03-06-2005 11:17									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: As for Agathon, if you feel that Holmolka is not a threat then you should have no problems having her as a neighbour.

Nope. That'd be great. I could take nudie pics of her through the curtains and sell them to the Toronto Sun.

I don't care what she does. It's extremely unlikely she'll ever reoffend.

	03-06-2005 11:19									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi NYE: The charges would not be based on public sentiment, but rather on the evidence convicting Holmolka that has been uncovered after the deal which cut short her time in jail. I see nothing wrong, given the increased evidence, for the courts to extend her prison time. For once it would be a proper sentence rather than the laughable wrist slaps handed down by most of the Canadian courts.

The courts knew all about her before she was sentenced. The time to change the deal was then.

What is happening now is entirely based on a lynch mob mentality. It has nothing to do with impartial justice.

	03-06-2005 19:17									#33
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You get sentenced and you do your time. In Karla's case she did it all, since the uproar of the victims would not allow the possibility of parole. That's it. She got sentenced and she did her time. There is little difference from wanting a court to slap on additional proscriptions in this case at this point from wanting a court to agree that someone who had committed no crime at all was 'a threat to public safety.' In both cases a government would be targetting unpopular individuals with penalties based on public pressure, not justice.

Section 810 is most often used to restrict the movements of pedophiles upon release (Budreo took this to the SCC). Do you favour its application to these offenders?

General Ludd - I do understand your point. You seem to subscribe to the 'Karla as victim' (to some extent) train of thought. I do not know how to impress upon you the nature of this particular evil (those of us that lived through the events and subsequent trial have a perspective unavailable to those joining the debate this many years later). For example: Karla was pissed off at her parents for not giving the attention to her upcoming wedding that she thought she deserved. What were her thoughtless and neglectful parents doing? Arranging for the funeral of their daughter Tammy (Karla played a prominent role in her death). I repeat: This woman is evil.

Agathon - That was the attitude that got Karla the deal she got. Poor victim of Bernardo. Keep in mind, Bernardo was not a murderer until he met Karla. He was a serial rapist but not a killer. Perhaps she had more control than you wish to believe?

	03-06-2005 19:33									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Agathon - That was the attitude that got Karla the deal she got. Poor victim of Bernardo. Keep in mind, Bernardo was not a murderer until he met Karla. He was a serial rapist but not a killer. Perhaps she had more control than you wish to believe?

Bernardo wasn't someone who killed for fun, he was a rapist who killed to prevent his victims identifying him. That's a big difference. He didn't set out to kill anyone, but, as a psychopath, killed when it was in his interest.

Homolka was a very strong-willed and bright woman before she met him. He was, to put it mildly, "controlling" – determining what she wore, whom she spoke to, etc. He regularly beat the **** out of her, and it got worse as their relationship progressed.

The Brady/Hindley case is rather like this one. You have an apparently normal person who just falls under the spell of a more dominant personality. This happens more often than people think. I guess Homolka was a bit like Patty Hearst. Even John Douglas, the FBI profiler, agreed with this assessment IIRC. None of this means that she shouldn't have been punished, but it probably means that she won't reoffend.

Part of the problem with her public profile is that she's such an obvious *****. If she'd never met Bernardo, she would have just been another insufferable and self-centred woman.

	03-06-2005 19:45									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Bernardo wasn't someone who killed for fun, he was a rapist who killed to prevent his victims identifying him. That's a big difference. He didn't set out to kill anyone, but, as a psychopath, killed when it was in his interest.

Simply NOT TRUE. As the Scarborough rapist he killed no one (perhaps Elizabeth Bain - but not proven). Worry of being identified didn't lead him to kill the dozens of women he raped. In fact, there was a relatively decent composite put together by his victims. He only killed AFTER he linked up with Karla although he had been a rapist for some time.

quote: Homolka was a very strong-willed and bright woman before she met him. He was, to put it mildly, "controlling" – determining what she wore, whom she spoke to, etc. He regularly beat the **** out of her, and it got worse as their relationship progressed.

When you swim with sharks....

quote: The Brady/Hindley case is rather like this one. You have an apparently normal person who just falls under the spell of a more dominant personality. This happens more often than people think. I guess Homolka was a bit like Patty Hearst. Even John Douglas, the FBI profiler, agreed with this assessment IIRC. None of this means that she shouldn't have been punished, but it probably means that she won't reoffend.

I WILL NOT subscribe to the Karla as victim belief.

quote: Part of the problem with her public profile is that she's such an obvious *****. If she'd never met Bernardo, she would have just been another insufferable and self-centred woman.

No, she would have met another to fulfill her urges. Look at her current boyfriend.

	03-06-2005 19:52									#36
	Support Apolyton

Wezil: why don't you read about the cases?

Bernardo's motivation for killing French and Mahaffy was to shut them up. There's no evidence that he derived any pleasure from the killings or viewed them as anything other than means to a utilitarian end.

Who said Homolka was a victim? She was mentally dominated by Bernardo, just as Hindley was dominated by Brady, and the homosexual Leopold by Loeb. When there are two killers one is usually dominant and the other compliant. In some cases the dominance and compliance are extreme – the Homolka case is one of those. Go through the literature – you will find other examples.

The problem with your analysis is that you come up with no facts other than your claim that Homolka was a psychopath who just looked for someone like Bernardo. This does not fit the facts of the case – she underwent a complete personality change when she met him: he'd been a notorious pervert for years (as those who worked with him at camp related).

	03-06-2005 20:15									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Wezil: why don't you read about the cases?

Your implication is insulting. I did read the cases. Even better - I lived through them while you were still in Kiwiland.

quote: Bernardo's motivation for killing French and Mahaffy was to shut them up. There's no evidence that he derived any pleasure from the killings or viewed them as anything other than means to a utilitarian end.

First - Did he kill them? Perhaps Karla did. He was convicted of murder on her testimony (the tapes did not show the murders).

Second - If he did kill them, why did he not kill his earlier victims? Why only when he met Karla? And how does this make HIM the dominant one?

quote: Who said Homolka was a victim?

You do in your next line.

quote: She was mentally dominated by Bernardo, just as Hindley was dominated by Brady, and the homosexual Leopold by Loeb. When there are two killers one is usually dominant and the other compliant. In some cases the dominance and compliance are extreme – the Homolka case is one of those. Go through the literature – you will find other examples.

Again, wo was wearing the pants in this relationship?

quote: The problem with your analysis is that you come up with no facts other than your claim that Homolka was a psychopath who just looked for someone like Bernardo. This does not fit the facts of the case – she underwent a complete personality change when she met him: he'd been a notorious pervert for years (as those who worked with him at camp related).

I can't prove she is still a danger, just as you can't prove she isn't. You ask for facts but you ignore those that don't jibe with YOUR analysis. ie - her new boyfriend.

	03-06-2005 20:41									#38
	Remove this text

And the trolling continues. Unless Agathon really is stupid enough to actually believe his own uninformed drivel.

	03-06-2005 20:48									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

He reads the Toronto Star.

	03-06-2005 21:02									#40
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It seems to me that there are two issues here:

1.) Her sentence is complete under the plea agreement and she is being released per that agreement.

2.) She falls under the application of a different law and the government is choosing to enforce it.

Where is the denial of civil liberty? These are two different issues stemming from the same cause.

	03-06-2005 21:11									#41
	Remove this text

The 2nd point is the contentious one.

s. 810 is intended to protect the public and as I mentioned earlier is most often used to restrict pedophiles upon release.

I tend to agree with NYE in that her sentence is done and these measures, as applied to her case, are punitive in nature. If that is so then s.810 is wrong (or being wrongly applied).

Of course the argument being made today is that the 810 measures are necessary to protect the public but in this case I believe the Ontario AG is simply bowing to public pressure to DO SOMETHING and that the attempt is more for punative reasons.

That said, I obviously believe Karla is still a danger. I just don't think any measures that may be imposed under this section will truly prevent her from reoffending if that is her destiny.

	03-06-2005 21:17									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

So what you are saying then is, It is contentious wheather or not 810 applies? Perhaps this is why there is to be a hearing then? Seems all is in order from my point of view.

It is a shame that they screwed up the original case though. She should never have been allowed out into society again, but she was subject to due process and the public must hold up their end of the bargain. That the AG is looking for laws that would be applicable to protect that public is applaudable.

	03-06-2005 21:27									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Wezil He reads the Toronto Star.

You read the Toronto Sun.

	03-06-2005 21:40									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by PLATO So what you are saying then is, It is contentious wheather or not 810 applies? Perhaps this is why there is to be a hearing then? Seems all is in order from my point of view.

I think it is contentious whether 810 should be considered Constitutional. I would argue no, but our courts disagree.

quote: It is a shame that they screwed up the original case though. She should never have been allowed out into society again, but she was subject to due process and the public must hold up their end of the bargain. That the AG is looking for laws that would be applicable to protect that public is applaudable.

It is a shame. You are right in that the problem originated many years ago.

I think the AG is engaging in optics.

Leo - Among others. The mouthpiece for the Liberal Party is far down my credible news source list.

	03-06-2005 21:47									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Wezil I think it is contentious whether 810 should be considered Constitutional. I would argue no, but our courts disagree.

But that is a different issue. Can't say that I agree that it is a good law to have in general, but the majority of the people must support it or it would not be on the books (or at least the majority don't object to it). It does seem that the current application meets the needs and desires of society to be protected. The courts should rule on the merits of wheater or not the law is applicable and leave the constitutional issue for review (assuming there is one)

	03-06-2005 22:28									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Your implication is insulting. I did read the cases. Even better - I lived through them while you were still in Kiwiland.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it isn't my fault you aren't making sense.

quote: First - Did he kill them? Perhaps Karla did. He was convicted of murder on her testimony (the tapes did not show the murders).

Has anyone any proof that Homolka killed them? You are just speculating. All the evidence points to Bernardo killing them, and all the evidence suggests he was the dominant partner who made it happen.

quote: Second - If he did kill them, why did he not kill his earlier victims? Why only when he met Karla? And how does this make HIM the dominant one?

He killed those he thought would be able to identify him. Leslie Mahaffy had seen him in broad daylight at his house, knew what kind of car he drove and could describe him and his wife. Note that they didn't kill one of their other "slave" victims because they were pretty sure she wouldn't talk (she had been drugged). The rape victims in Scarborough were not murdered for reasons of simple convenience. Bernardo could not remove the bodies and dispose of them where and when he wished, and would have had to leave them on the streets of Scarborough. That would attract major heat.

The killings were wholly utilitarian. No-one has produced any evidence that Bernardo is anything like a Ted Bundy, for whom the killing was the sexual thrill. For Bernardo, killing was just a way of getting rid of "slaves" he no longer had any use for.

quote: You do in your next line.

No I don't. Please read more carefully. I don't class Homolka, Leopold or Hindley as victims. If Homolka was a victim, it was of Bernardo's physical and mental abuse. But I did not say her being found guilty made her Bernardo's victim or that she did not deserve her punishment because he "controlled" her.

But the fact remains that he did, and that is relevant to her being a danger in future.

quote: Again, wo was wearing the pants in this relationship?

All the evidence points to Bernardo.

(a) Who underwent the massive personality change from dominant to submissive after they met? Homolka – she started doing everything Bernardo told her and allowed him to engage in extremes of controlling behaviour.

(b) Who used their sexual dalliances with others to manipulate the other? Bernardo.

(c) Who physically abused the other? Bernardo.

(d) Who had a history of sexual deviance before they met? Bernardo.

(e) Who used psychological manipulation to get the other to engage in unwanted anal sex? Bernardo.

(f) Who used their friendly relationships with the other's family to manipulate the other? Bernardo.

(g) Who is agreed to be a diagnosed psychopath by all the experts? Bernardo. (Homolka is not a diagnosed psychopath)

These are all facts that are not disputed by any of the major writers on the case. The massive personality change undergone by Homolka is on its own sufficient to prove that she was the submissive.

quote: I can't prove she is still a danger, just as you can't prove she isn't. You ask for facts but you ignore those that don't jibe with YOUR analysis. ie - her new boyfriend.

Her supposed new boyfriend.

Your argument doesn't hold water. If we demanded the degree of proof you want, no-one would ever be let out of jail. That probably appeals to you, but it is completely unreasonable and silly nonetheless.

All the facts point to Bernardo being the catalyst for Homolka's criminal behaviour. All the precedents (like Brady/Hindley) point to her being mentally dominated by him, as does all the evidence that we actually have. Remove him from the equation and she's just another selfish *****.

Park Dietz (I take it you know who he is) was on the CBC today and he expressed my view – the only way Homolka is likely to reoffend is if she becomes submissive to another Bernardo. The solution to that is obvious: put conditions on her release.

	03-06-2005 22:30									#47
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: It is a shame that they screwed up the original case though.

They didn't. Even with the tapes, they needed her testimony to put Bernardo away permanently. He is the dangerous one. If he got out he would unquestionably do it again – that is the considered view of every professional I have read on the case.

	03-06-2005 22:32									#48
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by PLATO So what you are saying then is, It is contentious wheather or not 810 applies? Perhaps this is why there is to be a hearing then? Seems all is in order from my point of view. It is a shame that they screwed up the original case though. She should never have been allowed out into society again, but she was subject to due process and the public must hold up their end of the bargain. That the AG is looking for laws that would be applicable to protect that public is applaudable.

Unfortunatly you are very corret on this issue. I guess the goverment was weighing the lesser of two evils. I still think the girl will fall back into old patterns. Im dont buy into this **** you can be emotionaly controlled by a man. She knew what she was doing and participated. I have had a bf that beat the crap out of me when i was younger i didnt stay with him soon after he beat me sensless i left. sure he tried to come back but i knew once he did it the first time there would be another. he tracked me but everytime he did i called police and soon he grew tired of bothering cause he would be hassaled by the cops after he tried to contact. so the she was an abused woman excuse doesnt work for me.

	04-06-2005 01:30									#49
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by St Leo quote: Originally posted by Wezil He reads the Toronto Star. You read the Toronto Sun.

Low blow.

	04-06-2005 01:31									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Our socialist gov of the day bought her 'abused spouse' story.

The decision was made by the Crown counsels, not the politicians.

	04-06-2005 01:38									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi How do we know this? Perhaps it was her who spurred Paul on, and because they needed her testimony to get Paul, we are now letting out the catalyst.

Paul was raping and abusing women before he met Karla, and I don't believe Karla has ever been suspected of doing anything previous to meeting Paul. She did "spur him on" in that she enjoyed his abuse, and helped him rape other women in an effort to please him... but that is a far cry from being a predator.

quote: She has shown no remorse for her victims, nothing to indicate that her time in prison has changed her mindset in any way.

Just a quibble, but supposedly she did cry during the hearing or whatever a couple days ago while talking about the rape and death of her sister.

	04-06-2005 01:53									#52
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Wezil General Ludd - I do understand your point. You seem to subscribe to the 'Karla as victim' (to some extent) train of thought. I do not know how to impress upon you the nature of this particular evil (those of us that lived through the events and subsequent trial have a perspective unavailable to those joining the debate this many years later). For example: Karla was pissed off at her parents for not giving the attention to her upcoming wedding that she thought she deserved. What were her thoughtless and neglectful parents doing? Arranging for the funeral of their daughter Tammy (Karla played a prominent role in her death). I repeat: This woman is evil.

Lots of people are completely self-absorbed and oblivious to other people's needs and emotions. just look at Bay Street, for example. Are they evil? Well, yes... so maybe you have a point.

	04-06-2005 02:43									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Just a quibble, but supposedly she did cry during the hearing or whatever a couple days ago while talking about the rape and death of her sister.

True, but was it genuine remorse at what she did or was she feeling sorry for herself she was having to listen to it again?

	04-06-2005 05:28									#54
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Section 810 is most often used to restrict the movements of pedophiles upon release (Budreo took this to the SCC). Do you favour its application to these offenders?

Good question. I am in favour of some provisions to protect society from people with some condition, disease (or what have you) and to protect them from themselves.

If kiddy fiddlers have some condition that is not curable and it is likely that they will reoffend (both are true for the average subject, AFAIK) then yes we should have some provision to allow the justice system to deal with that class of offender and protect society at large at the same time.

The problem with 810, as I think you agree, is that it is being arbitrarily applied to an individual at the whim of a politician to sooth the mobs. That ain't justice, and it is somewhat worrying both that the law exists as it does and that more people don't see a problem with it.

	04-06-2005 05:34									#55
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by PLATO It seems to me that there are two issues here: 1.) Her sentence is complete under the plea agreement and she is being released per that agreement. 2.) She falls under the application of a different law and the government is choosing to enforce it. Where is the denial of civil liberty? These are two different issues stemming from the same cause.

She falls under the application of a different law that applies to just about anyone ever convicted of a serious offence, but that law is not normally applied to people outside of certain classes of offenders. In this case its overly broad provisions are being invoked arbitraily because of public anger. That is not a recipe for justice.

Her civil liberties are involved since her ability to travel, work, and associate with others are all being cutailed by the decision that the judge in Quebec just handed down.

	06-06-2005 23:20									#56
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Good question. I am in favour of some provisions to protect society from people with some condition, disease (or what have you) and to protect them from themselves. If kiddy fiddlers have some condition that is not curable and it is likely that they will reoffend (both are true for the average subject, AFAIK) then yes we should have some provision to allow the justice system to deal with that class of offender and protect society at large at the same time. The problem with 810, as I think you agree, is that it is being arbitrarily applied to an individual at the whim of a politician to sooth the mobs. That ain't justice, and it is somewhat worrying both that the law exists as it does and that more people don't see a problem with it.

I would prefer that the FULL sentence be given at the front end (sentencing) rather than the back end when the offender is released after serving the sentence that was imposed. If they are to be paroled early I see no problem with conditions, but not after having served the FULL sentence.

Additionally, our "deal" with Karla implied we would not do this sort of thing to her. McGuinty is apparently not happy only breaking his own promises, now he seems content to break promises of earlier governments.

She has 30 days to appeal.