Istarted a threadabout a different angle of this sickening case: from the eyes of Karla’s parents & remaining sister. How in god’s name could they stand by her & forgive her after she raped and murdered their own daughter/sister. This case occurred during the OJ trial so got very little coverage in the US, but I’ve seen some documentaries and the sinister brutality of the crimes & cold calculating indifference to the suffering of her victims, are enough that I wouldn’t want her in my neighborhood.
I feel sorry for her children because one day they will do an internet search on their mother and discover a horrific truth. Very selfish of her to have children and they will have a lot of stress to deal with due to her actions.
^ Given the above, why the hell does she have custody of children?
Granted she can’t be re-tried for murder, can’t child services take into account information that has come to light after the woman’s conviction?
^ This.
Having worked in a slice of social services myself some years back I support the notion of in general keeping families together there should be limits on that. In some cases the kids are NOT better off with the parents. Yes, even with a dysfunctional foster child system sometimes the kids are better off without their sperm and egg donors (some people do not deserve to be parents even in name).
She is granted all these freedoms because she served her 12 years. But the plea bargain should have been overturned because she violated the terms of it. At the time it was negotiated, Crown prosecutors knew nothing of her sisters death & one of the terms of the deal was that ‘she did not stop the breath of another person’ (paraphrasing), but it turned out she DID stop the breath of her sister. She is shown on the video holding a halothane soaked rag over her sister’s mouth & nose which ultimately caused her death.
The fact that this monster is out & mothering children is a colossal travesty of justice.
As mentioned in post 55, this issue was reviewed by a retired Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal, at the request of the ATtorney General. He concluded that on the facts o this case, it did not meet the very strict terms for the Crown to renege on a plea agreement. In any event, once she had pled guilty to manslaughter and been sentenced, the Criminal Code forbade any further charges, based on the principle of double jeopardy.
Yeah I realize that but I have also heard legal arguments to the contrary since she clearly lied to the Crown about her involvement, which according to the terms, was grounds to repudiate the deal. Too late now obviously & I suppose it’s like the OJ verdict. No one liked it, but we are stuck with it.
IMO Karla Homolka only got the deal she got because she is female. Another example of gender bias in the criminal justice system.
All that said, I hope the press hounds her for the rest of her life. She does not deserve to live in peace & I fully understand her neighbors’ concerns with having her in their town.
I don’t think that’s the case. There were two different factors at play.
First, the police were increasingly focused on Paul Bernardo as the Scarborough rapist, having interviewed him a couple of times. He was clearly a “person of interest” as a possible sadistic rapist. It wouldn’t be a stretch to assume he had moved on to murder as part of his pattern of rape. Karla, however, had no priors of any sort, and it looks like Paul may have been her first real romantic interest. When you’re investigating a possible serial rapist-murderer case, which would you think of as the more likely assailant: the guy who is already a person of interest in sadistic rapes, or a woman with no prior record or even signs of criminal activity.
Second, this is a classic prisoner’s dilemma / cops’ dilemma. There are two people who have some sort of involvement in the crime. The cops have evidence, but need one of them to turn Queen’s Evidence to secure a conviction. In a rape-murder case, do you try to turn the man, to try to get a conviction against the woman? or do you try to turn the woman, to try to get a conviction against the man? Based on the fact of two rape-murders, who is more likely to have borne the bulk of the criminal activity? Or do you not try to turn either of them, and have both go free?
Police and Crowns have had to make those kinds of “deals with the devil” for centuries.
Homolka has been volunteering at her kids’ school, which is a private school in Nôtre-Dame-de-Grace in Montreal.
when this came to light, it was pointed out to the school that Quebec law requires that no-one can volunteer at a school without first submitting a criminal record check. The school’s response was apparently that Homolka wasn’t “volunteering” - she was just a mom who was “helping” other volunteers.
When some parents complained about it, the school told them they would have to find a new school in the fall.
The parents went to the media, and now the school has caved and announced that no-one with a criminal record can do any sort of volunteering or “helping” in the school.
Just speculating on my part, but it’s almost as if they’ve been getting some comments, critical of their policy of (a) letting a convicted serial-sadist-rapist-killer of teenage girls “help” at their school; and (b) telling parents who were upset about said policy that they’d have to take their kids elsewhere in the fall. :rolleyes:
There surely must be some sort of middle ground between “letting a killer volunteer” and “zero tolerance for drawing a picture of a weapon.”
But I’m not a school administrator, so perhaps I’m foolish to rely on common sense. I’m sure that those highly-paid professionals must know what they’re doing.
I hadn’t heard about this case, but this is pretty screwed up. I’m a forgiving guy, and I’m anti-death penalty, but I don’t understand how this person could be let back out into civilized society, much less allowed to be around children. I sure as shit would not send my kids to that school.
Thing is, you can’t just take kids away from their parents because of things the parents did before the child was born. Until and unless a person does something that harms their child directly, you really don’t have grounds.
You see, even though KC did horrible things, she hasn’t, to my knowledge, hurt her kids. They’re fed, clothed, physically unharmed and AFAIK, reasonably happy. She seems to be trying to do “normal” parent things, like helping at their school. There aren’t any red flags.
We have to remember that people have rights and until they do something to lose those rights, in direct relationship to the right in question, then those rights can’t be rescinded.
If we start taking away children because of a parents past, what’s the limit? A DUI conviction?
If it hasn’t been shown that her children are in danger, she keeps them. Period.
That said, while I would not object to her children and mine being friends at school, I would not let them go to her house. That’s as much because they might get caught in a “rabid mob” incident as it is from fear of what she may do. Depending on the child itself, I may or me not allow them into my home. Somebody’s got to be the kid’s study partner.
On a side note, I have met the “Balcony Rapist” several times in a social setting and had no problem with him. I had a nice chat with his sister. Turns out he’s a decent drummer.
What did they think was the point of the criminal background check? Were they just being nosy? Were they looking for blackmail material? Was it all just busy work, in their minds?
Now I think it’s matter of of some urgency to do criminal background checks on all the rest of the staff and volunteers, as well. I wonder what sort of criminal backgrounds the school administrators have.
And of course, from children’s point of view, Homolka’s “helping” at the school makes her a trusted adult in the eyes of all those children. If they ran into her while walking the dog or running to the store, they’d have no hesitation about approaching her or following her if she asked them to. That’s nice Mrs. Karla who helped out at the school Christmas show, as far as the kids know.
Every single one of those parents should pull their kids out of a school that has demonstrated it doesn’t care about their safety.
Generally speaking, you have to be committing criminal offences which endanger the children, or demonstrate that you are not capable of taking care of them.
Homolka has not committed any criminal offences for over 25 years and appears to be living a normal life, providing food, shelter and schooling to her children.
Child protection authorities in Montreal have said they are aware of the situation and have been monitoring her, but can’t say more than that because of privacy laws.
She certainly has a horrific history of committing criminal offenses that endanger children. They should have ripped her uterus out before releasing her (preferably with a dull, rusty knife). I suppose if Bernardo was released, he’d be just as free to have a family & volunteer at his kids’ school since he hasn’t committed any offenses in 25 years…