Homolka hearing begins in Quebec Court (Canada's 'school girl killer' being set free)

Globe and Mail - Toronto, Canada ^ | Thursday, June 2, 2005 | TERRY WEBER

[kitkat]

***As the loving father of children of both genders, I sincerely hope you'll agree that this warning plainly works both ways. Doubtless no reasonable parent wants their son with the likes of a woman Holmolka either. ***

Of course I agree.

[B4Ranch]

See #39

Now if they can find a Doctor who can honestly say she's insane then do it and lock her in a nuthouse for the rest of her life.

If the she is indeed insane, who should be the asylum keeper? Not politicians worried about reelection, I hope and pray.

[Snowyman]

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.

The point is she served all her time. She didn't make up the 12 year sentence . The Crown did.

As sad as it sounds she kept her side of the deal . The Crown , especially Liberal AG , on the other hand , isn't keeping theirs . The terms of the deal were made 12 years ago , not now . And the next time a criminal is needed to do a deal they'll think twice about making one with the Ontario AG's office . Believe it or not, it has to do with integrity .

[thecanuck]

I think the fact that she fudged a bit on her level of involvement by playing the victim, should they actually throw the deal out would in fact send a message to anyone else making a plea to put all the cards on table upfront and you won't have your deal dumped. That the AG is sticking to a bad deal with someone they now realize is a sociopath arguably tells future crooks that they should just say enough to get the minimum sentence and you can get away with murder.

[B4Ranch]

>>the "deal with the devil" she got for testifying against Paul Barnardo was made<<

with the prosecuter knowing everything available about the case. S/he is the one who probably needs to spend some time behind bars for not protecting your community as her/his oath of office stated.

I would love to sign contracts with you. Just so I could make changes that aren't in the contract.

I've never been in prison but I have often thought that if I ever was I would probably refuse to go to any parole hearings. Why you ask?

I'm an old man who would have one tough time asking permission to do all and or anything from a parole officer who didn't know anything about me other than what was in print before him. I think it would be much easier to serve my sentence and then be free from the controls again.

[buccaneer81]

Civilized countries too often set their monsters free.

We're talking about Canada here.

[GMMAC]

"As sad as it sounds she kept her side of the deal."

The more information that comes out, the less this appears to be true:
Karla victim claims 'coverup' - TORONTO SUN, May 30, 2005

What's "sad" is that, while the state should rightly be bending over backwards both to pursue justice for her additional victims and protect the public by keeping her behind bars, instead it seems to be merely going through the motions and engaged in a retroactive cover-up operation on behalf of civil servants who betrayed the public trust to advance their own selfish personal ideological agendas.

[Snowyman]

That the AG is sticking to a bad deal with someone they now realize is a sociopath

I've seen no documentation that says either the Ontario Government says she is a sociopath or any that says she is one. She has undergone psychiatric examinations while imprisoned and now the government is attempting to control her using Section 810 not the Mental Health Act . That in itself should tell you she's not a psychopath ,

She may well have an evil look in her eye . Save us all if that becomes criteria for what in this case is nothing more than harassment motivated by stupid Liberal politicians

[thecanuck]

Poor choice of words on my part. The reports on her current mental health are mixed but I will admit they haven;t labeled her any sort of 'path to my understanding. What the credentials of the individuals making the reports are is unknown. She has passed off BS before but I will accept their assessments.

Professional opinions aside, since I ain't no fancy doctor, but there is more than just an evil eye at play here. Raping her own sister, participating in the death of that sister for the purposes of rape, remaining silent about it, marrying the man who she helped rape and kill her sister, participating willingly in the violent rapes and torturous confinement and deaths of two teenage girls (and she had ample opportunity to turn the girls free during their days of torture as the tapes would later prove), allegedly participating in the rape of another, the now famed Jane Doe and now by media accounts in a relationship with another murderer, does not sound like the kind of person I want living next door to me and my two little girls regardless of any label applied to her. That the level of her participation in a number of these events came to light only after the deal was signed is enough for me to question whether the deal stands and the punishment was reasonable.

If it was reasonable and to be fair, let a jury of her peers evaluate the case with what we know now. If they find a punishment of 12 years or less is suitable, then let her go. If not, tack on any balance they see fit and let her rot.

[Snowyman]

The more information that comes out , the less this appears to be true:

Unfortunately woulda , coulda , shouda doesn't work in a court of law.and the time to act has been lost . She served her time . And like it or not , that was the deal.

Harassing her now by placing more restrictions on her was not part of the deal , She may well eventually be seen as a victim .

Her crimes and sins are her's and they will follower her the rest of her life and beyond. Justice was denied but the Crown made a deal . In the future another heinous crime may require that a deal be made. Seems to me the Crown may well find it's credibility in question . And that's a real problem .

[goldstategop]

Its very unusual for two sociopaths to get married. Everything in the nature of such people argues against love or even mutual cooperation. People without a conscience don't have feelings and the lack of scruples mean they won't treat each other with consideration. Then again, there are exceptions to the rule and this is one of them. There's no question Karla is just as dangerous as her ex-husband. Its a matter of time before she kills someone else.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[GMMAC]

If what "Jane Doe" and the other additional victim are saying is true in the story I linked for your attention, then criminal charges should rightly be pursued against Holmolka. The very fact that this apparently isn't being done reeks of cover-up and more than lends credence to the belief which many of us hold that furthering elite politically correct selfish personal agendas is far more important than any notion of "justice" within arguably the most corrupt and socialist infested Ministry of the Ontario government.

Surely, if either of these additional victims of Holmolka's were members of your family you'd be demanding that she face specific charges for her crimes against them and not raising the apparently quasi-liberarian claim that doing so would make her some sort of victim of state harassment.

Further, pointing out seeming illogic in Ontario's position serves to strengthen, not weaken, the contention that it's primary goal here is something other than protecting the public:
Like trying to contain a legal disaster created over a decade ago by leftist legal hacks who wouldn't have lasted 10 seconds in the real world of private sector law so that their like-minded colleagues of today can similarly indulge their personal whims with impunity and never be held accountable for doing so by the taxpayers who foot their bills.

[GMMAC]

"Its very unusual for two sociopaths to get married."

... but certainly not unheard of in Arkansas.

[Snowyman]

Surely, if either of these additional victims of Holmolka's were members of your family you'd be demanding that she face specific charges for her crimes against them and not raising the apparently quasi-liberarian claim that doing so would make her some sort of victim of state harassment.

Part of the deal, from your link, "Prosecutors gave Homolka immunity from prosecution in Jane Doe's rape on the eve of Homolka giving testimony at Bernardo's 1995 murder trial."

The deal did not include additional penalties or restrictions . Pile them on and there are those who will eventually label her a victim of government harassment . Quasi-liberarian , whatever, label it as you choose , it will happen.

[GMMAC]

Reading on from the same article:

"The Galligan report said Jane Doe did not want Homolka charged, citing her need to get on with her shattered life.
When asked about those comments, Jane Doe said she was never interviewed or consulted for Galligan's report.
"Galligan? I don't even know (who) that is," she said.
If Jane Doe's assertion is correct, Galligan's report could be viewed as fundamentally flawed."

Two Points:
1. There is no basis in law for the Crown to arbitrarily waive any fundamental rights of "Jane Doe" or anyone else ... it's simply that the elite radical feminists who run the AG's office wrongly believe that their cherished principle of all women - including Karla - being imagined societal "victims" trumps those of Holmolka's legitimate victims.
2. Your supposition is entirely reversed: radical feminism has spent over a decade trying to paint Holmulka as a victim - a lie which has gradually progressed from many members of the public shaking their heads in semi-mute disbelief to now full blown outrage on the part of the vast majority of citizens.

[NorthOf45]

Both she and her spawn of a husband deserve nothing but the death penalty ... period.

[cherry]

Myself....yes, she did do her term.......

however, after making this deal, a video surfaced that showed that Karla was indeed an active participent in the torture and murder of her sister and others.....

this was fully known by the defense attorney, IIRC, who squelched the tape until after the plea bargain.....

how defense attorneys can live with themselves at times is beyond me.....

[cherry]

I doubt that she influenced good old Paul.......I think he started out perverted and evil.....

what women will do to "fit" in and to make the ones they love , love them back....

It's a fatal flaw that we have....

[GMMAC]

Your comment, while no doubt well-meaning, is sexist and promotes anti-male bigotry.
Females are every bit as capable of violence and outright evil as males and accordingly both are societal - not gender-based - problems. Conservatives who, even unwittingly, promote animosity between the sexes are doing the work of the left who've long used the tactic as a 'weapon of choice' in their war against the conventional/traditional family.

Further, in this particular case, the evidence doesn't bear out your theory:
Apparently, on the video tapes of their crimes, Karla was - if anything - the more aggressive and enthusiastic participant.
Plus, for whatever it's worth, Bernardo claimed at his trial that she did the actual killings. Many find this just as believable as Karla's version of their crimes since, other than possibly dragging her down to his level, he had no real advantage to gain by saying so and the tapes already more than confirmed that both were equally depraved and murderous.