Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Homolka -- no more restrictions!?

meb999
November 30th, 2005, 05:49 PM
This is a more than just a little disturbing to me :


Fourteen restrictions had been imposed on Homolka under Sec. 810 of the Criminal Code after a lower court judge ruled she still posed a risk to the community.

But Justice James Brunton overturned those restrictions, meaning Homolka will no longer be prohibited from associating with criminals, working in a place where she would be in a position of authority over anyone under age 16, possessing a controlled substance, or contacting her former husband, convicted killer Paul Bernardo.

She is also permitted to contact the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, the two Ontario teenagers she and Bernardo were convicted of kidnapping, torturing and killing in the early 1990s.

The ruling means Homolka does not have to tell police where she lives or works, or notify them if she plans to move.

Tim Danson, the lawyer for the French and Mahaffy families, said his clients are "deeply disappointed" in the ruling.

"The shock, disbelief and anguish they expressed to me over the phone was painful to hear," said Danson. Debbie Mahaffy said she feels like she's been "kicked in the stomach," he said.


Sometimes I wonder why I want to be lawyer.........

wdawson
November 30th, 2005, 06:17 PM
Great no restrictions on child rapists and murderers but now we give the death sentence to puppies just because of breed and not deed,at least in ontario. sorry to say.....but i hope she breaks the law again and can join her ex husband.....forever.

twodogsandacat
November 30th, 2005, 06:48 PM
The only upside is that Bryant is once again shown to be an idiot.

He should of charged her with the Jane Doe assault as it clearly broke the conditions of her plea bargain. Of course I'll say it again: he wouldn't do that as he can't comment on cases before the courts (his words not mine). By charging her again he would of had no opportunity to grab headlines. Well he's got them now doesn’t he?

Prin
November 30th, 2005, 07:11 PM
Well, this judge was in Qc, so Bryant isn't really in the spotlight.

I find it sad that she can be free. Served her time my hiney! Her time will never be served. She is disgusting. She's also allowed to contact Bernardo any time she wants too. And work with kids. I hope Qc appeals this quickly.

Gazoo
November 30th, 2005, 07:59 PM
She's served her time under the current rule of law in our country.

Why should she continue to be persecuted even after the court system has declared her free to pursue her life?

Prin
November 30th, 2005, 08:04 PM
It'll be a long debate, but let me put it this way: How long is a person responsible for killing another person? The families of the victims lost their kids forever. FOREVER. Why should anybody be free when they did that? When they took the life of an innocent person in such a horrendous way? And then she lied about her part in it, got a plea bargain and got out earlier and that's enough time? It will never be enough time. THREE horrible, horrible murders. Who gets out in 12 years for that? She might have gotten a plea agreement, but that by far doesn't make it right.

BMDLuver
November 30th, 2005, 08:08 PM
She's served her time under the current rule of law in our country.

Why should she continue to be persecuted even after the court system has declared her free to pursue her life?
Ask the victims who are still alive and their families that question. She did time in a fecking resort not a jail. Obviously no one you know was harmed by her. I'm sorry but that comment makes me furious.

Gazoo
November 30th, 2005, 08:10 PM
But the point is that she has served her debt under the rule of law.

If the laws/system are "wrong" or "unjust" then they should be changed.

Under our current system of justice its wrong to persecute her any further.

Prin
November 30th, 2005, 08:12 PM
Under moral law, it isn't over.

BMDLuver
November 30th, 2005, 08:20 PM
But the point is that she has served her debt under the rule of law.

If the laws/system are "wrong" or "unjust" then they should be changed.

Under our current system of justice its wrong to persecute her any further.
So? What she did is wrong and she damn well knows it.... and quite frankly I don't give a rats butt about her rights. If I run into her I will be more than happy to scream who she is at the top of my lungs and pray like the dickens that the crowd beats her to death... sound harsh... well she deserves far worse than that.

So, if Karla Homolka gets to read this thread as I know she loves the attention... and scans the web for any mention of herself.....watch your back hon... freedom means no one worries where you are either.

Gazoo
November 30th, 2005, 08:21 PM
Under moral law, it isn't over.

What does that mean?

Under the social contract we have in our society we agree to live under the rule of law and abide by the justice system that administers it. Without it we have anarchy and rampant injustice.

If we don't agree with the judicial system then shouldn't we change the system through the democratic process. :confused:

Prin
November 30th, 2005, 08:21 PM
Sounds very idealistic.:thumbs up

Gazoo
November 30th, 2005, 08:23 PM
So? What she did is wrong and she damn well knows it.... and quite frankly I don't give a rats butt about her rights. If I run into her I will be more than happy to scream who she is at the top of my lungs and pray like the dickens that the crowd beats her to death... sound harsh... well she deserves far worse than that.

.

How can you say that and then quote Gandhi in your signature?

Gazoo
November 30th, 2005, 08:26 PM
Sounds very idealistic.:thumbs up

Absolutely, but its through idealism and social action that we can improve society :thumbs up


IMHO cynicism and pessimism just breeds apathy and hopelessness ... then nothing changes.

BMDLuver
November 30th, 2005, 08:28 PM
How can you say that and then quote Gandhi in your signature?
Whatever that has to do with a discussion on Homolka is beyond me. Believe what you wish... I have no interest in debating about it... she'll die eventually and I really hope it's slowly and painfully kind of like the girls died... one tooth being ripped out of her head at a time with pliers... remember it vividly. She is most likely the only person on earth that I would wish that on. Maybe sad but that's how I feel and nothing anyone says will ever change that.

Gazoo
November 30th, 2005, 08:33 PM
Whatever that has to do with a discussion on Homolka is beyond me. Believe what you wish... I have no interest in debating about it... she'll die eventually and I really hope it's slowly and painfully kind of like the girls died... one tooth being ripped out of her head at a time with pliers... remember it vividly. She is most likely the only person on earth that I would wish that on. Maybe sad but that's how I feel and nothing anyone says will ever change that.


Ghandi was a believer in absolute pacifism and would be vehemently against a crowd bludgeoning someone to death especially after they were legally freed from prison!!

happycats
November 30th, 2005, 08:40 PM
I don't understand why she doesn't have to register as a sex offender??? That totally baffles me! If she was a man she would have too...no?

twodogsandacat
November 30th, 2005, 08:41 PM
Well, this judge was in Qc, so Bryant isn't really in the spotlight.

Watch an Ontario station or read an Ontario paper. He's in the spotlight.


But the point is that she has served her debt under the rule of law.
If the laws/system are "wrong" or "unjust" then they should be changed.
Under our current system of justice its wrong to persecute her any further.

I 100% believe you strike a deal you keep it.....on both sides. However she did not keep the deal. She did not disclose the Jane Doe assault - she said she forgot about it. That's enough to negate the deal.

As for persecuting her Bryant only did it for the publicity and that was indeed persecution not prosecution.

How much effort did he put into other sexual predators that wouldn't bring him as much publicity? When ten year old Holly Jones was killed in Toronto it was found that there were 200 known sex offenders within a three-kilometre radius. Offenders who pose as much if not more risk than Karla. Sadly though none worthy of Bryant hitching his star to. 200 known sex offenders within a three-kilometre radius and he focuses on one.

badger
November 30th, 2005, 08:51 PM
Yeah, I think he's (Bryant) looking to impose restrictions if she decides to move to Ontario.

meb999
November 30th, 2005, 10:43 PM
Whilst I agree that she has served her debt to society under our laws -- I find it disturbing that, even after a psychiatrist has deemed her as having a 'psychopathic personality' and that 'the possibility that she might re-offend one day cannot be completely eliminated' that her restrictions were lifted -- I mean, I'm not saying she should be re-punished but I do think that she should be restricted in her activities, because the safety of the community does, in this case, outweigh her right to do whatever she wants.

But I strongly think that our laws are MUCH MUCH too leaniant on child abusers and sex offenders. If I were the legislator, she would still be rotting in prison, along with a whole lotta other sex-offenders!

Roxy's_MA
December 1st, 2005, 09:45 AM
I believe she should have had to rot in a cell the rest of her life. I find it scary that she doesn't have to report where she lives to police. As for her walking free today, I 100% blame the dumbass that gave her a plea bargain.

meb999
December 1st, 2005, 12:25 PM
Well, this judge was in Qc, so Bryant isn't really in the spotlight.
.

Bryant is always in the spotlight!!

Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant said he hopes the decision will be appealed.

"Believe me, this is not over," he said. "It's not over in Quebec, it certainly is not over in the province of Ontario," said Bryant, adding he would contact the Quebec attorney general.

Bryant said the Ontario government had been confident the restrictions would be upheld.

"To say that I'm disappointed would be an understatement," Bryant said. "I am urging an appeal of this decision.

"And furthermore, we will continue to do everything we can to protect the public under these circumstances."


Interesting article:
The families of slain teenagers Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy reacted with horror to news that Homolka no longer has to report to the police and can even contact them and her ex-husband Paul Bernardo.

"The shock and disbelief and anguish that they expressed to me on the phone this morning was very painful to hear," Tim Danson, the families' lawyer, said in Toronto.

Danson said Debbie Mahaffy, Leslie's mother, told him 'I feel that I have been kicked in the stomach.' "

Justice James Brunton of Quebec Superior Court acknowledged in his ruling the possibility that Homolka, who now goes under the name Karla Leanne Teale, could reoffend one day.

"However, her development over the last 12 years demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that this is unlikely to occur. She does not represent a real and imminent danger to commit a personal injury offence. . The appeal should be granted."

Homolka left prison in July after completing a 12-year sentence for manslaughter in the sordid sex slayings of French and Mahaffy in the 1990s.

The restrictions under Criminal Code provisions were handed down in June after another judge ruled Homolka still posed a risk to the community.

The restrictions included having to report her whereabouts and travel plans to police on a regular basis. She was also to provide a DNA sample when she left prison but it was not clear if that was done.

Lawyers for Homolka were not immediately available for comment.

Niagara Region police Insp. Brian Eckhardt, who worked to help impose the restrictions, said he feels powerless to protect the community of St. Catharines, Ont., where the killings took place.

"We have no idea now whether or not she is coming to this area," Eckhardt told Global TV. "So our ability to protect the citizens of this area are diminished and certainly our ability to protect her has been eliminated."

Danson described Brunton's decision as "very serious and thoughtful" but said the judge made legal errors.

Danson said the families believe the application for the restrictions was bungled and they should have been allowed to intervene.

He also suggested the current federal election campaign is a good time to start a public debate about Sec. 810 of the Criminal Code, which grants the restrictions.

Joanne Marceau, a spokeswoman for the Quebec Justice Department, said several options are being considered, including an appeal and an attempt to seek another set of conditions.

"We will take a decision very, very promptly," she said, although she did not rule out letting Brunton's decision stand.

"We have to consider that this woman is free since more than six months," Marceau said.

"The information we have since she was released (is) that she has always respected the conditions that were imposed on her. She seems to have been a good citizen for now."

Under Brunton's ruling, Homolka can go where she pleases and see anyone she wants.

The ruling also means Homolka can contact Bernardo, who is serving a life sentence for the schoolgirl killings.

Brunton suggested the lower court decision granting the restrictions lacked balance in that there was not much favourable to Homolka presented at the hearing.

"This was a complex case which called for the analysis of the development, or lack thereof, of Ms. Teale over a period of 12 years. The proof presented was not exclusively negative from Ms. Teale's point of view."

Homolka and Bernardo took the surname Teale from a movie in the 1990s. The character with the name Teale was a serial killer.

Several media initially reported eight of the 14 conditions were struck down but Brunton confirmed he had voided them all.

Ontario Conservative justice critic Bob Runciman said he believes the conditions on Homolka were valid.

"From our perspective and the perspective of most Ontarians, we felt the conditions, the restrictions placed on her were reasonable and were justified," he said in Toronto. "I think it's going to be of great concern to victims' families for sure."

Runciman criticized the Ontario government for not paying to allow the families of Homolka's victims to attend the appeal hearing.

"If the families were there I think it would've elevated the issue with respect to the decision being taken by the judge."

Homolka is believed to be living in the Montreal area.



As a Montrealer, I say : Keep your kids close-by!

twodogsandacat
December 1st, 2005, 08:33 PM
Bryant is always in the spotlight!!

As a Montrealer, I say : Keep your kids close-by!

Don't be afraid of the devil you know be afraid of the ones you don't. As I said there were two hundred sex offenders within a three-kilometre radius of Holly Jones – that’s about two hundred too many. We need laws for all criminals not just the ones that provide value as a PR piece for some punk attorney general.

meb999
December 1st, 2005, 09:33 PM
Don't be afraid of the devil you know be afraid of the ones you don't. .

Actually -- I'm afraid of both!

As I said there were two hundred sex offenders within a three-kilometre radius of Holly Jones – that’s about two hundred too many. We need laws for all criminals not just the ones that provide value as a PR piece for some punk attorney general

So true....

twodogsandacat
December 1st, 2005, 09:36 PM
Actually -- I'm afraid of both!

I guess I could have worded that differently. Yes, be afraid of both.

babyrocky1
December 1st, 2005, 10:00 PM
I don't understand why she doesn't have to register as a sex offender??? That totally baffles me! If she was a man she would have too...no?I never thought of that Happy Cats, thats true isn't it, but could it be that the registration of sex offenders started after the horrific crime she committed and was not grandfathered? I very vaguely remember something llike that being talked about. I do believe intellectually that she has served her time blah blah blah They made a bad deal but cant go back on it, the system is what it is and if we dont have rights for the least of us we dont have them for anyone BUT I have to say I FEEL more like BMDlover does about it. I dont think she has the slightest bit of remorse and the thought of her just sends shivers down my spine, And Two Dogs point about the two hundred sex offenders living in Holly Jones' neighbourhood is horrific as well, but to us they are nameless and faceless and we dont know the horrific details of there very sick minds. Karla effects us all much more personally. I too wonder why they dont charge her with Jane Doe or Tammy, but if they don't she UNFORTUNATELY has rights:mad: The most positive thing about it is Im sure she will be monitered for the rest of her life. The cops will make a special effort for Karla thats for sure, and they may not always play by the rules where shes concerned. Wire taps maybe, theyll be people watching, the real danger really is more with the ones we dont know.

Roxy's_MA
December 2nd, 2005, 09:32 AM
We all know the crimes she actually committed. What exactly was she charged with? Was she even charged with a sex crime?

meb999
December 2nd, 2005, 01:07 PM
She was charged with Manslaughter, which is why she has only stayed in jail for 12 years. Bernado (Her husband back then) is serving a life sentence.

Good news : Québec justice minister is appealing the decision to remove Homolka's restrictions.

Gazoo
December 2nd, 2005, 01:14 PM
The most positive thing about it is Im sure she will be monitered for the rest of her life. The cops will make a special effort for Karla thats for sure, and they may not always play by the rules where shes concerned. Wire taps maybe, theyll be people watching, the real danger really is more with the ones we dont know.




Now that she's released and the conditions are lifted she's a free citizen that has the same mobility and privacy rights guaranteed under our constitution as anyone else.

The police cannot legally watch her, wiretap her or anything else for that matter.

Are you advocating that the police willingly break her constitutional rights? :eek:

Isn't that a bit "Orwellian" and fascist?

Beaglemom
December 2nd, 2005, 01:49 PM
I believe that Karla Homolka lost her rights the day she took the rights of her victims to live and the rights of their families to have them in their lives and watch them grow up to their full potential. I don't believe that Homolka has the right to live her life like everyone else when she took that right from others.

I do believe that our judicial system is extremely over due for a revamping. It needs to be more harsh on criminals. Our justice system is way too lenient on criminals/offenders.

Tigger
December 2nd, 2005, 02:43 PM
Please keep the responses to opinions, not debate on each opinion. This is a tender subject to some board members and the thread will be closed should the continual questioning of opinions remain in that vein. We thank you for understanding the delicacy of this subject.

StaceyB
December 2nd, 2005, 03:33 PM
A humans basic right is life and anyone who takes that away from another should be held responsible long past jail time. That is only one part of their sentence. It seems as if she thinks that she is entitled to have a completely free life and that is just not right. She should have remained in prison for her life, not just 12 yrs. She also deserves to have strict restrictions as to what she is allowed to do.

Gazoo
December 2nd, 2005, 04:38 PM
I do agree with everyone that the punishment may not have matched the crime in this case.

But as a firm believer in the sanctity and preservation of basic human rights as established by constitutional law ...I firmly believe she is completely entitled to having her basic human rights returned to her under the current rule of law. To have a functional and just system of constitutional law there cannot be exceptions.

If people disagree with the situation involving Homolka's sentence and release and freedom...

What are people doing about it? Has anyone written their MP, PM, the Justice Minister? Financially supported or joined a victims rights org., a justice reform group, any other social activism group?

babyrocky1
December 2nd, 2005, 04:48 PM
Now that she's released and the conditions are lifted she's a free citizen that has the same mobility and privacy rights guaranteed under our constitution as anyone else.

The police cannot legally watch her, wiretap her or anything else for that matter.

Are you advocating that the police willingly break her constitutional rights? :eek:

Isn't that a bit "Orwellian" and fascist? I think that they can legally watch her and depending on what they see they can probably wire tap her. They may not have enough evidence to charge her with anything but that doesnt mean they cant prove to a judge that she needs to be monitered. Im no legal expert but she has done some pretty suspicious things since she was released. As far as whether the police play by the rules in this case, in my humble opinion, its quite possible that they may not be a stringent as usual. I did not say that I advocated breaking anyones constitutional rights, infact, I feel, albiet very reluctantly, that we have to respect them, But calling ME or my ideas fascist is something Ive most certainly never been called before, Quite honestly I started laughing when I read your post. I have to tell my friends about this, its the irony of ironys.:)

Gazoo
December 2nd, 2005, 04:52 PM
I think that they can legally watch her and depending on what they see they can probably wire tap her. They may not have enough evidence to charge her with anything but that doesnt mean they cant prove to a judge that she needs to be monitered. Im no legal expert but she has done some pretty suspicious things since she was released. As far as whether the police play by the rules in this case, in my humble opinion, its quite possible that they may not be a stringent as usual. I did not say that I advocated breaking anyones constitutional rights, infact, I feel, albiet very reluctantly, that we have to respect them, But calling ME or my ideas fascist is something Ive most certainly never been called before, Quite honestly I started laughing when I read your post. I have to tell my friends about this, its the irony of ironys.:)


I didn't mean to be insulting; if I was, sorry. :)

The police would need some type of solid reasonable cause to treat her any differently than any other Jane Q Citizen.

babyrocky1
December 2nd, 2005, 05:04 PM
I do agree with everyone that the punishment may not have matched the crime in this case.

But as a firm believer in the sanctity and preservation of basic human rights as established by constitutional law ...I firmly believe she is completely entitled to having her basic human rights returned to her under the current rule of law. To have a functional and just system of constitutional law there cannot be exceptions.

If people disagree with the situation involving Homolka's sentence and release and freedom...

What are people doing about it? Has anyone written their MP, PM, the Justice Minister? Financially supported or joined a victims rights org., a justice reform group, any other social activism group? I actually agree with these statements totally, but the point I was trying to make is the feelings that we all have about this are in conflict with the thoughts, if that makes any sence. And No apologys are necessary, but thanks:)

babyrocky1
December 2nd, 2005, 05:11 PM
Just to clarify, she is Legally entitled to these rights and that is in total conflict with what she is morally entitled to. But we have to live with this in a democratic society, and most certainly its the worst example of "deal making" in Canadian history, in most of our memories anyways.

Gazoo
December 2nd, 2005, 05:23 PM
Just to clarify, she is Legally entitled to these rights and that is in total conflict with what she is morally entitled to. But we have to live with this in a democratic society, and most certainly its the worst example of "deal making" in Canadian history, in most of our memories anyways.

I agree with that :thumbs up

It's just that I get so frustrated with the media and the politicians and the "coffee shop crowd" bitchin and whinin and then being utterly complacent!!!!

babyrocky1
December 2nd, 2005, 05:43 PM
I know what your saying Gazoo, I get frustrated with people that complain yet dont get involved in all sorts of political situations, but I think that the people on this thread are genuinly very upset about this and its exremely personal to alot of people. Anyways, glad to have reached an agreement on our conversation LOL

coppperbelle
December 2nd, 2005, 06:38 PM
[QUOTE=Gazoo]Now that she's released and the conditions are lifted she's a free citizen that has the same mobility and privacy rights guaranteed under our constitution as anyone else.

The police cannot legally watch her, wiretap her or anything else for that matter.

Are you advocating that the police willingly break her constitutional rights? :eek:

Personally I don't give a darn about HER constitutional rights. She is a dangerous offender who WILL offend again. If the police have to follow her around or tap her phone line to protect the children in my neighborhood then so be it. In my opinion she lost all rights to privacy etc.. when she committed those horrific crimes.
I heard tonight that there will be an appeal.

BMDLuver
December 3rd, 2005, 07:19 AM
Personally I don't give a darn about HER constitutional rights. She is a dangerous offender who WILL offend again. If the police have to follow her around or tap her phone line to protect the children in my neighborhood then so be it. In my opinion she lost all rights to privacy etc.. when she committed those horrific crimes.
I heard tonight that there will be an appeal.
I pray long and hard that this decision will be overturned. If you knew more about this case than what has been in the media then you know that in no way can this leopard change her spots. I have witnessed first hand the devastation and pain she has caused many families. As for our judicial system, it's pathetic and we as Canadians need to fight for our right to be safe in our own communities. I have never despised anyone more than I do this woman.

Gazoo
December 3rd, 2005, 10:31 AM
Is anyone open to the possibility that KH was a weak person and was an abused, controlled and terrified woman who had no choice but to do what her monster husband made her do?

BMDLuver
December 3rd, 2005, 11:30 AM
Is anyone open to the possibility that KH was a weak person and was an abused, controlled and terrified woman who had no choice but to do what her monster husband made her do?
If you had met her in person then you would find that statement very hard to believe...

Bright, cold, calculating, looking out for number one... all more accurate.

Gazoo
December 3rd, 2005, 12:16 PM
If you had met her in person then you would find that statement very hard to believe...

Bright, cold, calculating, looking out for number one... all more accurate.


Really?? Interesting, From the interviews and such she didn't seem that bright to me. In fact I thought she was kinda dull even. hmmm

meb999
December 3rd, 2005, 01:40 PM
I heard tonight that there will be an appeal.

hmmmmm, déjà vu!!
Good news : Québec justice minister is appealing the decision to remove Homolka's restrictions. .

meb999
December 3rd, 2005, 01:55 PM
Is anyone open to the possibility that KH was a weak person and was an abused, controlled and terrified woman who had no choice but to do what her monster husband made her do?

I'd be open to that fact, if the evidence didn't show otherwise. she was a sadist. From all accounts, she encouraged Bernado. But it was believed that she was in fact scared and controlled wife -- which is why she got off with only 12 years....
If you ask me, she's controlling and she knew exactly what she was doing. She's cold and has no remorse (sign of a sociopathic personnality) Although I don't think it would be constitutionaly right to send her back to jail, I do think she should be restricted in her activities after the horors she perpetrated. Obviously, I'm not in the wrong, because cases that are SURE to lose don't go to appeal.

Sometimes I wish I were religious because I could find comfort in the fact that she may be walking free today, she could one day truely pay for her crimes.

twodogsandacat
December 8th, 2005, 04:26 PM
So Quebec has refused to appeal the removing of restrictions citing that the judge in the case made no errors. In other words they don’t want to pay for a fight that will end up in the Supreme Court with the same results.

Bryant has said he will have her charged if she enters Ontario. With what? There are no restrictions on her so she can’t be breaking the law.

The punk wasted time on pit bulls and waited far too long to start any proceedings against her. It was mentioned in a newspaper article long ago before they even went to court that Bryant had missed the opportunity with her.

She violated the agreement by not mentioning the Jane Doe attack. Charge her with that or shut up.

Bryant was called a blow hard in the legislature over his ‘he’ll have her arrested’ claims. Sorry Mr. Bryant you can’t make laws up.

twodogsandacat
December 8th, 2005, 04:31 PM
Is anyone open to the possibility that KH was a weak person and was an abused, controlled and terrified woman who had no choice but to do what her monster husband made her do?

Paul never killed before he met her. I don’t know the answer to your question but together we know that they became a deadly pair of killers.

It was mentioned on LegalBriefs the other night and I can verify that there are many in the Niagara Region who believe the police (one officer in particular) did such a bad job that the deal was needed in order to get any justice.

Given the choice of no deal or no convictions the deal may have been the best thing available at the time. It’s too bad she didn’t keep it. For that she should be made to pay.

happycats
December 8th, 2005, 04:33 PM
Is anyone open to the possibility that KH was a weak person and was an abused, controlled and terrified woman who had no choice but to do what her monster husband made her do?

NO WAY!!!!

She was living at home with her parents when she raped (Yes she raped her too) and killed her own sister!!

Prin
December 8th, 2005, 06:02 PM
It's really sad that Qc won't appeal. I wonder how much Kreepy Karla paid for her freedom, i.e. I wonder what the price of our judges is.

Loki
December 8th, 2005, 07:33 PM
The thing is, Quebec knows they can't win with the case that Bryant built.
Ontario did a terrible job providing enough evidence to justify the restrictions.

The judge can only make a judgement based on the evidence that was presented, and not what people intuitively feel about Homolka.
Ontario completely dropped the ball when Bryant built his case.

I saw a lawyer on tv yesterday suggest that if Bryant keeps up the grandstanding, she may have a case for a lawsuit against Ontario.