't. Quite the opposite. Many of them mentionned that Homolka changed dramatically since she was incarcerated...and let's hope that her rehabilitation is not a result of ghost878's ability to remember things, otherwise the parliament will have no other choice than striking the sections of the criminal code that deals with the purposes of prison terms, one of them being rehabilitation.

2)	If she didn't take part in any counselling, then can someone explain to me what were all these psychologist reports, all made during her 12 years, that were introduced in evidence, ALL of them suggesting that she was rehabilitated.

We can only get down on our knees at night and thank God ghost878 is not a prosecutor, otherwise, our criminal justice system would fall back about a 1000 years where the rule of law principles' AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM and NEMO JUDEX IN SUA CAUSA were not being applied by courts.


----------



## armyvern (21 Dec 2005)

silverbach said:
			
		

> She did her time; may be we should, as a society, understand that, 'cause really, there are hundreds of cases like hers every year in North America, but you don't hear about them as much...doesn't make it easier though for the people who followed their trials (family, friends, ...). This system works. The judge gave her 12 years as he was binded by previous court decisions...and as a criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that before making that joint recommandation, the victim's family were consulted...if they didn't have a problem with 12 years, may be we shouldn't, especially that she did the full 12, and not 2/3 o fit, as it is usually the case before being paroled.


She did 'her time' based on a plea agreement that was undertaken prior to the 'revealment' of the aforementioned video-tapes (thanks to her criminal defense attorney). Part of the plea agreement (agreed to by the family - granted) was that she had told them everything and that she had been completely honest in providing details of the offenses that she had been involved in. 

The real question is why the heLL did the judge or prosecution then keep this agreement with her after the video-tapes came to light and they became fully aware that she had "in fact, not lived up to her part of the agreement by being honest and admitting to all offences?" The drugging and raping of 'Jane Doe' only came to light because of these videos NOT because Miss Karla had brought it to light. She claimed to have remembered nothing of it and that it only came back to her 'in a dream' (of course this recovered memory only occured after the Crown became aware of the offense agaianst Jane Doe).

At this point in time, it should very well have been deal over for Miss murderer, as she lied. The 'system' did NOT work. And at this point in time, those families that had agreed to the 'deal' under false pretenses also started screaming to have it re-voked due to her evasion. This did not happen, the system did NOT work and Karla ended up serving only 12 years because the legal system failed. There is no justice in this case despite what you might think. I don't base justice on lies, and had it not been for her lies and her attorney with-holding vital eveidence that was contrary to Miss Homolka's claims of obedience to her husband, she would still be rotting in jail where she deserves to be prior to her long stay in heLL.


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

I would urge you to read the Stinchcombe decision from the supreme court with regards to which side has the obligation of divulging evidence...not he defense, but the prosecution. Since the police is working hand in hand with the prosecution, they messed up and didn't do their job. They obviously didn't investigate properly since they didn't find these videos, at least not in time.

So the system did work...what the defense was suppose to do: give to the prosecution what they didn't find. Say these words slowly: DEFENSE ATTORNEY...that means a lawyer working for an accused in defending him/her...giving the prosecution these videos would have been malpractice for Homolka's lawyer.

What Bernardo and Homolka did is horrible. Think they're the only one in Ontario act as such.

Everything that happened in her case was done according to the constitution and the law. Might wanna talk to your county deputy if you don't agree with the law, since the parliament is the only authority to bring changes to the law.

In this forum, you have soldiers who saw limbless woman and children during their tours, soldiers that cannot get these images out of their heads, probably for the rest of their lives...and many of you keep talking about the injustice of the Homolka case. That's close to nothing if we compare this case to the events in Yougoslavia, Bosnia, Africa, and so on.

Sometimes, we gotta put things in perspective.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Dec 2005)

Quote,
_I would urge you to read the Stinchcombe decision from the supreme court with regards to which side has the obligation of divulging evidence...not he defense, but the prosecution_

...yup, some of the most moronic APPOINTEE'S in this country MAKING  laws instead of our ELECTED  politicians that we can change every 5 or less years.
Silverbach,
Your last post is why most the whole system nothing but scum......


----------



## armyvern (21 Dec 2005)

Although I am well aware of WHO has to divulge the evidence, her plea agreement still stated that she had to be truthful and divulge all acts/offences that she had comitted. She did not do this. And when the videos did eventually come to light, there was evidence against her that she had NOT complied with the terms of this agreement, and therefore opportunity to negate the what was now obvious "deal with the devil."

Despite shoddy police work (among others) all the way around in this particular case, there was at this point in time, a LEGAL justification for negating her deal existed and was not acted upon - a failure of the legal system (and I would argue the fact that most people have the serious problems with in this case). The negating of this deal did not occur contrary to the families and many other legal authorities wishs. This is when the legal system failed those familes with regards to her 'punishment.' I'm talking once in the legal system.

But hey let's not even blame the police not finding the videos shall we, after all there were also the DNA swabs which lay on the shelves untested for how many years after the Scarborough rapes, the failure of the coroner to properly attribute the death of her sister to 'murder' right off the bat (despite all those chemical burn marks around her mouth), all of which could have led to the sparing of the lives of Kirsten French and Leslie Mahaffey. I feel bad for them and there families. 

I feel NO pity for a hell-bound female who lucked into much less than she rightly deserved and who still walks around to this day insisting that she has "never been convicted of a sexual offense therefore I am not a sexual offender." Get real... good luck to her next defense attorney.

Yes many people screwed up in this case, but the 'legal' system had a chance to fix it and apply proper 'justice'...and failed miserably.


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

Unfortunately, in a court room, there are rules of procedure and evidence. To most members of our society, it's uncomprehensible that the deal could not have changed but it wasn't because of procedures and evidence. That's the law. If some people were not happy with its application, they should have harassed the prosecutor to bring this situation to the appeal court...don't know if it happened...either way, it was not overturned, meaning that the decision from the first judge was legal.

Suggestion: move on and forget Homolka...won't be the last case where a court will apply the law and having members of this society criticize his decision because they don't know about the court's rules.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

Why is this only the tip of the iceberg?  Because our Justice System has lost the principle of _lex talionis_ for the sake of notions of "rehabilitation".


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

I'm willing to go with a judicial system that believes in rehabilitation instead of an archaic system based on retaliation, considering that Canada is not into death sentences anymore...


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

silverbach said:
			
		

> I'm willing to go with a judicial system that believes in rehabilitation instead of an archaic system based on retaliation, considering that Canada is not into death sentences anymore...



Well, I guess your a part of the reason that a family man gets struck and killed by a car thief who has 16 prior felony convictions.  Have faith in your morally defunct ideology of rehabilitation; I hope they stick a "rehabilitated" pervert in a house next to yours.


----------



## armyvern (21 Dec 2005)

silverbach said:
			
		

> considering that Canada is not into death sentences anymore...


Hey, I'm all for making this an election issue. I think we should bring it back. Miss Karla and Mr Bernardo have a lot to do with my current belief of exactly why we need to bring it back. Justice.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Dec 2005)

Okay, can we make an interm rule that anyone who uses latin beyond carpe diem has to include the translation for us serfs? 
Why is Siverbach so anxious for us to forget Karla?   Are you dating her?   If you are so keen to flog that this is the tip of the iceberg (and it certainly is) it is a big bloody black tip at that.   Karla's attrocities should never be forgoten.   They should constantly be hoisted up and shown for the failure of many systems (judicial, police, corrections) so that everyone who ever comes across a sick vile freak like those two will think to themselves "Im not going to let another Bernardo/Holmoka happen on my watch".   
And it is pretty crass to blame the police for failing to find the tapes, since it was her LAWYER who hid them in HIS HOUSE.   Wouldn't there be much screaming and hand wringing if the police got to toss the home of whatever defence counsell a criminal picked.   Watch how fast the "you have the right to retain and instruct counsell without delay..." didnt seem like such a good idea when the popo shows up at 4am and says "hi, Billy A$$hat chose you as his lawyer.   We are here to search your house now".
As a result of all of the problems from this case, the ViCLAS computer system was set up so that police services all across Canada would have access to violent/sexual offender profiles and be better able to track information. 

"Might wanna talk to your county deputy if you don't agree with the law, since the parliament is the only authority to bring changes to the law."   Great idea.   Like the changes to the child porn laws that Parliment approved because the people wanted it, only to have a JUDGE tear it down and make it toothless.   The judiciary dont care what the people think, and in fact many see themselves as more enlightened than the mongol hordes whom they preside over.

To say "Suggestion: move on and forget Homolka...won't be the last case where a court will apply the law and having members of this society criticize his decision because they don't know about the court's rules." is so catagorically arrogant and dismissive of the fellings of anyone involved in the case that I would be embarassed to even suggest it, let alone print and send it.   

Maybe when this country has some leadership that forwards the concept of "voting for judges" will things start to change.   

And finally:
"Sometimes, we gotta put things in perspective"
Yes, Im sure the French and Mahaffy families appreciate your warm thoughts towards their sexually tortured to death daughters during this most festive of Christmas seasons.   The Lord bless you and your family.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2005)

> and let's hope that her rehabilitation is not a result of ghost878's ability to remember things.



I don't know about that. My rehabilitation would have saved a lot of money, drama and time.



> We can only get down on our knees at night and thank God ghost878 is not a prosecutor, otherwise, our criminal justice system would fall back about a 1000 years


Agreed. There would bt a lot less murderers getting let out of jail, turning around and killing more people. Less pedophiles reoffending. Less serial drunk drivers wiping out families.

Lets hope in court you atleast take the time and professionalism to get your clients names right.  : 

silverbach, I probably know as much about the legal system as you do being a soldier. I'm out of my element here.  Zipperhead_cop, among others, have brought up what looks to be very soilid points. You don't seem to address them directly.

What's your angle? Why the whole lets forget karla deal?  
"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"
Yes this case got a lot of media attention.  Yes there are hundreds of other cases that have not. Why should we forget any of them?
We as human beings owe it to the victims and the victim's families to do what we can to make sure the mistakes in this case do not get repeated, which includes remembering them and being outraged over them.



(And spell checker is down I might add)


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

First of all, I am willing to bet that I know a whole lot more about soldier-ing than you know about law; I could probably teach you things on rules of engagement whereas you probably have no idea what is AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM means (now, don't cheat and go look for it on internet).

Second of all, my angle is this: on a humanitarian level, what Bernardo and Homolka did is cruel and horrible. I have said that before. Where I have a problem is when people are blaming the system without knowing all the ramafications of the system. It's easy to blast the judge, the prosecutor or the defense attorney with a day-to-day reasoning. Unfortunately, in a court room, there are rules of procedure and evidence to follow. There are also jurisprudence that we have to deal with equally. 

I have been practicing law for about 10 years and I still don't know it all. So when I see you and other people in here blasting away at the system without even knowing about the restrictions that jurists have in a court room, well, that is frustrating. This is not any different than a quaker from Manitoba telling you to shoot at Afghans, regardless of the situation or Canadians wanting a soldier dead because he killed a 14 year old kid bosnian who happened to have a gun pointed in your direction. Unless you know about the Geneva and The Hague convention, what is the point of arguing with these people, they don't know didly squat about rules of engagement and the fact that you had your green light from your commanding officer.

I feel for the families of the victims...but at some point, you have to let go of Homolka, and that doesn't mean that I'm looking for justification for her actions. Nothing that you can do will make things better for these families, a point repeated all the time from judges.


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

silverbach said:
			
		

> Where I have a problem is when people are blaming the system without knowing all the ramafications of the system. It's easy to blast the judge, the prosecutor or the defense attorney with a day-to-day reasoning. Unfortunately, in a court room, there are rules of procedure and evidence to follow. There are also jurisprudence that we have to deal with equally.
> 
> I have been practicing law for about 10 years and I still don't know it all. So when I see you and other people in here blasting away at the system without even knowing about the restrictions that jurists have in a court room, well, that is frustrating.



That's the whole point.  If there are unreasonable restrictions, then the system is broken.  Period.  It needs to change.



			
				silverbach said:
			
		

> This is not any different than a quaker from Manitoba telling you to shoot at Afghans, regardless of the situation or Canadians wanting a soldier dead because he killed a 14 year old kid bosnian who happened to have a gun pointed in your direction.



It's quite different.  Shooting at people "regardless of the situation" is unreasonable.  Moreover, it's immoral.  Pointing out that someone who raped and murdered several teenage girls deserves more than 12 years in jail is neither unreasonable nor immoral.

When a system no longer serves the good of the people, it's time to change it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2005)

> First of all, I am willing to bet that I know a whole lot more about soldier-ing than you know about law; I could probably teach you things on rules of engagement whereas you probably have no idea what is AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM means (now, don't cheat and go look for it on internet).



Maybe. Your going to know more about soldiering reading this forum than I do about the law.   I have a feeling our deffinitions of soldier-ing is going to differ greatly though. I'm sure you laugh at the idea of me teaching you anything about the law. Vice versa.

Oddly enough audi alteram partem is one of the very few things I remember about my law class in school. I'm sure you would guess I was very disipointed with what I learned about Canadian law. From the get go I couldn't understand all the privlages and rights criminals got.    

As for the rules of engagement I'm not too sure what you mean. Are you refering to legal semantics about the wording or something?   My exposure to the rules of engagement are limited to what I learned and practiced before going overseas AND applying them while I was there. Some of us have dozens of books to use for references and know the theory of it, others have a little green card and use it more practically.



> It's easy to blast the judge, the prosecutor or the defense attorney with a day-to-day reasoning. Unfortunately, in a court room, there are rules of procedure and evidence to follow. There are also jurisprudence that we have to deal with equally.



I agree. There are rules to be followed and in court everyones hands are tied in specific ways.   What I and maybe some of the other posters are pissed off at ARE those rules that defy logic.
No one is arguing that we shouldn't hear the other side of the argument. That people shouldn't be treated innocent until their proven guilty. I think what many people are pissed off over is how they are treated AFTER they are found guilty.   Pissed off over the luxuries inmates are affored. Pissed off over guards not being allowed to wear body armor. Pissed off at criminals serving 1/3rd or 2/3rds of their sentence.   Obvious violent criminals and sexual monsters being released back into the community who just turn around and reoffend.    When families look for answers the courts say Hey we were just following proceedure.    We need tougher sentences. We need to give the court more leeway when it comes to punishing these criminals and keeping them behind bars instead of on the street.

Your logical approach to why we should forget about what we consider a failing of our justice system just isn't going to get many nods of approval.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

silverbach said:
			
		

> First of all, I am willing to bet that I know a whole lot more about soldier-ing than you know about law;



Oh really?   And you got that expertise from where?   I'd be happy to get a lecture on FPF, battle-procedure, the orders process, and the different types of fighting patrols from you.    :

I think you need a lesson on staying in your lane.



> I could probably teach you things on rules of engagement whereas you probably have no idea what is AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM means (now, don't cheat and go look for it on internet).



I don't know why you are throwing out the red herring of "audi alteram partem" - nobody is questioning the need for a proper trial; the criticism is on punishment.   One doesn't have to be a legal expert to debate the philisophical and moral implications of a soft justice system.  You consistenly try to undercut the opposing viewpoint by making up the boogyman of a legal system of 1000 years ago, which I haven't seen anybody advocate.  Maybe you never learned about logical fallacy in law school.

As for Rules of Engagement, you probably couldn't teach Ghost778 or myself anything that we haven't already been taught with the proper training prior to deploying overseas.  Quit being a pompous ass.   The fact that you passed the bar exam gives you no claim to authority here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2005)

The court system is broken. And we have a right to complain about the useless lawyers and judges within the broken system and the way they pander to the criminal. It was the lawyers and the judges that broke the system in the first place by trying to outguess parliment and the citizen they look down their noses at. Law, when combined with lawyers is a self perpetuating disease.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Dec 2005)

Justice and the law have absolutely Bo Diddly to do with each other.  One is a noble concept, the other is a perverse joke.  And as long as we're flinging latin around:  Per ardua ad asbestos,  Sod you, mate, I'm fireproof....


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

All right, the system doesn't work. So, let me ask you this all of you:

Who in here picked up the phone recently and complained to Mr. Martin about it ? Who took the afternoon off to join a walk against the criminal justice system ? Who did something to change that system that you are complaining of ? Who ? Any takers ?...

...I didn't think so !!!


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Dec 2005)

I punched out my ex-wife's divorce lawyer, does that count?


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

I'm not sure, but that's an assault ! Looking for a criminal defense attorney ?


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

Judges and lawyers apply the law. Politicians write the law. So bark at the politicians. Jurists are pupets, politicians are pupetteers.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

silverbach said:
			
		

> Who in here picked up the phone recently and complained to Mr. Martin about it ? Who took the afternoon off to join a walk against the criminal justice system ? Who did something to change that system that you are complaining of ? Who ? Any takers ?...



Is that supposed to somehow undermine the validity of the argument?


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Dec 2005)

silverbach said:
			
		

> I'm not sure, but that's an assault ! Looking for a criminal defense attorney ?



No.  He invited me to hit him.  He being much smarter than I, I thought it would be rude not to oblige.


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

Well, if you found out a way to relieve some of your social anxiety and frustration by trashing out the criminal justice system, go on and keep making sensatioanal claims which makes no difference whatsoever at the end of the day...

...be my guest, speak uselessly your mind. I'll make sure to read it. God knows it's cheaper that to go downtown and catch a movie !


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

...in both situations, I'll be amused !


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Dec 2005)

Why do you come here?  Is it because you feel a need to validate the money mom and dad spent on your enormous brain?  You come on to an army site, where MOST of us, by virtue of our present or former occupation, have a decidedly conservative leaning.  You then belittle our reaction to a disturbing trend toward mollycoddling (sorry, Irish, not latin)  offenders.  What is your deal?


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Dec 2005)

Well, he/she is definitely the most unconvincing "lawyer" I've ever come across.  :


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2005)

> I'm not sure, but that's an assault ! Looking for a criminal defense attorney ?


heh, nice 



> Who in here picked up the phone recently and complained to Mr. Martin about it ? Who took the afternoon off to join a walk against the criminal justice system ? *Who did something to change that system that you are complaining of ?* Who ? Any takers ?...
> 
> ...I didn't think so !!!



As us again in january.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Dec 2005)

I can see if he became an infantry officer(his second choice of course) he would end up getting fragged by his own men, I know I would. I thought some naval officers were bad....


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Dec 2005)

But he knows more about soldier-ing than me!


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

silverbach said:
			
		

> Well, if you found out a way to relieve some of your social anxiety and frustration by trashing out the criminal justice system, go on and keep making sensatioanal claims which makes no difference whatsoever at the end of the day...
> 
> ...be my guest, speak uselessly your mind. I'll make sure to read it. God knows it's cheaper that to go downtown and catch a movie !



It's called discussion and debate; if you don't like it, you're free to leave.   

Anyways, I'm fairly happy with my social anxiety - it seems that a defence lawyer (who makes money off of finding a way to get criminals off and profits from recidivism), rather than putting together a coherent counter-point, has resorted to pouting and _ad hominem_ attacks questioning the political activities of others.   I'll take that as a sign that I and others here have a valid point to make. 

As Britney Spears said, for somebody who claims to be an expert and can educate all of us lame-o Joe Blow citizens have no right to question the Justice system which serves Canadian society, you sure aren't very convincing.

PS: I'm still waiting for that lecture on "soldier-ing".


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

Hey Kat, you said:

Why do you come here?  Is it because you feel a need to validate the money mom and dad spent on your enormous brain?  You come on to an army site, where MOST of us, by virtue of our present or former occupation, have a decidedly conservative leaning.  You then belittle our reaction to a disturbing trend toward mollycoddling (sorry, Irish, not latin)  offenders.  What is your deal?

My dad left my mother when I was 5, and I haven't heard from him since. So I guess it's fair to say that he didn't pay for my tuition. Actually, I got a scholarship for that. I guess some american bureaucrats felt I had something to give to society as a lawyer.

By the way, this isn't an army site, but a site where army buddies come to chat.

I am merely expressing my self...don't feel compelled to reply...you're under no obligation.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Dec 2005)

Thank you, you'll never know how little that means to me.... :


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

My mother didn't let me listen or watch Britney Spears...therefore, I am not aloud to respond to her in here...please inform her of my mother's wish ! ;D


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Thank you, you'll never know how little that means to me.... :



+1


----------



## silverbach (21 Dec 2005)

Infanteer:

It's called discussion and debate...

...does that mean that I can participate also, or is it only for the directing staff of army.ca ?

P.S. Suggest a topic, soldier boy, and I'll lecture you all right !!!!!!!


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2005)

OK...I think this one has reached its 
expiry date".   

This is getting out of hand and turning too personal.

Thread Locked


----------

