Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
Henry E. Buurman
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR ADULTS ONLY
This is an excerpt from the book by Stephen Williams, "Invisible
Darkness," reprinted here without permission. This excerpt describes the
second video filmed by Karla Homolka and Ken Bernardo, a few weeks after
their rape and murder of Karla's little sister, Tammy Lyn Homolka. The
first one they made was of Paul and Karla taking turns raping an
unconscious and menstruating Tammy, just moments before she died.
* * * *
The movie opens with an extreme close-up of Karla's vagina. The shot is
held so long it looks like a still picture. It was as if Paul were
studying it, trying to figure out just what it was.
The camera pans to reveal Karla, stark naked, with her legs spread wide
apart, playing with herself. The setting is the same as the video they
had made with Tammy Lyn, except in this one there is no Christmas tree.
Behind Karla a fire dances in the fireplace.
"Now watch Karla play with herself," says Karla. She holds up her hand.
"Watch. There's the hand, watch what it does."
Paul Bernardo walks into the frame fully dressed with two drinks. He
sits down amd Karla helps him unbutton his shirt.
"A bit more to drink and then I'll, ahh....sit back and relax," he said,
appreciating her. With her long blonde hair and impeccable skin, Karla
is a naked Barbie doll, whose arms and legs bend and move in specific,
deliberate ways.
"Let me suck those titties," says Karla, and she does. He takes a sip of
his drink and says, "It's tough to be the king."
She strips him liesurely, as lovers do. When she get's his pants off,
Karla puts her nose to his penis and announces, "I love you, Snuffles."
There is not even a hint of a giggle in her voice.
"I loved it when you fucked my little sister," Karla says casually. "I
loved it when you fucked Tammy. I loved it when you took her virginity.
Between statements Karla sucks him, and it seems to work, particularly
when she calls him the "king."
"It is my mission in life to make you feel good," Karla declares.
Paul looks into the camera and says: "That's why I'm going to marry
her."
"I'm glad you made me lick her cunt," Karla says, stripping off her
flimsy teddy top, and continuing her labor.
"Are you a full-fledged dyke?" he asks, referring to her "lesbian act."
"That was different," responds Karla. "She was my little sister."
"Love in the family," Paul says smugly. "Do you believe in that
concept?"
"You know I had fun doing it," she says, still busy with his [penis].
"You know I liked it."
"What did it teach you?"
"Well, we like little girls. We like to fuck them. If you're gonna fuck
them, I'm gonna lick them."
When Paul asks her how old the girls should be, she suggests "thirteen."
Her reasoning is that at that age they should still be virgins.
"You should break their hymen with Snuffles," she offers. "They're our
children and I think you should make them even more ours."
"I think you're right. You're absolutely right." Paul is breathing a bit
heavily. "Good idea. When did you come up with this idea?"
"Just now," Karla purrs, agreeing with him that these other virgins were
the closest thing they could get to Tammy.
"I think the king should roll over, 'cause the little slave has more
things to do and say," she says, controlling the pacing.
Paul obediently shifts position and Karla brings out a single red rose.
It as though she has a prop box just off camera and is ready for
anything. She strokes his chest and thighs with it's petals, telling him
that they will place this particular rose on Tammy's grave the next day
because it has touched him "in intimate places."
In the dim light she gets up and goes behind the sofa and gets a paper
bag. From the bag she pulls out a pair of peach-colored panties.
"I have something special for you," she announces. "Tammy's underwear to
rub all over your body."
"I never want you to forget the time you took her virginity. The time
when you popped her hymen."
"Best orgasm ever..." he breathlessly proclaims.
"What did it last? Sixty seconds?" she asks as she concentrates on
rubbing his penis with her dead sister's panties.
"Oh yeah, soooo intense....."
"I didn't give you my virginity...." Karla explains. "So I gave you
Tammy's. I love you enough to do that."
"And what else?" Paul asks. Loving it when she talks that talk.
"Well we did something a few days ago," she says teasingly. "We raped a
little girl. Down here in my room. You went out and you found her, got
her, and brought her back to the house. Brought her downstairs, I was
shocked. You fucked her."
Karla keeps up her handiwork, but looks him straight in the eyes and
hugs him. "I let you do that. Because I love you. Because you're the
king."
He can barely speak. He grunts.
"I want you to do it again," she says, capturing his curiosity, bringing
him back from the edge of orgasm.
"When" he asks, sitting back on his haunches while karla considers her
answer and caresses his erect penis.
"This summer, because the wintertime is too hard," she says, finding
this new concept difficult to explain with his penis in her mouth.
"If you want to do it fifty times more. We can do it fifty times," she
says, rubbing him with both hands. "We can do it every weekend. We can
do it whenever we can."
"So why do you want....why do you want to let me do it?" Paul asks.
"Because I love you. Because you're the king. 'Cause you deserve it,"
she says matter-of-factly, agreeing that she will join him when they get
"virgin cunts," and she will be there to help him go "from one cunt to
another," and "from one ass to another." She says she will go in the car
with him if that's what he wants.
"Or I'll stay here and clean up afterward, like I did sunday," she
offers. "I'll do everything I can, because I want you to be happy,
'cause you're the king, and 'cause I love you."
* * * *
The english author. W,H. Auden once wrote:
"Evil is unspectacular and always human and shares our bed and eats at
our table."
Comments?
Henry
Melissa
In article <3491A6...@pacifier.com>, "Henry E. Buurman"
<he...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR ADULTS ONLY
>
>This is an excerpt from the book by Stephen Williams, "Invisible
>Darkness," reprinted here without permission. This excerpt describes the
>second video filmed by Karla Homolka and Ken Bernardo, a few weeks after
>their rape and murder of Karla's little sister, Tammy Lyn Homolka. The
>first one they made was of Paul and Karla taking turns raping an
>unconscious and menstruating Tammy, just moments before she died.
<snip>
>The english author. W,H. Auden once wrote:
>
>"Evil is unspectacular and always human and shares our bed and eats at
>our table."
>
>Comments?
OK, how about this.
Why on earth did you post this excerpt?
Melissa
*
New address: melissa...@english.usyd.edu.au
K. Rasch
My thoughts exactly Melissa. This criminal couple has been discussed
plenty in this ng, as well as others devoted to Karla specfically. All
of us who care to have read all the books related to these losers and
don't need the more horrific portions (reprinted WITHOUT permission)
here on the ng.
Of course, this is just my .02 ....
Krasch
Melissa wrote:
>
> In article <3491A6...@pacifier.com>, "Henry E. Buurman"
> <he...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
> >THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR ADULTS ONLY
> >
> >This is an excerpt from the book by Stephen Williams, "Invisible
> >Darkness," reprinted here without permission. This excerpt describes the
> >second video filmed by Karla Homolka and Ken Bernardo, a few weeks after
> >their rape and murder of Karla's little sister, Tammy Lyn Homolka. The
> >first one they made was of Paul and Karla taking turns raping an
> >unconscious and menstruating Tammy, just moments before she died.
>
> <snip>
>
> >The english author. W,H. Auden once wrote:
> >
> >"Evil is unspectacular and always human and shares our bed and eats at
> >our table."
> >
> >Comments?
>
The *MIGHTY* (yet modest) Two Tub Man
>The english author. W,H. Auden once wrote:
>
>"Evil is unspectacular and always human and shares our bed and eats at
>our table."
>
>Comments?
If that's not spectacular, I don't know what is.
ROCK ACTION!
THANK YOU.
Tub
`cat/dev/zero/tmp/...`@localhost
`umount/tmp`@localhost
`halt`@localhost
u...@ftc.gov,postmaster@localhost,
abuse@localhost,postm...@fbi.gov,ro...@mailloop.com
And for you automated email spammers out there,
here's the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
And let's help you send some spam to the USPS, too:
cust...@email.usps.gov
Henry E. Buurman
K. Rasch wrote:
>
> My thoughts exactly Melissa. This criminal couple has been discussed
> plenty in this ng, as well as others devoted to Karla specfically. All
> of us who care to have read all the books related to these losers and
> don't need the more horrific portions (reprinted WITHOUT permission)
> here on the ng.
>
> Of course, this is just my .02 ....
Being new to this ng, I have no idea what's been discussed and what
hasn't. The excerpt was posted as a stunning insight into the lives of
two serial killers. I assume those who are interested in true crime
might find this material of use.
I have no idea what you've read and what you haven't, I'm sorry.
Henry
Henry E. Buurman
K. Rasch wrote:
>
> Henry...
>
> I gather from your response, the perhaps I sounded a little harsh, and
> that was not my intention... please accept my apology.
Thank you, but no apology is necessary. You have a right to your
opinions and I'm a big boy. (:
> However, given the name of this newsgroup, I would expect that Karla has
> been discussed as well as Pam Smart, Rosemary West (is that her name, it
> is so early in the am), Richard Ramirez (back in the news cuz of the A&E
> special), the Zodiac killer and on and on....
Although these people have been discussed, is there no room or patience
for what may be a fresh viewpoint on them? Is the discussion closed? I
don't think so. I have some thoughts about female serial killers that I
want to air in this group for discussion, and some of the cases I'm sure
have already been discussed. I will be talking about Karla Homolka,
Charlene Gallego, Sharon Green, and others. The issues are these:
1. Is there such a thing as a female serial killer? (FBI says no, I
disagree.)
2. If there is, are they getting away with murder?
3. What are the common traits or "profile" of the female serial killer?
4. Why is Law Enforcement incapable of dealing with the concept of
female serial murder?
5. Should a female in a B&D relationship be accountable for rape,
torture and murder when she is a particpant?
Etc.
I'm warning you ahead of time so if you don't want to discuss old cases,
you can just space off my posts. (:
Henry
K. Rasch
Henry...
I gather from your response, the perhaps I sounded a little harsh, and
that was not my intention... please accept my apology.
However, given the name of this newsgroup, I would expect that Karla has
been discussed as well as Pam Smart, Rosemary West (is that her name, it
is so early in the am), Richard Ramirez (back in the news cuz of the A&E
special), the Zodiac killer and on and on....
While I encourage you to share whatever, God knows... I am not the
"leader" of the group (heck, I usually just comment as opposed to
contribute :-( )...I would suggest a quick look at Deja News to
understand the dynamics of the group and what has been discussed so that
you can add to it, as well as try to understand our fellow poster
Joe10rbit, which newcomers to the newsgroup ALWAYS have questions
about...
Welcome to the newsgroup... and again, sorry about the "tone" of the
previous post....
Krasch
Mignarda
Just my two cents' worth--if everything on this newsgroup has to be bowdlerized
for family consumption then in my opinion its virtually worthless as a forum
for discussing the issues of crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Mign...@aol.com
"Conformity is the Omnibus of Death"
http://members.aol.com/Mignarda/index.html
(Unabomber/Zodiac)
The *MIGHTY* (yet modest) Two Tub Man
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 20:03:07 -0800, "Henry E. Buurman"
<he...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>K. Rasch wrote:
>> However, given the name of this newsgroup, I would expect that Karla has
>> been discussed as well as Pam Smart, Rosemary West (is that her name, it
>> is so early in the am), Richard Ramirez (back in the news cuz of the A&E
>> special), the Zodiac killer and on and on....
>
>Although these people have been discussed, is there no room or patience
>for what may be a fresh viewpoint on them? Is the discussion closed? I
>don't think so. I have some thoughts about female serial killers that I
>want to air in this group for discussion, and some of the cases I'm sure
>have already been discussed. I will be talking about Karla Homolka,
>Charlene Gallego, Sharon Green, and others. The issues are these:
Ignore K. Rasch. He/she/it is just not representative of this group.
I don't understand why anyone would complain about a Karla post when
there are hundreds of crap JonBenet posts every day (it's month 13).
Maybe a subject's only on-topic if it's being discussed in this week's
People magazine.
Karla is DEFINITELY on-topic. Post away.
I'm really interested in that book now. I'd always thought that
Karla's motivation was Paul rather than anger... even a psycopath
needs motivation. I still think so and you always have to read
through authors' biases, but the intimate moment revealed in your post
is the sort of thing that anyone *really* interested in the whys and
hows of crime should eat up.
renaming the choad from "The Rod of God" to "Snuffles,"
The *MIGHTY* (yet modest) Two Tub Man
To K. Rasch: how 'bout learning about kill filters, Einstein.
lukn...@mindspring.com
Two Tub Man wrote:
> Ignore K. Rasch. He/she/it is just not representative of this group.
> I don't understand why anyone would complain about a Karla post when
> there are hundreds of crap JonBenet posts every day (it's month 13).
Of course K. Rasch is not this group's moderator. But he is quite
obviously a subscriber and a poster to this newsgroup. And those who
are express their opinions here.
I express my opinions here as well. And it is my opinion that the type
of material Mr. Buurman enjoys posting is far better suited to
newsgroups which specialize in pornographic material.
It is my hope that Mr. Buurman will find a more appropriate audience.
I also agree that some of the JonBenet posts have been more graphic than
necessary.
Luknhard
Melissa
Mignarda wrote:
>Just my two cents' worth--if everything on this newsgroup has to be bowdlerized
>for family consumption then in my opinion its virtually worthless as a forum
>for discussing the issues of crime.
No one is suggesting that post be "bowdlerised," Mignarda. However, when
a poster specifically *asks* for a response to a post which enumerates
graphic sexual detail, including repulsive allusions to sexual violence,
it does not seem inappropriate to ask why they have done that, which is
exactly what I did. I do not know who this poster is, but I question
their sense of the appropriate use of this material. Like you, Mignarda,
I have posted here for years, and I have read stuff about sexual violence
that is disturbing without qualms: I am not some uptight prissy censor who
is challenging the rights of others. All of us make decision about what
we deem appropriate to air here -- why should this poster not be subject
to the same scrutiny?
Irritated,
Melissa
Henry wrote:
>Although these people have been discussed, is there no room or patience
>for what may be a fresh viewpoint on them? Is the discussion closed? I
>don't think so. I have some thoughts about female serial killers that I
>want to air in this group for discussion, and some of the cases I'm sure
>have already been discussed. I will be talking about Karla Homolka,
>Charlene Gallego, Sharon Green, and others. The issues are these:
<snip>
Henry, there is plenty of room, and patience, for a fresh viewpoint. If
you had started your thread with these questions, as opposed to the
extract, you may have found more of both. No one minds reopening old
threads, but many of us are wary of the importation of salacious and
violent material into the ng in a gratuitous manner, and will comment
accordingly. That's discussion. By starting the thread with the material
you chose, it seems to me you may have unwittingly compromised the
discussion, not anyone else. But these are interesting questions, and
maybe we can move on.
Martha Sprowles
K. Rasch wrote:
>
> Henry...
>
> I gather from your response, the perhaps I sounded a little harsh, and
> that was not my intention... please accept my apology.
>
> been discussed as well as Pam Smart, Rosemary West (is that her name, it
> is so early in the am), Richard Ramirez (back in the news cuz of the A&E
> special), the Zodiac killer and on and on....
>
> "leader" of the group (heck, I usually just comment as opposed to
> contribute :-( )...I would suggest a quick look at Deja News to
> understand the dynamics of the group and what has been discussed so that
> you can add to it, as well as try to understand our fellow poster
> Joe10rbit, which newcomers to the newsgroup ALWAYS have questions
> about...
>
> Welcome to the newsgroup... and again, sorry about the "tone" of the
> previous post....
>
I have to admit that I'm glad that excerpt was posted. I'm only dimly
aware of this case, and I was glad to read something that gave me such a
good concentration of the "flavor" of these crimes. I think the
excerpt, although distressing to many, apparently, was an important
statement about the motivation and "pay-off" for these crimes.
Martha Sprowles
Henry E. Buurman
Martha Sprowles wrote:
>
> I have to admit that I'm glad that excerpt was posted. I'm only dimly
> aware of this case, and I was glad to read something that gave me such a
> good concentration of the "flavor" of these crimes. I think the
> excerpt, although distressing to many, apparently, was an important
> statement about the motivation and "pay-off" for these crimes.
Hi Martha,
One reason I posted the excerpt is because, after the fact, Karla
adopted the "battered woman" defense, and said she participated in the
rapes and murders because of her deathly fear of her husband, Paul
Bernardo. This video tape clearly gives the lie to that defense. Karla
was a predator, and in fact instigated three of the murders for her own
pleasure. Her husband got the maximum sentence in Canada, which is life,
while Karla received a "sweetheart" deal to roll over on him. She plead
guilty to two counts of manslaughter, and wasn't even charged with the
rapes, and received two twelve year sentences to run concurrently,
meaning she is eligible for parole in 4 1/2 years. She was even allowed
to choose the institution she would serve her time in.
After it was all over, it was revealed in the press that while the plea
bargaining was going on, she allowed herself to be picked up in a bar
and began a sexual relationship with a patron. Later, she was sending
him nude pictures of herself via mail.
It is my position that Karla Homolka was a sexual predator and serial
killer, as was Paul Bernardo, but that law enforcement and the justice
system, blinded by their prejudices, could not and would not accept that
a woman was capable of these obscenities, even in the face of video
tapes showing her doing it. It was, in fact, the *police* who suggested
the "battered woman" defense to her.
The excerpt I posted was the first transcript I have seen of the actual
tapes, and I posted it here as evidence that Karla Homolka literally got
away with rape, torture and murder and I thought everyone would find it
interesting and relevant. I did not post it because it was steamy.
Anyway, thank you for saying you appreciated the post, publically.
We're all adults here, right? (:
Henry
Henry E. Buurman
Melissa wrote:
>
> Henry, there is plenty of room, and patience, for a fresh viewpoint. If
> you had started your thread with these questions, as opposed to the
> extract, you may have found more of both. No one minds reopening old
> threads, but many of us are wary of the importation of salacious and
> violent material into the ng in a gratuitous manner, and will comment
> accordingly. That's discussion. By starting the thread with the material
> you chose, it seems to me you may have unwittingly compromised the
> discussion, not anyone else. But these are interesting questions, and
> maybe we can move on.
This is a point well taken, Melissa. I think I made some assumptions
about this group that I shouldn't have before my original post. Mea
culpa.
Incidently, do you (or anyone else) know if Karla was paroled last
summer? Under the terms of her plea bargain, she was due, and I wonder
if she walks among us again.
On the other hand, Paul Bernardo is in a cage very much like the one
inhabited by Hannibel Lector in "The Silence of the Lambs" only smaller.
It's an isolation cell with bullet-proof plexiglas over the bars, with
some holes drilled in it. His cell contains video cameras that watch his
every move 24 hours a day. It is how he will spend the rest of his life,
as he should, but Karla should have one just like it.
Henry
Captive964
Hey!
What's the big deal about something graphic being posted? Sheesh! We all read
these books with hundreds of half disguised photos of murder victims, listen to
the tortured tales of survivors of these monsters and read thousands of gory
descriptions. I wasn't offended at all by the post.
I have read two books about this case, each one only alluding to the video
tapes, so it was interesting and informative to have the description posted.
Captive
Martha Sprowles
Well, I'm not so sure about *that,* but I am interested in your idea
that there are female serial killers. I personally have never thought
so because my feeling is that the sexual element is so important--male
serial killers *always,* it seems to me, have something real important
and real sexual involved in their murders, while women who kill don't.
I think the fact that Aileen Wuornos, for example, killed while working
as a prostitute does not introduce a sexual element, except that sex is
what got her and her victims together in the first place.
I wonder if there are any women who have killed with sexual motives, but
alone. I agree with you, at least based on the transcript you posted,
that Karla seems to be at least equal to Bernard in guilt. But while
men commit these types of murders almost routinely, are there any known
examples of women who kill for sexual pleasure? By themselves?
Martha
Melissa
Captive:
Henry asked for a comment -- I gave him one. I do not think the excerpt
gave any sense of the questions he now apparently wants to pose. I do not
accept that there are not good questions to be asked about the choices we
make re the material we post. I think that the motives for these
questions are self-evident, and not simply accountable for by hypocritical
prurience. I do not understand why you respond in this way, Captive.
Howard
In article <349497...@pacifier.com>, "Henry E. Buurman"
<he...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
> Incidently, do you (or anyone else) know if Karla was paroled last
> summer? Under the terms of her plea bargain, she was due, and I wonder
> if she walks among us again.
>
She did not apply for parole last summer, as I understand it.
The latest thing up here on Bernardo, by the way, is that his discussions
with his original lawyer about the tapes can be used at the trial of the
lawyer. A court made the ruling in past days.
The lawyer was instructed by Bernardo to enter the house (after the police
search) and retrieve the unfound tapes. The lawyer kept the tapes for 17
months before enventually giving them to police and over the period that
the Karla Homolka deal was struck.
The lawyer has been charged with obstructing justice.
Charges of possession of child pornography (the tapes) have been dropped.
That was a silly bit of over-charging by Crown and police to begin with.
hm
zod
<snip>
> Incidently, do you (or anyone else) know if Karla was paroled last
> summer? Under the terms of her plea bargain, she was due, and I wonder
> if she walks among us again.
>
> Henry
>
just thought I'd delurk long enough to say nope....we still got her. She
and Bernardo are in prison here in Kingston, Ontario
She may be getting moved soon if the woman's prison closes (This idea has
been in the works for awhile....dunno what will happen with that)
zod
btw e-mail addy is duchene(at)qucis(dot)queensu(dot)ca
K. Rasch
Henry:
Howard is the resident "expert" on Karla... tho I suspect that he is a
bit smitten with her :)
krasch
Howard wrote:
>
> In article <349497...@pacifier.com>, "Henry E. Buurman"
> <he...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Incidently, do you (or anyone else) know if Karla was paroled last
> > summer? Under the terms of her plea bargain, she was due, and I wonder
> > if she walks among us again.
> >
PattyC4303
Henry,
Welcome. FWIW, I found your original post horrifyingly graphic, but read every
word with interest. I (being the *liberal* type...), had been considering
Karla's poor position in the whole situation... the abused one and all. While
she likely was (IMO) abused by Paul, the info about her comments was something
to consider. It led me to go look up more on the 'Net.
Wondering where WPT is these days. (FYI Henry, if you don't know, WPT was
posting comments in support of Karla a while back...) I would like to see his
response to your posting, know whether he read that book.
I would like to read more about this case.
PattyC
In article <34935A...@pacifier.com>, "Henry E. Buurman"
<he...@pacifier.com> writes:
>K. Rasch wrote:
>
> Henry...
>
> I gather from your response, the perhaps I
>sounded a little harsh, and
> that was not my intention... please accept my
>apology.
Thank you, but no apology is necessary. You have a right to
>your
opinions and I'm a big boy. (:
> However, given the name of this
>newsgroup, I would expect that Karla has
> been discussed as well as Pam
>Smart, Rosemary West (is that her name, it
> is so early in the am), Richard
>Ramirez (back in the news cuz of the A&E
> special), the Zodiac killer and on
>and on....
Although these people have been discussed, is there no room or
>patience
for what may be a fresh viewpoint on them? Is the discussion closed?
>I
don't think so. I have some thoughts about female serial killers that
>I
want to air in this group for discussion, and some of the cases I'm
>sure
have already been discussed. I will be talking about Karla
>Homolka,
Charlene Gallego, Sharon Green, and others. The issues are
>these:
1. Is there such a thing as a female serial killer? (FBI says no,
Daphne Redford
If I remember correctly, Karla didn't request parole last summer. There
was some discussion on
it in this newsgroup. Howard MsacGregor are you still there? Howard is in
Canada
and he kept us up ono the latest happenings. Maybe he can bring you (us)
up-to-date.
I also remember hearing that Paul Bernardo put on a lot of weight and
doesn't want
anyone seeing him now.
Welcome to the group, Henry!
Daphne
Henry E. Buurman <he...@pacifier.com> wrote in article
<349497...@pacifier.com>...
> Incidently, do you (or anyone else) know if Karla was paroled last
> summer? Under the terms of her plea bargain, she was due, and I wonder
> if she walks among us again.
>
LdyDArcane
>Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
>From: melissa...@english.usyd.edu.au (Melissa )
>Date: Sun, Dec 14, 1997 17:56 EST
>Message-id: <melissa.hardie-...@araport2.arts.su.edu.au>
***How about because of their right to free speech? You argue SL's right to
that, why not Henry's? I'd rather read and discuss his topic than SL/DR any
day. Btw, I thought in your eyes, if people deem something not appropriate to
be posted here, that was censorship? And he is, after all, talking about a true
crime. ehat coulbe be *more* appropriate?
Mary Ann
LdyDArcane
>Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
>Date: Sun, Dec 14, 1997 18:36 EST
>Message-id: <34946D...@erols.com>
>
>K. Rasch wrote:
>>
>> Henry...
>>
>> I gather from your response, the perhaps I sounded a little harsh, and
>> that was not my intention... please accept my apology.
>>
>> been discussed as well as Pam Smart, Rosemary West (is that her name, it
>> is so early in the am), Richard Ramirez (back in the news cuz of the A&E
>> special), the Zodiac killer and on and on....
>>
>> "leader" of the group (heck, I usually just comment as opposed to
>> contribute :-( )...I would suggest a quick look at Deja News to
>> understand the dynamics of the group and what has been discussed so that
>> you can add to it, as well as try to understand our fellow poster
>> Joe10rbit, which newcomers to the newsgroup ALWAYS have questions
>> about...
>>
>> Welcome to the newsgroup... and again, sorry about the "tone" of the
>> previous post....
>>
>
>aware of this case, and I was glad to read something that gave me such a
>good concentration of the "flavor" of these crimes. I think the
>excerpt, although distressing to many, apparently, was an important
>statement about the motivation and "pay-off" for these crimes.
>
***Unfortunately, that excerpt was only the tip of the iceberg; the rest of it
is even worse; and like Henry, I agree that Homolka should be in the same setup
that Bernardo is in. While it was graphic and may have distressed some people,
it's unfortunately also fact - and people need to be aware that monsters like
this exist and can look and act just as 'normal' as anyone else. Being informed
makes you more aware; it's also helped to save some people.
Mary Ann
LdyDArcane
>Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com>
>Message-id: <34952B...@erols.com>
>
>Henry E. Buurman wrote:
>>
>> Martha Sprowles wrote:
>> >
>> > aware of this case, and I was glad to read something that gave me such a
>> > good concentration of the "flavor" of these crimes. I think the
>> > excerpt, although distressing to many, apparently, was an important
>> > statement about the motivation and "pay-off" for these crimes.
>>
***Serial killers don't just kill for sexual reasons; many kill for the feeling
of power it gives them; some don't even get into a sexual aspect because of the
victim, but because of the thrill of killing another and having that power of
life and death over them. There have been numerous women who have killed in a
serial fashion, mostly for monetary gain, some for power, and some with a
sexual motive though not usually involving the person they killed. There are
several very good books out about women killers who are now looked at as more
of a serial type killer, rather than as just a killer of many.
Mary Ann
LdyDArcane
>Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
>Date: Sun, Dec 14, 1997 09:17 EST
>Message-id: <3493EA...@pacifier.com>
Hi Henry,
When you get to know us more, you may change your mind about that 'adults'
comment <g> Just kidding :>
I do think Homolka got a sweetheart deal, and that she was just as guilty as
Bernardo. Maybe the cops/prosecutors decided that they'd rather ensure that
Bernardo was put away for good, and reluctantly gave Homolka the deal. I have
read that if those tapes had been made available before they made the deal,
there wouldn't have been a deal. I think the lawyer who suppressed them should
not only be disbarred, but should spend a good long time in jail.
At the time these horrible murders took place, I don't think those in law
enforcement could accept that a woman would voluntarily do those things; and
battered women cases were extremely prevalent in the news - at least here in
the US. But as we've all seen over the last several years, woman are capable of
the same or similar atrocities that men are. I also see them as comparable to
Hindley/Brady.
Mary Ann
LdyDArcane
>Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
>Date: Mon, Dec 15, 1997 09:11 EST
>Message-id: <melissa.hardie-...@araport2.arts.su.edu.au>
***I do, because I agree with Captive; we *do* all read these books and
killing, serial or otherwise, *is* graphic. I also think Henrys' questions
totally pertain to that excerpt. Would you feel differently if he had asked the
questions at the same time he posted the excerpt? I think you're making too big
a deal out of his posting of the excerpt - IMO of course :>
Mary Ann
Melissa
>>Mignarda wrote:
>>
>>>Just my two cents' worth--if everything on this newsgroup has to be
>>bowdlerized
>>>for family consumption then in my opinion its virtually worthless as a forum
>>>for discussing the issues of crime.
>>
>>No one is suggesting that post be "bowdlerised," Mignarda. However, when
>>a poster specifically *asks* for a response to a post which enumerates
>>graphic sexual detail, including repulsive allusions to sexual violence,
>>it does not seem inappropriate to ask why they have done that, which is
>>exactly what I did. I do not know who this poster is, but I question
>>their sense of the appropriate use of this material. Like you, Mignarda,
>>I have posted here for years, and I have read stuff about sexual violence
>>that is disturbing without qualms: I am not some uptight prissy censor who
>>is challenging the rights of others. All of us make decision about what
>>we deem appropriate to air here -- why should this poster not be subject
>>to the same scrutiny?
>>
>>Irritated,
>>
>>Melissa
>
>***How about because of their right to free speech? You argue SL's right to
>that, why not Henry's? I'd rather read and discuss his topic than SL/DR any
>day. Btw, I thought in your eyes, if people deem something not appropriate to
>be posted here, that was censorship? And he is, after all, talking about a true
>crime. ehat coulbe be *more* appropriate?
>Mary Ann
You are failing to take my point, Mary Ann, which is not that he should be
stopped from posting, but that we both have a right to comment on what he
has posted. I am surprised, though increasingly less so, that you cannot
seem to take this point. Raising a question is different from stopping:
crucially and critically so. Your apparent failure to see the difference
really misses the point.
Melissa
Henry:
>>We're all adults here, right? (:
>>
>>Henry
Mary Ann:
>Hi Henry,
>When you get to know us more, you may change your mind about that 'adults'
>comment <g> Just kidding :>
Meaning?
Captive964
Melissa wrote:
>
>Henry:
>
>>>We're all adults here, right? (:
>>>
>>>Henry
>
>Mary Ann:
>
>>Hi Henry,
>>When you get to know us more, you may change your mind about that 'adults'
>>comment <g> Just kidding :>
>
>Meaning?
>Melissa
A little paranoid, Melissa?
Captive
Martha Sprowles
Oh come on. No one's allowed to pick on Melissa but me. And I say
she's a grown-up. I'm not so sure everyone else is, though.
Martha
Dave & Tammy Parkhill
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:26:54 -0500, no...@nowhere.com (zod) wrote:
><snip>
>> Incidently, do you (or anyone else) know if Karla was paroled last
>> summer? Under the terms of her plea bargain, she was due, and I wonder
>> if she walks among us again.
>>
><snip>
>> Henry
>>
>
>just thought I'd delurk long enough to say nope....we still got her. She
>and Bernardo are in prison here in Kingston, Ontario
>She may be getting moved soon if the woman's prison closes (This idea has
>been in the works for awhile....dunno what will happen with that)
>
>zod
>
>btw e-mail addy is duchene(at)qucis(dot)queensu(dot)ca
Bernardo remains at Kingston Penitentiary, but Karla was moved
several months ago from Kingston's Prison For Women to a cushy,
country-club-like prison in Montreal. I don't remember the actual
name of this "prison" but it's known locally as "Club Fed".
Tammy
********************************************
"Instant gratification takes too long."
-Carrie Fisher
Tammy Parkhill
park...@fox.nstn.ca
http://Fox.nstn.ca:80/~parkhill/
The *MIGHTY* (yet modest) Two Tub Man
>Incidently, do you (or anyone else) know if Karla was paroled last
>summer? Under the terms of her plea bargain, she was due, and I wonder
>if she walks among us again.
No, the Most Perfect Woman In The World declined to apply for 1/3
parole and will wait for 2/3 mandatory parole. This is unfortunate as
if she is to have a successful career in the adult video industry she
should start while the bloom is still on the rose.
>On the other hand, Paul Bernardo is in a cage very much like the one
>inhabited by Hannibel Lector in "The Silence of the Lambs" only smaller.
>It's an isolation cell with bullet-proof plexiglas over the bars, with
>some holes drilled in it. His cell contains video cameras that watch his
>every move 24 hours a day. It is how he will spend the rest of his life,
>as he should, but Karla should have one just like it.
I really don't see how this desire of yours to see Bernardo tortured
and humiliated is fundamentally all that different from his habit of
stuffing sticks and twigs into the vaginas of teenage girls.
yours in Christ,
The *MIGHTY* (yet modest) Two Tub Man
Captive964
Martha wrote
Then again, Martha, I never *claimed* to be an adult. :)
Captive
Colin Dooley
> >On the other hand, Paul Bernardo is in a cage very much like the one
> >inhabited by Hannibel Lector in "The Silence of the Lambs" only
> >smaller. It's an isolation cell with bullet-proof plexiglas over
> >the bars, with some holes drilled in it. His cell contains video
>
Sort of a "Bernadocam" ..... cool! What's the web address?
--
<\___/> | ... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman
/ O O \ | Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to
\_____/ FTB. | indicate successful termination of their C programs.
Melissa
>>Captive:
>>
>>>Hey!
>>>
>>>What's the big deal about something graphic being posted? Sheesh! We all
>>read
>>>these books with hundreds of half disguised photos of murder victims, listen
>>to
>>>the tortured tales of survivors of these monsters and read thousands of gory
>>>descriptions. I wasn't offended at all by the post.
>>>
>>>I have read two books about this case, each one only alluding to the video
>>>tapes, so it was interesting and informative to have the description posted.
>>
Me:
>>Henry asked for a comment -- I gave him one. I do not think the excerpt
>>gave any sense of the questions he now apparently wants to pose. I do not
>>accept that there are not good questions to be asked about the choices we
>>make re the material we post. I think that the motives for these
>>questions are self-evident, and not simply accountable for by hypocritical
>>prurience. I do not understand why you respond in this way, Captive.
>>Melissa
>
Mary Ann:
>***I do, because I agree with Captive; we *do* all read these books and
>killing, serial or otherwise, *is* graphic. I also think Henrys' questions
>totally pertain to that excerpt. Would you feel differently if he had asked the
>questions at the same time he posted the excerpt? I think you're making too big
>a deal out of his posting of the excerpt - IMO of course :>
Uh, I think you have forgotten what happened, Mary Ann. It wasn't me who
made the fuss, I just asked a question. That question elicited a series
protestations and questions (such as Captive's) from a number of you which
I have attempted to answer appropriately, although they seemed less than
pertinent to mine. Now this. I agree that Henry's questions are
interesting: I have no quarrel with Henry, you may notice. I never
quarrelled with his questions. You have missed my point, again. My point
is about CONTEXT.
Melissa
>Captive964 wrote:
>>
>> Melissa wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henry:
>> >
>> >>>We're all adults here, right? (:
>> >>>
>> >>>Henry
>> >
>> >Mary Ann:
>> >
>> >>Hi Henry,
>> >>When you get to know us more, you may change your mind about that 'adults'
>> >>comment <g> Just kidding :>
>> >
>> >Meaning?
>> >Melissa
>>
>> A little paranoid, Melissa?
>>
>> Captive
Martha:
>Oh come on. No one's allowed to pick on Melissa but me. And I say
>she's a grown-up. I'm not so sure everyone else is, though.
I wish!
Henry E. Buurman
PattyC4303 wrote:
>
> Henry,
>
> Welcome.
Thank you, Patty, and thanks to the rest of you who have welcomed me to
a.t-c.
> FWIW, I found your original post horrifyingly graphic, but read every
> word with interest. I (being the *liberal* type...), had been considering
> Karla's poor position in the whole situation... the abused one and all. While
> she likely was (IMO) abused by Paul, the info about her comments was something
> to consider. It led me to go look up more on the 'Net.
I urge you to read the book I quoted, "Invisible Darkness" by Stephen
Williams. I got it in the supermarket, in paperback. The second time
Karla and Paul were together (the first time was in a hotel room the
night they first met) was at her parents house. Karla lead Paul to her
bedroom, got on her knees, and handed Paul HER pair of handcuffs, and
pulled her skirt up around her waist. My point is, Karla sought an S&M
relationship, in which she would be the submissive. Karla loved rough
sex, both as the submissive, and as the aggressor with women.
The law enforcement people on this case blew it from top to bottom. They
decided the only way they would be able to close it was to make a deal
with Karla, because they hadn't seen the video tapes. They did, however,
have one two minute tape dubbed "The Karla Sex Tape" which they had
found in the house. The tape shows Karla having sex with three different
girls. The first was a prostitute whom Paul and Karla had hired to have
sex with Karla. The second girl is referred to as "Jane Doe" because she
is still living. The segment with the third girl is the most pertinant.
You only see part of a comatose young woman. Karla straddles her, takes
the girl's hand, and uses the fingers in her vagina. Much later, after
the deal was struck, it was determined the the third girl was Leslie
Mahaffey, and that she had probably been dead when Karla used her
fingers.
Karla Homolka was and is an evil sexual predator, just as Paul was and
is. How the prosecution could go on with their "deal with the devil,"
even after seeing all of the tapes, is simply astonishing.
Thanks for your post, Patty.
Henry
Henry E. Buurman
Daphne Redford wrote:
>
> I also remember hearing that Paul Bernardo put on a lot of weight and
> doesn't want anyone seeing him now.
I don't think he needs to worry about anyone seeing him. (:
> Welcome to the group, Henry!
Thank you, Daphne.
Henry
Henry E. Buurman
LdyDArcane wrote:
> >
> Hi Henry,
Hello again, Mary Ann...
> I do think Homolka got a sweetheart deal, and that she was just as guilty as
> Bernardo. Maybe the cops/prosecutors decided that they'd rather ensure that
> Bernardo was put away for good, and reluctantly gave Homolka the deal. I have
> read that if those tapes had been made available before they made the deal,
> there wouldn't have been a deal.
Well, they actually did see the tapes in time to cancel the deal. One
provision of it was that she had to be truthful with them, right down
the line. Of course that tapes clearly and graphically showed she lied
to them.
> At the time these horrible murders took place, I don't think those in law
> enforcement could accept that a woman would voluntarily do those things; and
> battered women cases were extremely prevalent in the news - at least here in
> the US. But as we've all seen over the last several years, woman are capable of
> the same or similar atrocities that men are. I also see them as comparable to
> Hindley/Brady.
I've looked at several serial killer couples, and it's the same in
almost every case, the woman gets a sweetheart deal.
Law enforcement is the most macho of professions, deeply embued with
patriarchal traditions and the attending prejudices. To admit that "the
little woman" can be as savage and base as men can would threaten their
world-view. In other words, they have blinders on. Even the F.B.I. comes
with these built-in blinders. It is F.B.I. dogma that "there are no
female serial killers." Clearly, that is bullshit. BTW, the FBI offered
a profile of the killers in what became the Bernardo/Homolka case that
wasn't even close.
At least part of the FBI's rationale is that the female half of serial
killer couples usually leaves the actual killing to the male. (During
Leslie Mahaffey's killing, Karla told the police that she was
blow-drying her hair.) I think that should be seen as a crucial part of
the female serial killer's profile. If a person aquiesces to a murder,
if they're in a position to stop it and don't, then that person is as
guilty as the one who drops the hammer.
Charlene Gallego kidnapped, tortured and raped ten young women, then
stood by and watched Gerald kill them. That doesn't make her less guilty
of the murders, in my opinion, nor does it mean that she is not a serial
killer.
Henry
Halle 8
Patty wrote:
>Henry,
>
>Welcome. FWIW, I found your original post horrifyingly graphic, but read
>every
>word with interest. I (being the *liberal* type...), had been considering
>Karla's poor position in the whole situation... the abused one and all. <snip>
First, a question: I'm not sure what you mean by the "liberal" type -- do you
mean liberal in terms of your tolerance for what is posted here?
Second, there is nothing in that excerpt that sheds any light on Karla in terms
of her "willingness" (for lack of a better word) to be involved in those crimes
or her level of culpability. The video was obviously a theatrical production
and, out of context, we don't have a clue as to the circumstances under which
it was produced. To that extent, the except was nothing more than gratuitous
pornography posted here under the self-justifying guise of being "useful"
material to true crime fans.
Halle
Halle 8
>K. Rasch wrote:
>>
>> Henry...
>>
>> I gather from your response, the perhaps I sounded a little harsh, and
>> that was not my intention... please accept my apology.
>>
>> However, given the name of this newsgroup, I would expect that Karla has
>> been discussed as well as Pam Smart, Rosemary West (is that her name, it
>> is so early in the am), Richard Ramirez (back in the news cuz of the A&E
>> special), the Zodiac killer and on and on....
>>
>> While I encourage you to share whatever, God knows... I am not the
>> "leader" of the group (heck, I usually just comment as opposed to
>> contribute :-( )...I would suggest a quick look at Deja News to
>> understand the dynamics of the group and what has been discussed so that
>> you can add to it, as well as try to understand our fellow poster
>> Joe10rbit, which newcomers to the newsgroup ALWAYS have questions
>> about...
>>
>> Welcome to the newsgroup... and again, sorry about the "tone" of the
>> previous post....
>>
>
>aware of this case, and I was glad to read something that gave me such a
>good concentration of the "flavor" of these crimes. I think the
>excerpt, although distressing to many, apparently, was an important
>statement about the motivation and "pay-off" for these crimes.
>
These were sex crimes, so there is little question as to motivation and payoff.
The excerpt was posted, it has been explained, because it sheds a different
light on Karla's level of willingness as an accomplice. I don't see how it does
that.
Halle
Halle 8
Martha:
<snip> I agree with you, at least based on the transcript you posted,
>that Karla seems to be at least equal to Bernard in guilt. <snip>
The excerpt sheds no light on degree of coercion, extent of "free will," or
other physical or psychological circumstances under which Karla Homolka's
"performance" was rendered. I can't come close to forming an opinion about her
level of guilt based on that excerpt alone. Was she drugged? Was there threat
of violence if she did not comply? Was she following a script written by
Bernardo? Was she, Hedda Nussbaum-like, so enmeshed in this man that she had no
independent will? That excerpt, taken alone, offers no insight into Karla's
level of guilt relative to Paul's.
Halle
Halle 8
>Hey!
>
>What's the big deal about something graphic being posted? Sheesh! We all read
>these books with hundreds of half disguised photos of murder victims, listen
>to
>the tortured tales of survivors of these monsters and read thousands of gory
>descriptions. I wasn't offended at all by the post.
>
>I have read two books about this case, each one only alluding to the video
>tapes, so it was interesting and informative to have the description posted.
>
It has nothing to do with whether the material was "offensive." It's a question
of how useful it is to the purpose for which it was claimed, which goes more to
intellectual honesty than anything else.
What I find offensive is gratuitous posting of information under the
supercilious pretext of being something that it's not. What irritates me more
is when everyone else buys into to such nonsense. I'd much rather someone say,
"Here's an excerpt from the video that, outside of any context, only goes to
show the sexual interplay between Paul and Karla -- make of it what you will."
Halle
Halle 8
>Captive:
>
>>Hey!
>>
>>What's the big deal about something graphic being posted? Sheesh! We all
>read
>>these books with hundreds of half disguised photos of murder victims, listen
>to
>>the tortured tales of survivors of these monsters and read thousands of gory
>>descriptions. I wasn't offended at all by the post.
>>
>>I have read two books about this case, each one only alluding to the video
>>tapes, so it was interesting and informative to have the description posted.
>
>
>gave any sense of the questions he now apparently wants to pose. I do not
>accept that there are not good questions to be asked about the choices we
>make re the material we post. I think that the motives for these
>questions are self-evident, and not simply accountable for by hypocritical
>prurience. I do not understand why you respond in this way, Captive.
I agree. It has nothing to do with the pornographic nature of the material
(which was thoughtfully labeled "Adults Only" -- anyone who read it did so of
their own choosing). It has to do with the various feeble attempts to justify
its utility in understanding the motives and culpability of the perpetrators.
People seem to be missing the point here.
Halle
Halle 8
>>Henry asked for a comment -- I gave him one. I do not think the excerpt
>>gave any sense of the questions he now apparently wants to pose. I do not
>>accept that there are not good questions to be asked about the choices we
>>make re the material we post. I think that the motives for these
>>questions are self-evident, and not simply accountable for by hypocritical
>>prurience. I do not understand why you respond in this way, Captive.
>>Melissa
>
>killing, serial or otherwise, *is* graphic. I also think Henrys' questions
>totally pertain to that excerpt. Would you feel differently if he had asked
>the
>questions at the same time he posted the excerpt? I think you're making too
>big
>a deal out of his posting of the excerpt - IMO of course :>
>
>
Melissa is not saying that the material should not have been posted because it
is "graphic." She's saying that the rational offered for *why* it was posted is
flimsy and transparent.
Halle
Martha Sprowles
By "pay-off" I meant Karla's own gratification from the sex acts
themselves, as distinct from her desire to please her man. My belief
about women involved in sex crimes has always been that they are
submitting their own desires to those of the male, that these are things
they would not do on their own for their own gratification. This
excerpt made me think of these things a little--hell, a
lot--differently.
Martha
Halle 8
Note: In case anyone is confused and insists on missing my point like they have
done repeatedly with Melissa, I would like to point out that my statement above
is not a statement about whether or not "graphic" materials should be posted
here. It is a statement about being honest about why materials are posted here
and why people find them to be of interest. That's all.
Halle
Martha Sprowles
You and I are going to have to disagree about this, I guess, although
not having seen the videotape myself I suppose I shouldn't try to judge
its import. Of course she may have been drugged or coerced; it didn't
sound that way to me, but without more information we can't know one way
or the other. I am ignorant of the details of these crimes and was
frankly not interested until I read what Henry posted. And he did mark
it "adults only" to warn of its possibly offensive content. I am
willing to be shown my error in interpretation of the meaning of the
excerpt, but I am still glad he posted it.
Martha
LdyDArcane
>Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
>Date: Wed, Dec 17, 1997 09:11 EST
>Message-id: <19971217141...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>
>Patty wrote:
>
>>Henry,
>>
>>Welcome. FWIW, I found your original post horrifyingly graphic, but read
>>every
>>word with interest. I (being the *liberal* type...), had been considering
>>Karla's poor position in the whole situation... the abused one and all.
><snip>
>
>First, a question: I'm not sure what you mean by the "liberal" type -- do you
>mean liberal in terms of your tolerance for what is posted here?
>
>Second, there is nothing in that excerpt that sheds any light on Karla in
>terms
>of her "willingness" (for lack of a better word) to be involved in those
>crimes
>or her level of culpability. The video was obviously a theatrical production
>and, out of context, we don't have a clue as to the circumstances under which
>it was produced. To that extent, the except was nothing more than gratuitous
>pornography posted here under the self-justifying guise of being "useful"
>material to true crime fans.
>
>Halle
***Out of context of what? The video shows much if what was done to thet poor
innocent victim, and also shows Karla's willingness to participate, as does
much of the other evidence. Considering Henry posted it, and his later
questions, to start an interesting discussion, I see no problem with the except
he posted. Anyone who has read about the case has already read that particular
one anyway; anyone who hasn't and is interested in true crime and why these
killers do what they do should read the info available.
Also, I don't consider myself a "fan" of true crime; I find it interesting from
a psychological viewpoint and from a human one. The word "fan" puts a much
different slant on someone's interest in the subject.
Mary Ann
LdyDArcane
>Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
>Date: Tue, Dec 16, 1997 07:39 EST
>Message-id: <melissa.hardie-...@araport3.arts.su.edu.au>
>
>Henry:
>
>>>We're all adults here, right? (:
>>>
>>>Henry
>
>Mary Ann:
>
>>Hi Henry,
>>When you get to know us more, you may change your mind about that 'adults'
>>comment <g> Just kidding :>
>
>Meaning?
>Melissa
***Meaning some people on newsgroups can act pretty childish. It was a joke,
Melissa. Don't take everything so literally.
Mary Ann
LdyDArcane
>Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
>Date: Tue, Dec 16, 1997 09:09 EST
>Message-id: <34968B...@erols.com>
>
>Captive964 wrote:
>>
>> Melissa wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henry:
>> >
>> >>>We're all adults here, right? (:
>> >>>
>> >>>Henry
>> >
>> >Mary Ann:
>> >
>> >>Hi Henry,
>> >>When you get to know us more, you may change your mind about that
>'adults'
>> >>comment <g> Just kidding :>
>> >
>> >Meaning?
>> >Melissa
>>
>>
>> Captive
>
>she's a grown-up. I'm not so sure everyone else is, though.
>
***Exactly my point :> even though I was only joking around.
Mary Ann
LdyDArcane
>Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
>Date: Wed, Dec 17, 1997 09:27 EST
>Message-id: <19971217142...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>Martha:
><snip> I agree with you, at least based on the transcript you posted,
>>that Karla seems to be at least equal to Bernard in guilt. <snip>
>
>The excerpt sheds no light on degree of coercion, extent of "free will," or
>other physical or psychological circumstances under which Karla Homolka's
>"performance" was rendered. I can't come close to forming an opinion about
>her
>level of guilt based on that excerpt alone. Was she drugged? Was there threat
>of violence if she did not comply? Was she following a script written by
>Bernardo? Was she, Hedda Nussbaum-like, so enmeshed in this man that she had
>no
>independent will? That excerpt, taken alone, offers no insight into Karla's
>level of guilt relative to Paul's.
>
***Maybe one excerpt doesn't, but look at all the evidence; she was just as
culpable as Bernardo.
Mary Ann
LdyDArcane
>Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
>Date: Tue, Dec 16, 1997 16:29 EST
>Message-id: <melissa.hardie-...@araport3.arts.su.edu.au>
>
>
>>>Captive:
>>>
>>>>Hey!
>>>>
>>>>What's the big deal about something graphic being posted? Sheesh! We all
>>>read
>>>>these books with hundreds of half disguised photos of murder victims,
>listen
>>>to
>>>>the tortured tales of survivors of these monsters and read thousands of
>gory
>>>>descriptions. I wasn't offended at all by the post.
>>>>
>>>>I have read two books about this case, each one only alluding to the video
>>>>tapes, so it was interesting and informative to have the description
>posted.
>>>
>>>Henry asked for a comment -- I gave him one. I do not think the excerpt
>>>gave any sense of the questions he now apparently wants to pose. I do not
>>>accept that there are not good questions to be asked about the choices we
>>>make re the material we post. I think that the motives for these
>>>questions are self-evident, and not simply accountable for by hypocritical
>>>prurience. I do not understand why you respond in this way, Captive.
>>>Melissa
>>
>>***I do, because I agree with Captive; we *do* all read these books and
>>killing, serial or otherwise, *is* graphic. I also think Henrys' questions
>>totally pertain to that excerpt. Would you feel differently if he had asked
>the
>>questions at the same time he posted the excerpt? I think you're making too
>big
>>a deal out of his posting of the excerpt - IMO of course :>
>
>made the fuss, I just asked a question. That question elicited a series
>protestations and questions (such as Captive's) from a number of you which
>I have attempted to answer appropriately, although they seemed less than
>pertinent to mine. Now this. I agree that Henry's questions are
>interesting: I have no quarrel with Henry, you may notice. I never
>quarrelled with his questions. You have missed my point, again. My point
>is about CONTEXT.
>Melissa
***And maybe you have missed the scope of this NG - it's true crime, which is
what Henry posted about. You're not trying to censor what can be posted here
are you? What Henry posted here is not worse that the drivel SL posts from
Jesperson, and it's a heck of a lot more interesting than J's rants.
Mary Ann
Halle 8
>Halle 8 wrote:
>>
>> Martha:
>> <snip> I agree with you, at least based on the transcript you posted,
>> >that Karla seems to be at least equal to Bernard in guilt. <snip>
>>
>> The excerpt sheds no light on degree of coercion, extent of "free will," or
>> other physical or psychological circumstances under which Karla Homolka's
>> "performance" was rendered. I can't come close to forming an opinion about
>her
>> level of guilt based on that excerpt alone. Was she drugged? Was there
>threat
>> of violence if she did not comply? Was she following a script written by
>> Bernardo? Was she, Hedda Nussbaum-like, so enmeshed in this man that she
>had no
>> independent will? That excerpt, taken alone, offers no insight into Karla's
>> level of guilt relative to Paul's.
Martha:
>You and I are going to have to disagree about this, I guess, although
>not having seen the videotape myself I suppose I shouldn't try to judge
>its import.
That's the whole point.
>Of course she may have been drugged or coerced; it didn't
>sound that way to me, but without more information we can't know one way
>or the other.
Exactly. That's why conclusions about her level of guilt are impossible to form
from the excerpt alone.
>I am ignorant of the details of these crimes and was
>frankly not interested until I read what Henry posted. And he did mark
>it "adults only" to warn of its possibly offensive content.
I've not read any post in which anyone has expressed the opinion that the
material, because it was offensive, should not have been posted. Here is what I
see:
1. One group of people says there is value in the information in terms of
judging Karla's guilt.
2. Another group says it is of no value in judging Karla's guilt because it is
out-of-context and describes nothing of the circumstances in which it was
produced.
3. Another group erroneously believes that those who take the position descibed
by #2 above are, in fact, taking issue with the posting of "offensive
material." To me, this is a red herring because no one, to my knowledge, has
taken the position that offensive materials should not be posted.
I am
>willing to be shown my error in interpretation of the meaning of the
>excerpt, but I am still glad he posted it.
>
>Martha
I am not un-glad that he posted it, but it would be nice if people tried not to
attribute significance to it that can't be supported.
Halle
Halle 8
I don't get any sense at all from that excerpt that Karla was not, in fact,
submitting her own desires to those of Paul. In other words, I can't tell
whether she was simply following some script (real or inculcated) or acting
independently; I can't tell whether she honestly believed those things she said
about the other crimes or whether she was placating Paul; I can't tell what
degree of independent "will" she was exercising. That's my problem with this.
Halle
Melissa
>>Henry:
>>
>>>>We're all adults here, right? (:
>>>>
>>>>Henry
>>
>>Mary Ann:
>>
>>>Hi Henry,
>>>When you get to know us more, you may change your mind about that 'adults'
>>>comment <g> Just kidding :>
>>
>>Meaning?
>>Melissa
>
>***Meaning some people on newsgroups can act pretty childish. It was a joke,
>Melissa. Don't take everything so literally.
>Mary Ann
With respect, Mary Ann, this is *you* taking the comment literally! I was
taking it, uh, figuratively!
Amused,
lukn...@mindspring.com
> ***And maybe you have missed the scope of this NG - it's true crime, which is
> what Henry posted about. You're not trying to censor what can be posted here
> are you? What Henry posted here is not worse that the drivel SL posts from
> Jesperson, and it's a heck of a lot more interesting than J's rants.
> Mary Ann
Mary Ann:
Shame on you.
Are you suggesting that those of us who objected to Henry's first post
are attempting to censor someone?
What pot is calling what kettle what color?
Luknhard
Melissa
Mary Ann:
>***And maybe you have missed the scope of this NG - it's true crime, which is
>what Henry posted about. You're not trying to censor what can be posted here
>are you? What Henry posted here is not worse that the drivel SL posts from
>Jesperson, and it's a heck of a lot more interesting than J's rants.
Mary Ann, I honestly have more respect for your intelligence than this
comment credits you with. My response to Henry in no way constitues an
attempt to censor, and I am baffled why you think it does. He solicited a
comment -- I gave him one. I asked him why he chose to do something,
which is hardly the same as trying to stop him doing it. I can think an
action is flawed without being accused of censoring it, can't I? Are you
censoring me here? Of course not, the suggestion is as absurd as your own.
What I did is the *same* as you commenting on Sondra's material, which I
have also done, and will continue to do. I am not the one trying to stop
anyone publishing anything, and this is an absurd non sequitur.
Astounded,
PattyC4303
In article <19971217141...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, hal...@aol.com
(Halle 8) writes:
>These were sex crimes, so there is little question as to motivation and
>payoff.
The excerpt was posted, it has been explained, because it sheds a
>different
light on Karla's level of willingness as an accomplice. I don't see
>how it does
that.
Halle
Hlle,
The excert did that for me. Shed some light on Karla's role anyway. I had
been seeing her a little differently than that. More passive, etc.
PattyC
PattyC4303
>Patty wrote:
Halle
No Halle,
I meant, with tongue in cheek, "liberal" as in trying to give even the criminal
a break if possible.
Do we know this pair ever expected anyone else to view the video? If they did
not, seems it is their own little production, and tells me something about
their interaction. Again, I just thought Karla was a little more pathetic in
terms of following orders than the transcript excerpt seemed to portray.
Whatever, I didn't like to read that, but found it informative for me.
PattyC
PattyC4303
In article <19971217150...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, hal...@aol.com
(Halle 8) writes:
>Note: In case anyone is confused and insists on missing my point like they
>have
done repeatedly with Melissa, I would like to point out that my
>statement above
is not a statement about whether or not "graphic" materials
>should be posted
here. It is a statement about being honest about why
>materials are posted here
and why people find them to be of interest. That's
>all.
Halle
Never thought you meant to get into *censorship!* And I am being honest about
how I saw the excerpt. Can't speak for Henry's reasons for posting.
Believe me, if I want graphic materials OR downright porn, I know how to find
that on the INternet. ANd would choose some that does not allude to, or relate
to murder. Just a personal preference of mine there!
PattyC
lukn...@mindspring.com
lukn...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > ***And maybe you have missed the scope of this NG - it's true crime, which is
> > what Henry posted about. You're not trying to censor what can be posted here
> > are you? What Henry posted here is not worse that the drivel SL posts from
> > Jesperson, and it's a heck of a lot more interesting than J's rants.
>
> Mary Ann:
>
> Shame on you.
>
> Are you suggesting that those of us who objected to Henry's first post
> are attempting to censor someone?
>
> What pot is calling what kettle what color?
>
> Luknhard
Mary Ann:
On the other hand I may have misunderstood your slant on this. It
happens.
I think I'm getting punchy. The shouts of "censorship" around here are
beginning to sound like a scratchy broken record, irrelevant and
paranoid.
Luknhard
Henry E. Buurman
LdyDArcane wrote:
>
> >The excerpt sheds no light on degree of coercion, extent of "free will," or
> >other physical or psychological circumstances under which Karla Homolka's
> >"performance" was rendered. I can't come close to forming an opinion about
> >her
> >level of guilt based on that excerpt alone. Was she drugged? Was there threat
> >of violence if she did not comply? Was she following a script written by
> >Bernardo? Was she, Hedda Nussbaum-like, so enmeshed in this man that she had
> >no
> >independent will? That excerpt, taken alone, offers no insight into Karla's
> >level of guilt relative to Paul's.
> >
>
> ***Maybe one excerpt doesn't, but look at all the evidence; she was just as
> culpable as Bernardo.
> Mary Ann
I will be posting another excerpt soon, in which Karla, by herself
procures the girl.
Henry
lukn...@mindspring.com
Patty (I think) wrote:
>>Considering Henry posted it....I see no problem with the
> >excerpt he posted.
Halle wrote:
> I have no problems with the fact that he posted it, either. The only person, to
> my knowledge, who has dragged "censorship" into this is Luknhard....
Incorrect, Halle.
My response was to a post by Mary Ann who asked whether someone was
attempting to censor what is posted here. My post objected to the fact
that "censorship" had once again been brought up.
See
below:
Mary Ann wrote:
> > You're not trying to censor what can be posted here
> > are you? What Henry posted here is not worse than the drivel SL posts from
> > Jesperson...
Luknhard wrote:
> Are you suggesting that those of us who objected to Henry's first post
> are attempting to censor someone?
inpetto
> >>Martha:
> >><snip> I agree with you, at least based on the transcript you posted,
> >>>that Karla seems to be at least equal to Bernard in guilt. <snip>
> >>
> >>The excerpt sheds no light on degree of coercion, extent of "free will," or
> >>other physical or psychological circumstances under which Karla Homolka's
> >>"performance" was rendered. I can't come close to forming an opinion about
> >>her
> >>level of guilt based on that excerpt alone. Was she drugged? Was there
> >threat
> >>of violence if she did not comply? Was she following a script written by
> >>Bernardo? Was she, Hedda Nussbaum-like, so enmeshed in this man that she had
> >>no
> >>independent will? That excerpt, taken alone, offers no insight into Karla's
> >>level of guilt relative to Paul's.
> >>
> >>Halle
> >
> >***Maybe one excerpt doesn't, but look at all the evidence; she was just as
> >culpable as Bernardo.
> >Mary Ann
>
> That may very well be true. This discussion has been only about the excerpt and
> the conclusions that can be drawn from it.
>
> Halle
As Mary Ann suggests, those who have followed the case from the beginning will see
this excerpt quite differently than those who have not had an active interest. For
me, it provides some partial clue into the dynamic at work between the Bernardos.
When I mentioned to a friend living in BC that Homolka appeared to be an abused
spouse, she sent me a CBC documentary containing Homolka giving her own account of
events in the Bernardo household during the time of the murders. It is chilling.
After being assured by the Crown of immunity from criminal murder charges, she
speaks of being angry with Paul for not "doing something about" the 15 year old
girl tied up in the basement whom they had jointly kidnapped and tortured. She
says he was acting at the time as though he wanted to "just keep her there forever"
even though he knew Homolka had to be at work that Monday, which would give the
girl opportunity to escape. She never said outright that she had asked Bernardo to
kill the girl. But she made it patently clear her chief concern was that the girl
in the basement could identify them. Paul Bernardo was known as the Scarborough
Rapist, but it should be noted that the murders didn't begin until he hooked up
with Homolka.
If you want to satisfy yourself that Homolka is no Hedda Nussbaum, take a look at
this URL. It contains the whole history, but Homolka's letters from prison are
particularly illuminating. http://www.well.com/user/sjroby/afkh/afkh3.html
Inpetto
Henry E. Buurman
Halle 8 wrote:
>
> Here are Henry's questions:
I'm sorry, but this is not the list of questions I posted. Questions 3 &
5 were not on my list, and there are questions missing that I DID post.
Of this list, I posted only question 1 & 2.
> 1. Is there such a thing as a female serial killer? (FBI says no, I disagree.)
>
> The FBI says there is no such thing as a female serial killer? Or is it that
> they have no record of a female serial killer? Are there female serial killers
> that have never been identified as such? Anyway, I'm curious about why the FBI
> says there is no such thing as a female serial killer -- is there more
> information on this that can be posted?
>
> 2. If there is, are they getting away with murder?
>
> One would think so. My opinion is that there are women who kill and, because of
> prejudice in the law enforcement and criminal justice systems, they are never
> caught.
>
> 3. What are the common traits or "profile" of the female serial killer?
>
> If the FBI says there is no such thing, then would such a profile even exist?
>
> 4. Why is Law Enforcement incapable of dealing with the concept of female
> serial murder?
>
> Similar to why not only law enforcement but also the public majority would
> think that Patsy Ramsey could not have acting independently in murdering her
> daughter.
>
> 5. Should a female in a B&D relationship be accountable for rape, torture and
> murder when she is a particpant?
>
> If she is capable of exercising independent judgement and can be shown to know
> right from wrong, as in any other situation, then yes.
>
> Halle
Henry E. Buurman
Thanks for the great input.
About this:
inpetto wrote:
> Paul Bernardo was known as the Scarborough
> Rapist, but it should be noted that the murders didn't begin until he hooked up
> with Homolka.
Actually, Paul didn't begin his rapes until he had met Karla, either.
Stephen Williams says that she was with him as an observer for at least
one of the "Scarborough Rapes."
Henry
Henry E. Buurman
inpetto wrote:
>
> > Actually, Paul didn't begin his rapes until he had met Karla, either.
> > Stephen Williams says that she was with him as an observer for at least
> > one of the "Scarborough Rapes."
> >
> > Henry
>
> the case and did not realize that some here didn't have the basic background. Is
> this correct?
Yes, that's correct inpetto. I'm new here and thought most folks were up
to speed on the Bernardo/Homolka case.
If you would, could you send me your karla links via e-mail?
Thanks,
Henry
Henry E. Buurman
Halle 8 wrote:
>
> >The excert did that for me. Shed some light on Karla's role anyway. I had
> >been seeing her a little differently than that. More passive, etc.
> >
> >PattyC
>
> mind.
That is how I saw Karla, based on the first book written about the case.
The first book, the name escapes me right now, perhaps you have it, was
one of those books that is rushed to publication to cash in on the
notoriety of a case. It basically accepted the "battered-wife" theory
put forth by the Crown prosecutor, without taking a critical look at it
and at Karla.
The latest book was researched in depth by someone who was on the case
from the beginning, through the trial, and someone who has seen the
tapes. The entire thrust of the book is that the "battered-wife" defense
was a scam, perpetrated by the prosecution to cover up a horribly
botched investigation.
Once again, I urge you to read it and form your own opinion of it.
Henry
Halle 8
>>Patty wrote:
>>
>>>Henry,
>>>
>>>Welcome. FWIW, I found your original post horrifyingly graphic, but read
>>>every
>>>word with interest. I (being the *liberal* type...), had been considering
>>>Karla's poor position in the whole situation... the abused one and all.
>><snip>
>>
>>First, a question: I'm not sure what you mean by the "liberal" type -- do
>you
>>mean liberal in terms of your tolerance for what is posted here?
>>
>>Second, there is nothing in that excerpt that sheds any light on Karla in
>>terms
>>of her "willingness" (for lack of a better word) to be involved in those
>>crimes
>>or her level of culpability. The video was obviously a theatrical production
>>and, out of context, we don't have a clue as to the circumstances under
>which
>>it was produced. To that extent, the except was nothing more than gratuitous
>>pornography posted here under the self-justifying guise of being "useful"
>>material to true crime fans.
>>
>>Halle
>***Out of context of what?
Out of context of the circumstances under which it was produced. What happened
before the camera started running? What happened afterwards? What discussions
were held that were not recorded or included in the transcripts? Etc., etc.,
etc. All we have is an excerpt.
The video shows much if what was done to thet poor
>innocent victim, and also shows Karla's willingness to participate, as does
>much of the other evidence.
It would *appear* that she was willing. Was she told to make those statements?
Was the entire dialogue rehearsed beforehand? Who knows? The excerpt offers no
clues as to her willingness to participate in the crime. She may have been the
mastermind, for all I know. I just can't draw that conclusion from the excerpt.
Hedda Nussbaum also appeared to be a "willing" participant to many people.
Honestly, I don't know much about the crime. I only know about the excerpt. I
take exception to the statement that the excerpt is proof of her willingness to
participate in anything.
>Considering Henry posted it, and his later
>questions, to start an interesting discussion, I see no problem with the
>except
>he posted.
I have no problems with the fact that he posted it, either. The only person, to
my knowledgem, who has dragged "censorship" into this is Luknhard. My only
comment is that, contrary to what others have stated, the excerpt is no proof
of her willingness to participate in the crimes.
>Anyone who has read about the case has already read that
>particular
>one anyway; anyone who hasn't and is interested in true crime and why these
>killers do what they do should read the info available.
Sure, but the discussion here is simply about whether the excerpt posted is
evidence of her willingness to participate in the crime. That's all.
>Also, I don't consider myself a "fan" of true crime; I find it interesting
>from
>a psychological viewpoint and from a human one. The word "fan" puts a much
>different slant on someone's interest in the subject.
>Mary Ann
I was using a previous poster's terminology. You are right -- it puts a
different slant on it, and one that is not accurate for most people here.
Halle
Halle 8
>(Halle 8) writes:
>
>>These were sex crimes, so there is little question as to motivation and
>>payoff.
>The excerpt was posted, it has been explained, because it sheds a
>>different
>light on Karla's level of willingness as an accomplice. I don't see
>>how it does
>that.
>
>Halle
>
>Hlle,
>
>been seeing her a little differently than that. More passive, etc.
>
>PattyC
I don't know about "passive," but "robot-like" is the word that comes to my
mind.
Halle
Halle 8
Halle 8
I don't think you are one of the people who insists on reading any question
regarding the usefulness of the excerpt in forming conclusions about Karla's
degree of guilt as a call for censorship. Frankly, I'm not sure how censorship
got brought into this.
Halle
Captive964
Oh hell, all right. I guess I don't care what people's motivations are for
posting something that I find interesting. I found the Henry's post to be
salacious, which appealed to the perverted true crime fan that I am. However, I
agree Halle, that it was a little smarmy to try to pass it off as somehow an
indication of Karla's guilt, etc.
We have no idea what goes on in the relationships of a serial killing couple.
What I hate to see is the connection between BDSM and serial killing. People
tend to lump those who are into BDSM, S&M, D&S or whatever initials suit you as
being sick, murderous perverts.Many, many people indulge in edge play ( knife
play, age play, etc.) and do not become serial killers. My take on that whole
thing is that these killers never found an outlet for their sadomasochistic
tendencies or never accepted the tendencies in themselves due to their
upbringing, societal pressures, etc. and *therefore* resorted to killing to
fulfill their fantasies.
Were Karla Holmolka, Charlene Gallego, Carol Bundy, Myra Hindley, etc. etc.
abused women? I can't answer that. Are they responsible for the crimes they
committed? Yes. However, there is one thing that I am almost certain of, and
this changes things entirely: I do not believe that these women would have
*ever* killed on their own. The men did...and that says it all to me.
Captive
Halle 8
>> >payoff.
>> >> The excerpt was posted, it has been explained, because it sheds a
>different
>> >> light on Karla's level of willingness as an accomplice. I don't see how
>it
>> >does
>> >> that.
>> >>
>> >
>> >themselves, as distinct from her desire to please her man. My belief
>> >about women involved in sex crimes has always been that they are
>> >submitting their own desires to those of the male, that these are things
>> >they would not do on their own for their own gratification. This
>> >excerpt made me think of these things a little--hell, a
>> >lot--differently.
>> I don't get any sense at all from that excerpt that Karla was not, in fact,
>> submitting her own desires to those of Paul. In other words, I can't tell
>> whether she was simply following some script (real or inculcated) or acting
>> independently; I can't tell whether she honestly believed those things she
>said
>> about the other crimes or whether she was placating Paul; I can't tell what
>> degree of independent "will" she was exercising. That's my problem with
>this.
>>
>> Halle
>Well, OK. But what would you have happen? Henry could have posted his
>own impression of this video, which would have been interesting, I
>guess, but I doubt that I would've read it--as I've said, this is not a
>crime spree I've been following. The pornographic allure of the
>material posted was a positive for me, I suppose; it did catch my
>attention. I imagine there's no way, even seeing the video itself, to
>know Karla's motivations for sure. Should we therefore discard this
>evidence, faulty as it may be? Or discuss it only in theoretical terms?
>
>Martha
Well, maybe it's just a curiosity. I'm with you: It certainly makes me more
interested in the crime and I think Henry has posed some good questions.
Knowing almost nothing about this crime, the first analogy to Karla Holmolka
that comes to mind is Hedda Nussbaum -- a woman so enmeshed in the will of her
husband that she no longer was able to feel/think/act independently. Maybe
that's not the case at all here.
Here are Henry's questions:
1. Is there such a thing as a female serial killer? (FBI says no, I disagree.)
Captive964
>
>5. Should a female in a B&D relationship be accountable for rape, torture and
>murder when she is a particpant?
>
>
>If she is capable of exercising independent judgement and can be shown to
>know
>right from wrong, as in any other situation, then yes.
>
>Halle
B&D relationships are not that different from what we call "vanilla"
relationships. Just because someone is a submissive doesn't mean they give up
their mind. In fact, just the opposite is true most of the time. A true BDSM
relationship involves a power exchange. You cannot have a power exchange with a
person who has no power. Therefore, BOTH partners need to be strong people for
this type of relationship to work. I get so tired of hearing submissives
portrayed as "yes, Master" mindless zombies.
Captive
Melissa Hardie
> >(Halle 8) writes:
> >
> >>Note: In case anyone is confused and insists on missing my point like they
> >>have
> >done repeatedly with Melissa, I would like to point out that my
> >>statement above
> >is not a statement about whether or not "graphic" materials
> >>should be posted
> >here. It is a statement about being honest about why
> >>materials are posted here
> >and why people find them to be of interest. That's
> >>all.
> >
> >Halle
> >Never thought you meant to get into *censorship!* And I am being honest
> >about
> >how I saw the excerpt. Can't speak for Henry's reasons for posting.
> >
> >Believe me, if I want graphic materials OR downright porn, I know how to find
> >that on the INternet. ANd would choose some that does not allude to, or
> >relate
> >to murder. Just a personal preference of mine there!
Halle:
> I don't think you are one of the people who insists on reading any question
> regarding the usefulness of the excerpt in forming conclusions about Karla's
> degree of guilt as a call for censorship. Frankly, I'm not sure how censorship
> got brought into this.
Uh, stupidity?
Melissa.
Halle 8
>
>Patty (I think) wrote:
>>>Considering Henry posted it....I see no problem with the
>> >excerpt he posted.
>
>Halle wrote:
>person, to
>
>Incorrect, Halle.
>My response was to a post by Mary Ann who asked whether someone was
>attempting to censor what is posted here. My post objected to the fact
>that "censorship" had once again been brought up.
> See
>below:
Okay... then the censorship thing is between you and Mary Ann. I hope you two
got things resolved.
Carry on,
Halle
Halle 8
Well, I should explain, I guess, that the "B&D" aspect of the question struck
me as irrelevant. *Anyone* involved in rape, torture, and murder, regardless of
sex, should be held accountable. I also agree that there are many stereotypes
surrounding sex (gender) and sex (preferences) -- these can be very misleading
in understanding human motivations and behavior.
Halle
Halle 8
>Oh hell, all right. I guess I don't care what people's motivations are for
>posting something that I find interesting. I found the Henry's post to be
>salacious, which appealed to the perverted true crime fan that I am. However,
>I
>agree Halle, that it was a little smarmy to try to pass it off as somehow an
>indication of Karla's guilt, etc.
You got it, Captive. It doesn't matter what the motive was -- anyone can post
whatever they want to and people will get out of it whatever they want to (like
Sondra London's material). I find your honesty refreshing.
>We have no idea what goes on in the relationships of a serial killing
>couple.
>What I hate to see is the connection between BDSM and serial killing. People
>tend to lump those who are into BDSM, S&M, D&S or whatever initials suit you
>as
>being sick, murderous perverts.Many, many people indulge in edge play ( knife
>play, age play, etc.) and do not become serial killers. My take on that whole
>thing is that these killers never found an outlet for their sadomasochistic
>tendencies or never accepted the tendencies in themselves due to their
>upbringing, societal pressures, etc. and *therefore* resorted to killing to
>fulfill their fantasies.
This makes a lot of sense.
>Were Karla Holmolka, Charlene Gallego, Carol Bundy, Myra Hindley, etc. etc.
>abused women? I can't answer that. Are they responsible for the crimes they
>committed? Yes. However, there is one thing that I am almost certain of, and
>this changes things entirely: I do not believe that these women would have
>*ever* killed on their own. The men did...and that says it all to me.
>
>Captive
Very well said, and I couldn't agree with you more.
Halle
Halle 8
>Halle 8 wrote:
>>
>> Here are Henry's questions:
>
>5 were not on my list, and there are questions missing that I DID post.
>Of this list, I posted only question 1 & 2.
Really? Here is your post:
Subject: Re: Karla Homolka: Sex, Murder and Video Tape--ADULTS ONLY
From: "Henry E. Buurman" <he...@pacifier.com>
Date: 1997/12/13
Message-ID: <34935A...@pacifier.com>
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
[More Headers]
K. Rasch wrote:
>
> Henry...
>
> I gather from your response, the perhaps I sounded a little harsh, and
> that was not my intention... please accept my apology.
Thank you, but no apology is necessary. You have a right to your
opinions and I'm a big boy. (:
> However, given the name of this newsgroup, I would expect that Karla has
> been discussed as well as Pam Smart, Rosemary West (is that her name, it
> is so early in the am), Richard Ramirez (back in the news cuz of the A&E
> special), the Zodiac killer and on and on....
Although these people have been discussed, is there no room or patience
for what may be a fresh viewpoint on them? Is the discussion closed? I
don't think so. I have some thoughts about female serial killers that I
want to air in this group for discussion, and some of the cases I'm sure
have already been discussed. I will be talking about Karla Homolka,
Charlene Gallego, Sharon Green, and others. The issues are these:
1. Is there such a thing as a female serial killer? (FBI says no, I
disagree.)
2. If there is, are they getting away with murder?
3. What are the common traits or "profile" of the female serial killer?
4. Why is Law Enforcement incapable of dealing with the concept of
female serial murder?
5. Should a female in a B&D relationship be accountable for rape,
torture and murder when she is a particpant?
Etc.
I'm warning you ahead of time so if you don't want to discuss old cases,
you can just space off my posts. (:
Henry
Howard
In article <349823...@pacifier.com>, "Henry E. Buurman"
<he...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, Paul didn't begin his rapes until he had met Karla, either.
> Henry
Don't believe this is so. It's certainly not my understanding. He didn't
begin KILLING anyone until he met Karla
hm
inpetto
Henry E. Buurman wrote:
> Thanks for the great input.
>
> About this:
>
> inpetto wrote:
> > Paul Bernardo was known as the Scarborough
> > Rapist, but it should be noted that the murders didn't begin until he hooked up
> > with Homolka.
>
> Actually, Paul didn't begin his rapes until he had met Karla, either.
> Stephen Williams says that she was with him as an observer for at least
> one of the "Scarborough Rapes."
>
> Henry
The account I read was vague about that point, stating that the town Bernardo lived
in at the time he met Homolka was being terrorized by a rapist. That story is online
at http://www.cs.indiana.edu/canada/WashingtonPost. The previous URL I gave is
actually more informative about the Canadian ban on information about the trial than
it is about the crimes themselves, but the prison letters were of interest. I
understood from your original post that you were posting additional material about
the case and did not realize that some here didn't have the basic background. Is
this correct?
Inpetto
Melissa
Halle:
I don't think you are one of the people who insists on reading any question
regarding the usefulness of the excerpt in forming conclusions about Karla's
degree of guilt as a call for censorship. Frankly, I'm not sure how censorship
got brought into this.
and later,
Halle:
I have no problems with the fact that he posted it, either. The only person, to
my knowledgem, who has dragged "censorship" into this is Luknhard. My only
comment is that, contrary to what others have stated, the excerpt is no proof
of her willingness to participate in the crimes.
__________________________________________________
FYI, Halle, I believe Mary Ann was the first to raise the question of
censorship, when she wrote to me as follows, when I questioned the
appropriateness of Henry's post (in a reply to Mignarda):
<19971216070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>:
***How about because of their right to free speech? You argue SL's right to
that, why not Henry's? I'd rather read and discuss his topic than SL/DR any
day. Btw, I thought in your eyes, if people deem something not appropriate to
be posted here, that was censorship? And he is, after all, talking about a true
crime. ehat coulbe be *more* appropriate?
Mary Ann
And late, in reply to my comment that my concern was with context, she
continued with this assertion:
<19971217201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
***And maybe you have missed the scope of this NG - it's true crime, which is
what Henry posted about. You're not trying to censor what can be posted here
are you? What Henry posted here is not worse that the drivel SL posts from
Jesperson, and it's a heck of a lot more interesting than J's rants.
Mary Ann
Why she thought I was trying to censor anyone remains a mystery of the
internets. Why she thought participating in the discussion was not simply
participating in the discussion is also a mystery.
Melissa
*
New address: melissa...@english.usyd.edu.au
Melissa
Martha:
>Well, OK. But what would you have happen? Henry could have posted his
>own impression of this video, which would have been interesting, I
>guess, but I doubt that I would've read it--as I've said, this is not a
>crime spree I've been following. The pornographic allure of the
>material posted was a positive for me, I suppose; it did catch my
>attention. I imagine there's no way, even seeing the video itself, to
>know Karla's motivations for sure. Should we therefore discard this
>evidence, faulty as it may be? Or discuss it only in theoretical terms?
I do not share your experience Martha, as I have read rather a lot about
this crime over some years, and it was certainly a high-profile case --
one that predates you JPR people! From my point of view, this excerpt did
little to represent or figure the complex issues this case raised: issues
of censorship (real censorship, in Canada), the issue of shared
culpability, and the use of Homolka's testimony against Bernardo. Of
course there's also the particularly gruesome nature of the crimes. It
seems likely that the legacy of this crime will be more in an analysis of
the way information about crime circulates than in an analysis of feminine
sexual pathology. Unlike you, I see little reason to doubt that women may
experience sexual pleasure through violent scenarios, real or imagined, so
I suppose the excerpt did little for me in illuminating that point simply
because it is not a question in my mind.
Faulty evidence should be discarded I think, if it really is faulty. I
don't mean it should be destroyed, simply that its status *as* evidence is
questionable. A textual transcript of a video excerpt, offered without
context, does not strike me as a useful piece of evidence, though
certainly an emotive one. Those (unlike you) who deny the "pornographic
allure" of some of the material we are discussing here are fooling
themselves, or are in deep denial. By that I am not saying everyone's
interest is equally or necessarily prurient, or suggesting that anything
should be suppressed. Expressing a concern is a positive value, for me. I
am less persuaded than I might be of the utility of this excerpt, but
others may disagree. I still do question its posting without those
questions, and I do question the status of the excerpt as evidence of
anything at all, denuded of context. Perhaps if you had been more aware of
the history of the coverage of this crime, you might have initially read
this material differently as well. I suppose it's a bit like someone
hopping in and posting a series of (contextually speaking) naive questions
about sexual abuse and JonBenet out of thin air: you would probably wonder
what their agenda was. If those were accompanied by graphic sexual
material, you would probably wonder a bit more. That is a crude analogy,
but I am sure you get my drift.
But you present a really interesting set of issues in your questions, and
certainly, the fact that the material has prompted your interest (and
posts!) is a good argument for posting it, a better one, I'd say, than the
illustrative pretext.
My 2c,
The *MIGHTY* (yet modest) Two Tub Man
There sure are a lot of phony moralists and slack-jawed rubberneckers
around here.
"I'm not a priss."
"Are so."
"You shouldn't post adult materials here, my eight-year old's a big
Dahmer fan."
"Don't censor me."
"I'm not, just don't post anything offensive and I won't."
---
There's a solid historical reason that your ancestors were all kicked
out of Europe.
---
How about changing the subject line when indulging in this USELESS
OFF-TOPIC CRAP?
in the Blood of the Lamb,
The *MIGHTY* (yet modest) Two Tub Man (and Snuffles)
Halle 8
Well, here is what I have subsequently learned about the "context" in which
that video was produced: Karla Homolka was repeatedly and severely beaten by
Paul Bernardo Teale, for even such minor infractions as jingling her keys. It
was the final beating, with a flashlight, which required her to be
hospitalized, that ultimately motivated her confession about the crimes. None
of this is conveyed in the excerpt; stripped of any context, it gives the
reader the impression that she was a willing participant in the crimes and at
least as guilty as Paul.
Subsequent to the posting of it there have been various attempts to justify its
usefulness as *evidence* of her guilt, none of which succeed -- presented out
of context, it offers no clue as to Karla's mental state or emotional
condition, which are relevant to any determination as to her degree of guilt.
It has also been suggested that the excerpt is useful because it raises certain
questions about women and their capacity and culpability for sexual violence,
and there's no doubt that it does. But, taken out of context, any insight into
these questions is biased and tainted by our own interpretations of how that
video came to be and the circumstances under which Karla Homolka participated
in both it and the crimes that she describes.
Halle
Halle 8
priapus@*no_spam*direct.ca (The *MIGHTY* (yet modest) Two Tub Man) wrote:
>There sure are a lot of phony moralists and slack-jawed rubberneckers
>around here.
>
>"I'm not a priss."
>
>"Are so."
>
>"You shouldn't post adult materials here, my eight-year old's a big
>Dahmer fan."
>
>"Don't censor me."
>
>"I'm not, just don't post anything offensive and I won't."
Uh, excuse me. Could you actually quote someone who has asked that "adult
materials" not be posted here? I'v read this entire thread and, to my
knowledge, no one has made that request. Have I overlooked a post or two?
Please explain.
Halle
JBrown6000
Captive says:
<<We have no idea what goes on in the relationships of a serial killing
couple.
What I hate to see is the connection between BDSM and serial killing. People
tend to lump those who are into BDSM, S&M, D&S or whatever initials suit you as
being sick, murderous perverts.Many, many people indulge in edge play ( knife
play, age play, etc.) and do not become serial killers. My take on that whole
thing is that these killers never found an outlet for their sadomasochistic
tendencies or never accepted the tendencies in themselves due to their
upbringing, societal pressures, etc. and *therefore* resorted to killing to
fulfill their fantasies.
**Thanks, Captive, for the information regarding the different bondage
cultures.
It certainly gives me another way of looking at this. I didn't have a chance
to see the original post (the "porno" one), but I did expect something a bit
raunchy because of the title of the thread. In the book "Lethal Marriage," the
authors detail several of the "videos" of the rapes of these young girls.
Karla is clearly a willing participant. Henry raises some interesting
questions I think.
jb
PattyC4303
In article <melissa.hardie-...@mac4net78-109.arts.su.oz.au>,
melissa...@english.usyd.edu.au (Melissa Hardie) writes:
>Halle:
> I don't think you are one of the people who insists on reading any
>question
> regarding the usefulness of the excerpt in forming conclusions
>about Karla's
> degree of guilt as a call for censorship. Frankly, I'm not
>sure how censorship
> got brought into this.
Uh, stupidity?
Melissa.
Actually, it was sort of (an obviously poor...) joke on my part, in response to
Halle's .
Oh well
PattyC
PattyC4303
In article <34996B...@erols.com>, Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com>
writes:
>Plus, coming from a guy who calls himself "priapus," I'd say his
position is
>not entirely without self-interest.
Martha
Aw Martha,
He was being hostile using that word, doncha think?
PattyC
Halle 8
>in amazement {surprise}). Well, this shows how ignorant I am about the
>abused/abuser nexus (Sharon--the connection in all its
>ramifications--er, complications). I knew from my reading that women
>who are abused continue to love (in some way) their abusers, but it had
>never occurred to me to think of these women as encouraging, as Karla
>seems to be doing, the very sort of abusive activity she herself has
>been subject to. How do you figure this? Does any of this make sense
>to you? All I can figure is that Paul must be some hot number in bed
>for her to behave this way--do you know if, besides sex, they had any
>sort of connection to each other? I'm including the murders with the
>sex.
>
>Martha
Or else he has a way with torture.
If one only read the transcript of the video of him having sex with the one
girl who, in prior refusal, had said that "some things are worth dying for"
but, after being forced to watch a video of the rape and torture of a previous
victim, had finally succumbed, wouldn't one get the impression from the
transcript alone that she was a "willing participant"?
Their mutual rape of Tammy Homolka, Karla's younger sister, provided Paul with
the blackmail necessary to ensure her compliance in subsequent activities. Do
you really think that Karla's apparant encouragement of his abuse was genuine?
I have learned more about this crime in the last couple of days than I probably
care. I think there is no question about her culpability for the crimes and
that her sentence was far too light. I agree, the big question is "why"?
Halle
Halle 8
Patty, I don't think Melissa was referring to you, either : )
Halle
Halle 8
>Halle:
>I don't think you are one of the people who insists on reading any question
>regarding the usefulness of the excerpt in forming conclusions about Karla's
>degree of guilt as a call for censorship. Frankly, I'm not sure how
>censorship
>got brought into this.
>
>
>Halle:
>I have no problems with the fact that he posted it, either. The only person,
>to
>my knowledgem, who has dragged "censorship" into this is Luknhard. My only
>comment is that, contrary to what others have stated, the excerpt is no proof
>of her willingness to participate in the crimes.
>__________________________________________________
>
>FYI, Halle, I believe Mary Ann was the first to raise the question of
>censorship, when she wrote to me as follows, when I questioned the
>appropriateness of Henry's post (in a reply to Mignarda):
>
><19971216070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>:
>
>***How about because of their right to free speech? You argue SL's right to
>that, why not Henry's? I'd rather read and discuss his topic than SL/DR any
>day. Btw, I thought in your eyes, if people deem something not appropriate to
>be posted here, that was censorship? And he is, after all, talking about a
>true
>crime. ehat coulbe be *more* appropriate?
>Mary Ann
Well, I guess that's finally been cleared up. I'm still not sure why Mary Ann
would see your initial post, which simply asked Henry why he had posted the
transcript, as a desire on your part to have it censored (as if that we even
possible).
Enough said.
Halle
Melissa
>>>Halle:
>>> I don't think you are one of the people who insists on reading any
>>>question
>>> regarding the usefulness of the excerpt in forming conclusions
>>>about Karla's
>>> degree of guilt as a call for censorship. Frankly, I'm not
>>>sure how censorship
>>> got brought into this.
>>
>>
>>Melissa.
>>
>>Actually, it was sort of (an obviously poor...) joke on my part, in response
>>to
>>Halle's .
>>
>>Oh well
>>PattyC
>
>Patty, I don't think Melissa was referring to you, either : )
>
>Halle
Patty, I certainly *wasn't* referring to you, and I am very sorry to have
inadvertantly seemed to have done so!
Appalled and apologetic,
inpetto
Henry E. Buurman wrote:
> Yes, that's correct inpetto. I'm new here and thought most folks were up
> to speed on the Bernardo/Homolka case.
Ah, so. You assumed the people who post here are reasonably well informed about the cases
they discuss. Silly you.
> If you would, could you send me your karla links via e-mail?
I prefer to post it here. I live in perpetual hope that our most prolific posters might
actually bother to read up on a case before posting an opinion on it. But then, I'm the
incurable optimist. Here's the most comprehensive one I've seen. You were asking about
the other books that were written about these crimes? Book reviews, photos, newspaper
articles are archived here. http://grouchy.cs.indiana.edu/canada/karla.html
By the way, welcome to at-c.
Inpetto
Melissa
>> >Martha:
>> >>Well, OK. But what would you have happen? Henry could have posted his
>> >>own impression of this video, which would have been interesting, I
>> >>guess, but I doubt that I would've read it--as I've said, this is not a
>> >>crime spree I've been following. The pornographic allure of the
>> >>material posted was a positive for me, I suppose; it did catch my
>> >>attention. I imagine there's no way, even seeing the video itself, to
>> >>know Karla's motivations for sure. Should we therefore discard this
>> >>evidence, faulty as it may be? Or discuss it only in theoretical terms?
>> >
Halle:
>>
>> Well, here is what I have subsequently learned about the "context" in which
>> that video was produced: Karla Homolka was repeatedly and severely beaten by
>> Paul Bernardo Teale, for even such minor infractions as jingling her keys. It
>> was the final beating, with a flashlight, which required her to be
>> hospitalized, that ultimately motivated her confession about the crimes. None
>> of this is conveyed in the excerpt; stripped of any context, it gives the
>> reader the impression that she was a willing participant in the crimes and at
>> least as guilty as Paul.
>
Martha:
>No kidding. I am nonplussed (for Sharon: that means my jaw has dropped
>in amazement {surprise}). Well, this shows how ignorant I am about the
>abused/abuser nexus (Sharon--the connection in all its
>ramifications--er, complications). I knew from my reading that women
>who are abused continue to love (in some way) their abusers, but it had
>never occurred to me to think of these women as encouraging, as Karla
>seems to be doing, the very sort of abusive activity she herself has
>been subject to. How do you figure this? Does any of this make sense
>to you? All I can figure is that Paul must be some hot number in bed
>for her to behave this way--do you know if, besides sex, they had any
>sort of connection to each other? I'm including the murders with the
>sex.
I suppose the short answer is, psychology is complicated. For me, whilst
the Gallegos case is interestingly similar, the obvious parallel is more
with the Wests. I don't know about the "hot in bed" theory; while I do
not wish to underestimate the mental disarray precipitated by sexual
desire, I do not really think it could be the answer in and of itself. I
do not think one can construe Homolka's behave as "encouraging" the abuse,
though it may well have a complex relation to it. I simply don't think
you can get that out of the excerpt, though it is certainly an issue in
the context of the case.
I think her psychology gives us an interesting way to think about our own,
though. Why does she seemingly encourage violence (let's say she does,
for the sake of argument) and in particular, violence against herself?
Well, why do we read horrific stories about horrific violence? Why do we
return to this material? And I mean all of us. For Freud (uh oh!), the
question of why we revisit displeasure is as important as the more logical
question, why do we revisit pleasure, and it interests me that you kind of
reformulate the first question as the second, substituting a logic of
pleasure (hot in bed) for one of displeasure (abuse). That is, to me, a
salutory and helpful refiguring of the issue. So Freud's analysis of the
"death drive" was precipitated by the question: why do people relive bad
experiences? Why do they? Why do they engage displeasure? He saw it as
something beyond a displaced pleasure principle, and so do I, I guess. He
called it a compulsion to repeat, and I think that is an interesting idea,
particularly as we read threads which worry away at the same issues,
imperfectly articulated, tireseomly banalised, and remorslessly
trivialised. Of course, I am using Freud here as a representative of a
mode of cultural analysis, not as a faux-neuro-psychologist or whatever.
So what next? One response is to half-read everything, presenting
incomplete and skewered information to satisfy judgements already made.
We see plenty of that, of course. The other might be to debate these
issues within the framework of an increasing body of information -- more,
not less. That is rarely an appealing option for the soi-disant Usenet
Expert, because then debate starts to touch on complicated issues, and
areas in which there are no handy cliches ("received wisdom," "expressions
denuded of meaning through overuse") with which to stymie intellectual
curiosity. So I read this whole debate as the Allegory of the Usenets, I
guess. If we could ever lose the proponents of the first model, we might
be able to get to the second. However, that will now, probably, be
construed as a call for censorship.
"QED" (Sharon -- ask Klink).
Bounding Irony,
Henry E. Buurman
Apparently there are many messages that have not come over my news
server, as I never read any of the messages you guys are talking about.
So forgive me for cutting a comment of halle's out of your post, Martha.
> > Halle:
> > >>
> > >> Well, here is what I have subsequently learned about the "context" in which
> > >> that video was produced: Karla Homolka was repeatedly and severely beaten by
> > >> Paul Bernardo Teale, for even such minor infractions as jingling her keys. It
> > >> was the final beating, with a flashlight, which required her to be
> > >> hospitalized, that ultimately motivated her confession about the crimes. None
> > >> of this is conveyed in the excerpt; stripped of any context, it gives the
> > >> reader the impression that she was a willing participant in the crimes and at
> > >> least as guilty as Paul.
May I ask your source for that info, Halle?
The "flashlight beating" happened after the murders had been committed.
When Karla was awaiting arraignment and the "battered woman" defense was
suggested yo her, she "remembered" the abuse you mention, but there is
no corroborating evidence of it. In the tapes themselves she shows no
signs of being beaten at all. She doesn't cower or defer to Paul, nor
does she take direction from him. In fact, she took down one of the rape
victims herself, without Paul. (See my post "Karla Homolka: Jane's
Tape") Karla was a battered woman, if you believe *Karla* after she
manufactured her defense.
It was only after the fact that Karla begin seeing herself as the
victim, while feeling NO remorse at all for her sister, Kristen French,
or Leslie Mahaffey.
Henry