Homolka unleashed

[silverbach]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....