JB wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I believe Galligan interviewed a tremendous amount of people involved in the case, not just a few hours with Karla,
> as a matter of fact, I don't think he ever met Karla, as his report was strictly a legal finding on the events of
> the case, not one of determining guilt or innonence.
>
> Having said that, I also believe the Parole Board never interviewed Karla either, as she may have refused to do so
> and accepted (or forced) a "no parole" decision.
>
> One can also have the opinion that the Parole Board decision also was in the light in "saving political asses"
> considering their reasoning of sexual offender when she never was found guilty or even tried for those crimes.
>
> Obvious, Karla was involved is sexual crimes, however shouldn't she have been convicted of those crimes in order
> for the Parole Board to use this excuse for her rejection? If so, I believe that while Karla would've been found
> guilty of sexual abuse, the defense would've had a field day in establishing that Karla was not root of the crimes
> and the Sexual Sadist / sexual "slave" (for lack of a better term) would have reduced her sentence. Maybe even to
> the point that she would've been placed into a detention center to take some help.
>
> JB
>
> Bob wrote:
>
> > JB:
> > I am glad to hear you say that Paul is NOT horribly misunderstood, but I would like to hear you say the same
> > about Karla. You keep referring to the Galligan Report everytime you say anything "positive" about Karla..and
> > that is fine except that when the parole board rejected her request for release last year, they referred to her
> > as a dangerous sexual offender. They even went as far as to say that she was NOT a victim of Paul Bernardo.
> > They also said that she disregarded anyone's safety for her own sexual gratification. And that assessment came
> > from psychiatrists and coucellors who have known her for years....Not a retired Judge who spoke to her for a
> > couple of hours before he made that assessment...And to save the asses of his political buddies.
> >
> > JB wrote:
> >
> > > I would love to hear why you think Paul is misunderstood, either post it here or please email me.
> > >
> > > JB
> > >
> > > connie rahim wrote:
> > >
> > > > x-no-archive: yes
> > > >
> > > > sexyde...@aol.com (sexydebi4818) wrote in message news:<20020805095304...@mb-cs.aol.com>...
> > > > > Um, yes I do know Paul & I have known him for a few years. As far as his sister
> > > > > Debbie not visiting Paul
> > > >
> > > > Paul is horribly misunderstood.
> > > >
> > > > Btw, i don't understand why this group gets so much more traffic than
> > > > alt.fan.paul-bernardo. you can't even post to that group from google,
> > > > and it has almost no traffic.
No doubt there are many pyschiatrists which say she is dangerous and no doubt that there are many that don't.
JB
I was not attacking you, I would love to hear why you think he was / is misunderstood. I believe when
someone posts an opinion, there should also be a thought behind it so that we may be able to understand
your point of view, debate it and / or comment to it.
After all this is the forum for discussion / debate.
JB
connie rahim wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> JB <jbn...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<3D55D401...@optonline.net>...
> > I would love to hear why you think Paul is misunderstood, either post it here or please email me.
> >
> >
>
> every time that i bring up my opinion in person or on the web, i am
> attacked, so i'll stop now.
As I stated previously, if you make a statement, IMO you should at least give
reasoning and the basis of your point of view.
JB
I've noticed this same phenomenon in this ng with the Karla fans.
Confused women love Bernardo, their male counterparts love Karla. It's
very disturbing.
>Bob,
>
>I believe Galligan interviewed a tremendous amount of people involved in the case, not just a few hours with Karla,
>as a matter of fact, I don't think he ever met Karla, as his report was strictly a legal finding on the events of
>the case, not one of determining guilt or innonence.
>
>Having said that, I also believe the Parole Board never interviewed Karla either, as she may have refused to do so
>and accepted (or forced) a "no parole" decision.
>
>One can also have the opinion that the Parole Board decision also was in the light in "saving political asses"
>considering their reasoning of sexual offender when she never was found guilty or even tried for those crimes.
>
I'm curious about this "saving political asses" theory, sounds like
something Murray harp on about. Please explain.
BTW. from my understanding, Karla was sentenced on manslaughter
charges, not sexual ones. She was sentenced BEFORE the tapes surfaced
and were viewed in a different light to what she said happened. She
was not as innocent as she made out in her confession.
Ha,
You should have been on this group about a year ago for some really
disturbing characters. One guy in particular springs to mind, jeez, it
was scary. The other is some distant relative and I guess blood, being
thicker than water, really blurrs the vision.
I guess Eva Braun thought Hitler was pretty cool, but was
"misunderstood" the most of the world. No doubt, she'd sing his
praises today, if she could talk.
If she is more to blame, how do you explain him being the Scarbourgho Rapisit.
And many times he was alone.Now I do agree Karla got off WAY to easy, Paul in
my opinion is more to blame than Karla. And honestly, I don't see Paul ever
getting out of prison. I think he may be using you. Nothing personal. This is
just what I think.
You are doing the right thing to stay in touch with Paul.
I hope he is getting over his mistreatment by the authorities.
If you feel uncomfortable posting, feel free to email me directly.
JB
sexydebi4818 wrote:
> Nope, Paul is not using me, we were friends way before any of this took place.
> He is guilty of some of the rapes, but not as many as he is being blamed for.
> No, Karla is not guilty of those rapes, but the other shit, there is so much
> more to this story, soon everyone will know about it. I can understand why
> people feel the way they do about Paul, but they just don't know him.
JB
connie rahim wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> sexyde...@aol.com (sexydebi4818) wrote in message news:<20020805095304...@mb-cs.aol.com>...
> > Um, yes I do know Paul & I have known him for a few years. As far as his sister
> > Debbie not visiting Paul
>
> Paul is horribly misunderstood.
>
> Btw, i don't understand why this group gets so much more traffic than
> alt.fan.paul-bernardo. you can't even post to that group from google,
> and it has almost no traffic.
I believe Galligan interviewed a tremendous amount of people involved in the case, not just a few hours with Karla,
as a matter of fact, I don't think he ever met Karla, as his report was strictly a legal finding on the events of
the case, not one of determining guilt or innonence.
Having said that, I also believe the Parole Board never interviewed Karla either, as she may have refused to do so
and accepted (or forced) a "no parole" decision.
One can also have the opinion that the Parole Board decision also was in the light in "saving political asses"
considering their reasoning of sexual offender when she never was found guilty or even tried for those crimes.
Obvious, Karla was involved is sexual crimes, however shouldn't she have been convicted of those crimes in order
for the Parole Board to use this excuse for her rejection? If so, I believe that while Karla would've been found
guilty of sexual abuse, the defense would've had a field day in establishing that Karla was not root of the crimes
and the Sexual Sadist / sexual "slave" (for lack of a better term) would have reduced her sentence. Maybe even to
the point that she would've been placed into a detention center to take some help.
JB