My God. My kids are almost this age, well girl 9 1/2 and boy 8: close enough. I get angry when they fight over a TV channel, or who gets the front seat
I think I won’t get as angry anymore…
Okay. The girl figured it out on her own, or someone coached her on how to spin this. Or is there no chance that anyone is helping her spin this in her own favour? Because if I was someone with an interest in getting her acquitted (say a relative or someone giving her advice over the internet), this is exactly what I would have her saying.
I think the Crown made some headway in her cross-exam of the accused, according to this article: Accused teen said she was “too spaced out” to stop slaughter:
And then this little exchange:
The defence closed their case without calling any other witness; sounds like it goes to the jury on Monday.
What a mess. What a horrible, awful mess. I don’t think this girl is fit to be called a human being. (Steinke is no prize, either.)
I truly hate the way articles like that have to be written due to the Young Offender’s bullshit - it wasn’t “the boy” that she held and stabbed - it was HER BROTHER. Those were HER PARENTS she wanted killed and watched getting killed, not just some people in a house. She watched and participated in HER PARENTS AND HER BROTHER being killed, then she went to her boyfriend’s house and went out partying with him.
I’ve stopped reading Christie Blatchford’s regular column on the trial in the Globe and Mail by this point, I can’t get through it in the mornings.
What happened to the charges with Kacy Lancaster, the 19-year-old? The article that pool linked to dates back a year ago…
No doubt. I firmly believe that some people are just born bad and she is one of them. Lock her up and throw away the key. The cries of “She’s a victim!” are absurd. A “victim” does not stab their 7 year old brother, and then go partying with the man who finished the job. Disgusting.
I believe that she pled out, but I’ll see if I can find a link. Local news agencies are really focusing on the trial of the 13 year old right now.
Let’s not forget this part. At least in the US, defendants who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are commonly placed in a state mental facility. They are hardly pleasant places.
When Steinke gets put away, that will leave his trailer home vacant so that Homolka can move in and adopt the poor misled mind-controlled orphan.
Seriously, I just don’t buy these lame defences of murderesses claiming that they were under some mysterious mind control of their spouses.
The kid repeatedly talked about ways to kill her family prior to the event, she found someone sick enough to do it for her, she participated in the murders including stabbing her brother, and she stuck by her man throughout the aftermath. Mind control my ass.
Off-topic but reminded by Muffin’s post - did you know that Carla Homolka has given birth to a son? I fear for the boy’s life; someone who would rape and kill her own sister has no business having children.
Hey, Homolka only rapes and kills when she has a male accomplice. It’s not like she has had a relationship with a convicted murderer other than Bernardo.
Oh, wait a minute, let’s step back from that last one.
Anyway, she has put her past behind her and changed her name. It’s not like she deliberately took the name of a fictional serial killer.
Whoops, better step back from that one as well.
Verdict is just in - Guilty on all three counts of first degree murder, according to the evening news. Doesn’t look like it’s up on any web-pages yet.
I am completely not surprised. I also plan to use [name removed - Skip] name as often as possible - if you can plan and execute murdering your entire family, then you can live with the consequences of your actions.
Shades of Steven Truscott!
No, this seems to be as far from Steven Truscott as one can get. Regardless of how one feels about the YCJA, I have a question for the Canadian legal Dopers:
The CBC report that Muffin linked to said the following:
It’s the “innocent” that I don’t understand. I was always under the impression that in our system of justice, it was either “guilty” or “not guilty.” Can a judge give a jury “innocent” as an option? Is this something reserved to the YCJA? Or is the judge saying this, knowing that it might leave the Crown a chance to appeal?
That, or the reporter’s an idiot.
I would go with Option B.
Sorry, maybe I don’t understand. What’s “Option B”?
the reporter’s an idiot.
In re post #73, see Youth Criminal Justice Act:
Not intended as legal advice, but to comment on a matter of public discussion.