Posted on 06/02/2005 11:15:52 AM PDT by GMMAC
Homolka hearing begins in Quebec Court
By TERRY WEBER
Toronto Globe and Mail
Thursday, June 2, 2005
Karla Homolka, one of the country's most reviled killers, made her first public appearance in a decade Thursday, attending a Quebec court hearing to determine whether she should be placed under increased scrutiny when she ends her prison sentence next month. According to television and wire reports from the Joliette, Que., courthouse, Ms. Homolka, dressed in a pinkish suit and sporting blond hair, was quietly brought into the courtroom in handcuffs about 10 a.m. EDT.
After being seated, her handcuffs were removed.
Her lawyer, Sylvie Bordelais, then asked that the motion brought by the Ontario government — which is seeking strict controls on Ms. Homolka after her release — be thrown out, arguing that the province's request breaches a deal reached more than a decade earlier when she agreed to plead guilty and testify against her former husband, Paul Bernardo.
The request was rejected by Judge Jean Beaulieu, allowing Thursday's hearing to proceed.
Earlier, Ms. Homolka arrived at a Quebec courthouse under heavy guard to face calls from the Ontario government that she be put under close watch following her release from prison next month.
Televised images from Joliette, Que., showed a crush of journalists trying to get photos of Ms. Homolka as she was brought into the courthouse by van just before 7 a.m. EDT.
She was not visible as the vehicle drove into an indoor parking bay. The doors to the outside were closed before Ms. Homolka was taken from the van.
Outside the courthouse, curious onlookers gathered early, trying to get a glimpse of Ms. Homolka.
Lance Campeau, who travelled from Montreal for the hearing, told Canadian Press that "I want to see how she reacts, her facial expressions — does she cough, does she turn her head, will she address anyone with her eyes?
"I'm not sure she's aware how much attention she's attracting."
Armand Goulet, a regular visitor to the courthouse, also told CP that he just wanted "to see Karla."
"We want to see if she has black hair," said Mr. Goulet, 72, referring to a recent media report that she had dyed her blond hair.
"We've been talking about her the last few days. There are some people who are afraid of her and there are others who aren't."
The Ontario government is asking a judge to invoke controls on Ms. Homolka's movements after her release from prison on July 5, when she finishes her sentence for her role in the murders of Ontario schoolgirls Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy and the death of her sister Tammy Homolka.
Thursday marks Ms. Homolka's first public appearance in more than a decade. She pleaded guilty to her role in the killings in 1993 and subsequently testified at the trial of her former husband Paul Bernardo, who is now serving life behind bars for the murders.
The details of the crimes shocked the nation, with both Ms. Homolka and Mr. Bernardo quickly becoming among the most reviled criminal figures in Canadian history.
The Ontario government's application is being made under Section 810 of the Criminal Code, which can be used to control where offender go and whom they see even after they finish serving their sentences.
The provision was the result of public outcry in the 1990s over the need to protect the public from sex offenders who reoffended after their release. If granted, an order under the section would run 12 months.
The Crown is expected to argue that Ms. Homolka is a danger to the public.
Published reports out of Quebec earlier in the week have alleged she has been corresponding with Jean-Paul Gerbert, a male inmate who has been incarcerated in Quebec for the 1998 second-degree murder of his girlfriend, 23-year-old Cathy Caretta. She was strangled after trying to break up with Mr. Gerbet.
It remains unknown exactly where Ms. Homolka intends to live after her release.
Ms. Homolka's lawyers are expected to call evidence from a psychiatrist who will say that Ms. Homolka is no longer a danger to the public as well as a case-management work.
Speaking with reporters outside the courthouse, lawyer Tim Danson, who represents the French and Mahaffy families, said the families want a court order forcing Ms. Homolka to keep authorities informed of where she lives and works following her release.
They also want her prevented from contacting the victims' families and from associating with anyone with a criminal record. The also want Ms. Homolka to report to authorities twice a month an notify them of any travel plans so they can relay that information to officials in those jurisdictions.
"I think it's important that authorities know where she is at all times," Mr. Danson said.
Flash Video narrated by the Globe's Christie Blatchford
I saw a documentary about this case, and it was about the sickest thing I've ever seen. I think this couple pulled the teeth out of their victim, the tortured their victims. Really, it was really quite sick. I'm amazed she's ever getting out.
I mean, THEY can't be brought back but they diserve justice.
Dunno 'bout Canada, but here in the US your legal standing is either innocent or guilty. Either you've paid your debt to society and you're off the hook, or you haven't and you're not...and that's the way it should be.
The big exception is that we've started doing Big-Brother-type surveillance on released sex offenders. I think that's wrong. If we're not going to let them actually be free, we should just keep 'em in jail. Better yet, give 'em a death sentence. Because if they're not "reformed" enough to turn 'em loose completely, they're not reformed enough to let out of jail period.
Once we invent this quasi-legal status of your-debt-is-paid-but-we're-keeping-tabs-on-you, you can apply it to anyone. Who's going to own the list of categories of people who get watched? What keeps us from putting most anyone under surveillance?
Who would be harmed? Us. By the precedent it sets.
And even more important is protecting the public from future crimes. I read a book by a LEO who studied this case, and Karla was just as guilty as her husband. She is a threat to society, and the judges who let her plead out will answer to God if there are more tortures and deaths.
***I nhave a question, why is this witch only getting 12 years for killing three people?***
Pippin, she got a "sweetheart deal" for turning state's evidence against Paul. Some feel that it was just plain PC, and that government people eventually received promotions for furthering the PC deal.
I don't think she should EVER be let out.
she did the crime so she oughta do the time
All of it!
The insult to the victims is the light sentence she got. What I'm saying is, if they are going to let her go anyway, which appears to be the case, how could anyone, even the perps lawyer object to monitoring?
She is truly a sociopath, unable to emote or empathize and every bit as dangerous as Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer. Or her husband. She should never be released. The details of the cases are/were difficult to read. I can't imagine what it must be like to be the victims families hearing of her release.
I, BTW, am of the school of thought where sex predators get a life sentence. No parole, no chance to re-offend. Since we apparently do not have the stomach for that, I see nothing wrong with keeping tabs on them. For their protection as well as for the rest of society. If they don't like it, they could always ask to be kept incarcerated.
I agree.
"Published reports out of Quebec earlier in the week have alleged she has been corresponding with Jean-Paul Gerbert, a male inmate who has been incarcerated in Quebec for the 1998 second-degree murder of his girlfriend, 23-year-old Cathy Caretta. She was strangled after trying to break up with Mr. Gerbet."
Somebody ought to arrange an in-person meeting between these two.
Unsupervised, of course.
I've not read the actual deal but many assessments by those that have seem to suggest there is evidence that she did not live up to her obligations in her disclosures and that it could and should be tossed out, i.e. try her and let a jury decide her fate.
That no prosecutor has even picked up the Jane Doe rape case to keep her locked up leaves me equally suspicious of what's driving this. For years politicians have been wringing their hands over the deal but not one of them has even tested it in the courts. Sure our courts are crap but for goodness sake put it to some sort of test.
...if they're not "reformed" enough to turn 'em loose completely, they're not reformed enough to let out of jail period.
The same goes for sex offenders, to my mind. Of course, my recommendations will never have the force of law.
Myself, she did her full sentence in prison. Leave her alone.
B4Ranch: you may feel differently if you get more information. The link below tells the whole story. I didn't read her psychiatrist's diagnosis, but surely she's psychotic and sociopathic, with some severe personality disorders thrown in too.
The police bear much of the responsibility that this case was not solved while the husband was still "just" a serial rapist: they never followed up on the evidence they already had. They also neglected to publicly post excellent composite drawings in time to save these girls.
www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/ notorious/bernardo/updates.html
ping
Re: She served her full sentence in prison. Leave her alone.
The fact that she served a full sentence ought to tell you one thing, that the authorities didn't want to let her out before they had to.
Second, the "deal with the devil" she got for testifying against Paul Barnardo was made without the public knowing everything that she had done together with him in torture, rape and murder of the innocent victims.
She did what the Court ordered her to do. Her sentencing should be done with. If the Court wanted to add on a lifetime sentence of parole then it certainly had the opportunity to do so at the trial.
It ticks me off when I see any officials who think they have the right to say "Oops, we should have done this" and then add it on.
That's like when the legislators try to inch their way to a final goal. Come right out and say we are going to ban all weapons forever instead of this registration first crappola.
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.