=
Posted on 07/03/2005 12:03:49 PM PDT by Clive
Having won a trivial 12-year-sentence for participating in the sex-killings of two teens, Karla Homolka is obviously under the illusion that she deserves on-going special treatment.
Fortunately, a Quebec judge set her straight last week, rejecting her request for a broad ban on media coverage of her post-prison life.
It is disconcerting, but not altogether surprising, that Homolka tried to get the courts to shield her from the media glare.
Although she is one of Canada's most notorious killers, she has always considered herself a victim. Her ill-fated attempt to encase herself in a media-free bubble is just another example of overweening pride.
"The thought of being relentlessly pursued, hunted down and followed when I won't have any protection makes me fear for my life," Homolka whined in her affidavit filed in support of her application for an injunction against the media.
"All I want after my release is to have the opportunity to rebuild my life and I aspire to the greatest anonymity possible," she wrote.
Has she lost her marbles? Does she really think she can fade into obscurity while the sex-slayings of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy are so fresh in people's minds?
Most criminals, including some killers, are soon forgotten by the general public, usually after their trials. But Homolka's crimes, committed with then-husband Paul Bernardo, were so depraved that they will never be completely free of the media spotlight.
That is not to say that Homolka will be hounded week after week for the rest of her life now that her sentence is up.
Certainly, reporters, photographers and camera crews will be nipping at her heels for a while. That is to be expected in a society that respects freedom of the press.
Homolka, after all, is as much of a celebrity as a Hollywood star. While her notoriety is of the macabre variety, she brought it on herself.
If she had killed someone in a rage, the media wouldn't particularly care.
But she coldly drugged her little sister (killing her in the process) and handed her over to Bernardo to rape. And she helped Bernardo kill Mahaffy and French. A female sex killer - and a pretty blond one at that - is an obvious media target.
"One day or other, Karla Teale will have to face the Canadian public and the Canadian media," declared Quebec Superior Court Justice Paul-Marcel Bellavance, in dismissing her request for a media ban.
"She'll have to face the consequences of what she did," he added.
In a fit of hyperbole, one of Homolka's lawyers told the judge that without curbs on the media his client would be "imprisoned in society and thrown to the lions."
What a load of rubbish. Homolka should be thankful she doesn't live in Britain or the U.S., where the paparazzi are much more ferocious in pursuit of their prey.
In Canada, she can expect the media to stalk her for a few months; perhaps a year at most. By then, if she keeps her mouth shut and leads a low-key life, the media will get bored and drift away.
After that, reporters will likely check up on her occasionally but Homolka will eventually drift into semi-anonymity. The best we can hope is that she lives as quiet and humdrum a life as possible.
Ironically, if Homolka was a run-of-the-mill criminal, news photographers in Quebec would likely not be allowed to hassle her.
It is illegal in Quebec for the media to take someone's photo without permission unless it is in the public interest.
But as Justice Bellavance noted last week, Canadians have the right to know what Homolka is doing.
Tough it out, Karla. Remember the real victims.
At least she HAS a life to be afraid for. The TOOK THE LIVES of the other two women. Their chances are gone because of HER evil. She has conveniently forgotten that in her own evil, horrendous self-absorption and arrogance.
Whatever she gets, she deserves.
Speak for yourself.
"fears for her life!" What a joke this woman is! I hope her "life" is the miserable one she deserves!
True sociopaths (i.e. serial rapist/predator Bill Clinton and his evil wife) Always sincerely believe that they are innocent victims. Even when caught red-handed.
Three counting her sister, and there are more, but they were prosecuted on two victims.
She is out because of government bungling, offering her a deal for her testamony. This is what the media is hiding, the bungling of the Liberal justice system that is allowing a mass murderer to walk free after 12 years.
You won't hear much media condeming the liberals for this, They didn't 12 years ago, and they won't now.
She doesn't fear for her life, "this is just a media and lawyer creation". She is quoted telling a reporter this.
She has all sorts of sicko's willing to take her in and "help" her.
This is the result when two truly evil POS' meet.
99Percent of what we've seen and heard in the media on this story is BS.
FYI..just heard in passign that she's going to be on one of the mag shows tomorrow night..Access America..or something like that..
She ought to be. I hope she never has another good night's sleep for the rest of her life. I hope she worries every time she goes into a dark room. I hope she lives every day in the same fear that she helped instill in her victims before she and her perverted partner in crime killed them.
Good. Maybe she will actually feel what her victims felt as her husband was murdering them. But I won't hold my breath.
Uhhhhhh
She is not a victim like that piece of garbage on that thread you linked to said.
AFter killing her sister, she RE-ENACTED the act on VIDEO with her husband! WTF kind of soulless ___tch does something like that?
She SHOULD have been in jail for life but the government made its deal before it had that video and other evidence and it was too late.
When you make that statement you should at least include what part "you" have seen and heard that is B.S., because you can't possibly know what other people have seen and heard.
What part is BS in your opinion? That she was complicit? Are you really saying she was brainwashed? I think she is just as evil as he was.
Certain facts about the case are undeniable and have been admitted to in her own words. She confessed to the Police that she did all kinds of things, like help him kidnap at least one of the girls and help him scatter concrete blocks that had body parts inside. She also told them her complicity in how her sister died. She told them she brought animal drugs home from where she worked to use on one of the victims.
Patty Hearst also took part in a bank robbery, apparently of her own free will and this seemed clear enough to most people at the time that she was convicted and sent to prison for it. The actual facts of the matter are that she had been brainwashed and was basically not responsible for what she was doing at the time. The Homolka case is entirely similar.
But it still hasn't been proven that Homulka was brainwashed. What you presented as "proof" was another person's opinion. I heard enough when I read the book about her crimes to convince me (and it convinced a court) that she was complicit. She was never found incompetent, or not acting of her own free will, or acting under any type of duress.
She was convicted in a Canadian court, which if I were to guess, places more burden of proof on the prosecution (by virtue of their being 10 times as liberal as the US) than any American court.
If you are advancing the theory that she was a victim, I don't buy that for a second.
Here again you are wrong. The facts of the matter were that she was responsible for what she was doing at that time, and that is why she went to prison.
Brainwashing is not a valid defense. Facts tend to be measured by was it you, and what did you do. I never bought it in the Hearst case either. She was guilty as charged and she spent time in prison. Just not enough.
=
As I've read it she was drugged out of her mind when that picture was taken just dealing with all the stress. I mean, if they can't figure anything else for her to be doing near term, she's got all the basic qualifications to be a US senator from New York, having been married to a psychopathic serial rapist and what not, and while she's not going to win any beauty contests at age 35, she's got to still be better looking than Hillary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.