Karla denied parole again: she speaks!
argus1000
her 2003 review. She has just been refused parole again. Something
unheard of in Canada, she will actually do her full 12 years behind
bars! Why? because her name is Karla Homolka.
Karla's letter below comes from Stephen Williams new book: 'Karla:
Pacte avec le diable' soon to be published in English as 'Karla: Pact
with the devil'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Listen to what I have to say. When I arrived at the women's
Kingston prison, in july 1993, I was in a state of utter depression.
Seven well-known psychiatrists examined me and concluded that I was a
battered wife with post-traumatic stress disorder and that,
consequently, I had an "urgent need" of psychological counseling.
Kingston's correctional institution psychiatrists even corroborated
this opinion. Now that I have been regularly treated for seven years
by a system which pretends to rehabilitate people who are
incarcerated, all of a sudden I have been classified as a dangerous
incurable psychopath. How can such a thing happen in a correctionnal
system which prides itself of having a new approach towards women?
The idea that I have been the "compliant victim of a sexual
sadist", and that I have submitted myself to "all the cycles of sexual
violence", wasn't mine. It was the opinion of Drs Arndt, Long, Malcom,
Hatcher, Hucker, Jaffe and McDonald. This diagnostic is included in
their reports and those are part of my file.
When I first met Dr Arndt, I had no idea what mental depression
was. I never dealt with a psychologist or a psychiatrist before. I
also had never heard of Lonore Walker's theories about "battered woman
syndrome" or "post-traumatic stress disorder'.
So I didn't invent the battered wife notion to save my skin. In
fact, my lawyer had even advised me that a defense based on this idea
would not work out.
Nevertheless, that how I was evaluated. Nine specialist, among
whom two were from the Correctional Services, examined me between 1993
and 1995 and arrived to this conclusion. Policemen, Crown prosecutors
and the Court all believed in this version.
Should I now rise and say: "No, no, wait! I am not a battered
woman"? Such an attitude would not be conform to human nature. So I
had to believe them. I felt like a battered woman. I had the symtoms
of a battered woman. What I would like to know today is why the
Correctional Service change his opinion and acts like this diagnostic
never existed. It was on the basis of this diagnostic that a deal was
first made with my lawyer. And it is on the basis of this diagnostic
that I was treated for seven years!
From the very first months of my incarceration at Kingston, I
asked to be sent to a place where I could obtain a therapy conform to
my needs. Correctional Services refused, telling me I would find
appropriate care in jail.
I was then assigned therapist Jan Heney and psychiatrist Roy
Brown. I thereby started a therapy with them consisting of three or
four meetings a week. According to Dr Brown's reports, which are part
of my prison file, I succeded to make progress during the two years
which followed.
If Correctional Services had any doubts about my psychological
state, why did it permit these therapists to treat me according to the
first diagnostic? They had many possibilities. They could have treated
me like a sexual aggressor or a psychopath. Or they could have granted
my request and sent me to a psychiatric institute. All of this is
mentioned in my file. Prosecutor Murray Segal and the Justice Ministry
of Ontario didn't have any objection to this transfer.
If Correctional Services didn't do anything of the sort, it was
probably because they would have put themselves in a conflictual
situation regarding the policemen and prosecutors who needed its
collaboration to convince me to testify at my ex-husband's trial.
(underlined by translator)
And what happened in the fall of 1995, when the trial was over? I
had nothing but praise from the policemen for my performance in court.
They even said not to listen to wicked tongues who were accusing me of
being a psychopathic killer or a monster.
If Correctional services treated me according to my diagnostic by
sheer prudence, as I was then in contact with many policement and
Ontario prosecutors, why didn't it switch sides right after the trial?
Once all those people had gone, they could have begun a treatment
designed for sexual aggressors and antisocial offenders, if they
believed that I was one.
No, after my testimony in court, the prison continued my therapy
conforming themselves to my initial diagnostic. Nothing seemed to have
changed. They asked me to participate in various programs designed for
battered and psychological unstable women, and I accepted. As the
prison reports show, I succeded in all of them and the authorities
were pleased with my general behavior.
During all this time, before as well as after my testimony at
Bernardo's trial, everybody realized that I was making progress and
that my condition was getting better. All the reports of the prison
authorities, psychiatrists and psychologists went to that effect. At
the moment where he retired in 1996, Dr Brown said that he considered
me as cured.
In 1996, Correctional Services called Dr Sharon Williams, a
Queen's University specialist known for her expertise in sexual
violence and psychotic problems matters. After I underwent a series of
tests, Mrs Williams concluded that I wasn't a psychopath in any way.
To her knowledge, I wasn't a danger neither for myself, nor other
inmates or society in general. It is under her recommendation that
Correctional services decided to transfer me to Joliet.
In passing, Mrs Williams was part of a group of psychologists who
had elaborated, for Correctional Services, the first program designed
for female sexual offenders. Noboby enticed me to follow this program.
Even if it wasn't entirely official, Correctional Services writes on
their Web site that, during the last eight years, at least twenty-four
inmates have been treated as sexual aggressors.
In 1999, soon after I asked to be released under escort, Dr
Williams made another evaluation of my psychological state. Again, she
reitarated that I was neither a psychopath nor anti-social or a sexual
aggressor, and that there was no reason that I would be sent to a
maximum security prison.
This second opinion. it seems, didn't please, Correctional
Services who forwarded my file to Dr Van Gijseghem, one of its
occasional consultants.
According to the last reports submitted to the Commission by my
parole officers, I had shown no interest for the new programs or
therapies proposed by the prison since my arrival in
St-Anne-des-Plaines in april 2001. But what do the Correctional
Services psychiatrists and psychologists want me to do? What can I
bring now that hadn't been said over and over before?
Considering the extreme importance accorded by Correctional
Services to Dr Van Gijseghem and Menzies, against the opinion of the
majority of those who examined me during all those years, I do not see
why I would submit myself to new programs and new evaluations. If you
want to believe blunt reports against most serious studies, go ahead!
If you want a different opinion than all my psys, you can cast
your eyes towards some opinions on my case by psychiatrists hired by
my ex-husband. It seems Correctional Services never looked at this
counter-expertise. I suggest reading "Invisible Darkness" by Stephen
Williams. I heard that author quotes abundantly the opinions of those
psychiatrists. This book was published in the fall of 1996. I haven't
read it, but I was told that it was the most pertinent book written on
my case, and also the least affectionate.
According to what I've learned, Drs Graham Clancy, Nathan Pollack
and John Money were disputing the opinions of my nine psychiatrists.
They extracted the contradictions and other litigious things that
their reports contained. Finally, they concluded that I suffered from
something like "histrionic hybristophily" more than of an anti-social,
narcissistic or psychopathic personality.
There were also all kinds of experts who gave their opinions to
journalist from different magazines. I'm thinking of articles
published in "Saturday Night Magazine" and "Elmstreet". Like Van
Gijseghem and Menzies, these experts talked of me as being
psychopathic and suffering from narcissistic troubles, but they did it
more cautiously. Dr Van Gijseghem words even appeared in "Saturday
Night"
in an article written by somebody who knew nothing about psychiatry or
psychology.
There have been a lot of things said about me. But the oipnion
that policemen, prosecutors and the court stuck with is what is is,
and I am what I am.
At my ex-husband's trial, I don't know if the members of the jury
believed, as the police and the Crown did, that I was a battered woman
suffereing from post-traumatic stress disorder. After all, I wasn't a
defendant there, but a witness. As such, my psychological condition
was no relevant as an element of proof. In spite of that, at least two
jurors sufficiently believed in this version to send letters of
sympathy to my family. These letters are also in my prison file.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sive the beginning of this affair, I submitted wholly to a long and
strenuous therapy with the aim of retrieving the self-esteem I had
totally lost so I could become again the person I was before meeting
Paul, that is: an autonomous person capable of asserting her rights.
At each of the steps of this long march, I constantly received the
support of the prison system, and this is obvious to anybody who read
my file. I have been taught not to be so dependant. I am just
reporting here what I've been told so the Parole Board Commission can
understand.
In her report, my conditional release officer is worried about the
public reactions to my release. This is nonsense. The Commission
doesn't have to hold that in account when they make a decision.
Justice shouldn't concern itself with public reactions or the
sensationalistic medias, as I've had the chance to realize during my
trial.
At the time, there was many conflicts with the medias. In spite of
the media publication ban decreted by the judge, many facts relating
to my crimes have made the front page of American or English
newspapers. Even the tabloid "Current Affair", which is watched in
Canada, made an expose. Dr Jan Heney and Sgt Robert Gillies then
wanted to reassure me, telling me that it would not have any impact on
the outcome of my trial. Fortunately, they were right.
For many years, the "Toronto Sun" and other sensationalistic
papers fight an active crusade so that my deal with the justice system
would be revoked. Hundreds of thousands of persons for the south-west
of Ontario have signed petitions in their campain. Tim Danson, the
victim's families lawyer, constantly denounces this deal in all
forums. However, I must reiterate here that the deal was made with the
agreement of these families. Otherwise, the deal would never have been
made, and I would not have testified against Bernardo.
To answer the public pressure, judge Patrick Galligan was
appointed to an inquiry about the circumstances leading to the deal.
After thoroughly studying the question, his conclusion was that the
agreement was legitimate. So the terms of my agreement still stand.
After I pleaded guilty of two involontary manslaughter charges, I am
now in the tenth year of my prison term, for a maximum of twelve .
A question always surfaces concerning my trial: should they have
accused me of sexual aggression? During the negociations leading to my
deal, this question has been hotly debated by my lawyer and the
Justice ministry representatives. The Crown had then the opportunity
to lay this particular charge on me. They didn't. So I was never found
guilty of sexual aggression.
Is it the responsability today of Correctional Services and of the
Parole Board Commission to revoke the court's and Ontario's Justice
Ministry decision in deciding suddenly that I am a sexual aggressor
and that I have to be treated as such? Considering the new reports of
Dr Menzies, of Saskatoon, and Dr Van Gijseghem, can they make of me an
anti-social psychopath and reverse all the psychiatric opinions upon
which my agreement is made? Were the psychiatrists that have examined
me before the last two less qualified? Is it just and equitable to
decide of my case now based upon the opinions of those two specialists
only?
For this discussion's sake, let's say that I am really the person
Dr Menzies and Van Gijseghem described, and that all the other
specialists were sorely mistaken. That would mean that, for eight
years, until the moment where they deprived me of my normal release in
2001, I was treated for something I wasn't really. First labeled by
the correctional system as a battered woman, they would have
squandered upon me a long therapy which would have transformed me into
an anti-social psychopath. So the correctional system would put all
this energy to produce a monster? If it were so, it would be better
not to continue with this treatment, but to free me as soon as
possible to get better treatment somewhere else. But presently, I am
left in a maximun security penitentiary although I have been
classified medium security. So they really want to make a monster out
of me!
According to Correctional Services logic, when I am released for
good on july 6th 2005, they will free a female Hannibal Lector, an
intelligent, cynical monster-killer ironically created by the prison
system itself!
It would be more healthy and reasonable, for Correctional
Services, to free me on parole and provide me with parole officers so
that I can progressively re-integrate society until my sentence is
expired.
In spite of all the publicity created by Danson and the "Toronto
Sun"( who incidently is having financial difficulties that would
suggest that it should stop its sensationalism if it wants to get a
new readers), I do not believe that my life is in danger. If I'm
released on parole, I could refuse to speak with journalists or call
the authorities for help if any of them were too enterprising.
But it is very obvious that Correctional Services does everything
so that I am not freed on parole. The question is: "Why?". As I have
shown, their reasoning is very weak. It would be more honest for the
authorities to say that they don't want to rock the boat. If I was
freed now, public opinion would jump all over them, because such a
decision would not be percieved as "politically correct". And that
would cost them dearly. So, according to them, they have no choice.
But the real question the Parole Board Commission should ask
themelves is: "Where is society real interest in this case, on
Correctional Services and a few spiteful politicians side, or on the
side of the normal rules of justice?
In any case, as far as the public is concerned, what does the
average people know about psychiatrists theories? Do they make a
distinction between a psychologically unstable person and an
anti-social psychopath? Fortunately, this is only a concern between
psychiatrists. On the other hand, people usually know about parole
matters.
In reality, all the authorities are doing at this point is
postpone an ineluctable thing: my release on july 6th 2005. When I get
out, I will be facing a world that has changed a lot since I was first
incarcerated. Wouldn't it be wiser to give me a hand right now rather
than throwing me out in the street in two years?
Karla Homolka Teale
------------------------------------------------------------------------)
(Translation: argus1000)
Mhw61
>her 2003 review. She has just been refused parole again. Something
>unheard of in Canada, she will actually do her full 12 years behind
>bars! Why? because her name is Karla Homolka.
No, it's because she's a lying, conniving criminal who murdered her sister.
Max
"I heard Papa tell Mama to let that boy boogie woogie,
'cause it's in him, and it's got to come out"
--John Lee Hooker
Michael Snyder
>
> This is a letter from Karla Homolka written to her Parole Board for
> her 2003 review. She has just been refused parole again. Something
> unheard of in Canada, she will actually do her full 12 years behind
> bars! Why? because her name is Karla Homolka.
Why? Because she drugged her adolescent sister so she could
offer her unconscious body to her husband as a christmas present.
Because her sister choked to death on her own vomit after she
and her husband finished raping her. And because she STILL
claims that she did it because she was a "battered wife".
Michael Snyder
>
> >This is a letter from Karla Homolka written to her Parole Board for
> >her 2003 review. She has just been refused parole again. Something
> >unheard of in Canada, she will actually do her full 12 years behind
> >bars! Why? because her name is Karla Homolka.
>
> No, it's because she's a lying, conniving criminal who murdered her sister.
> Max
Now do you see what I mean about people making excuses for women who kill?
Karla actually dares to claim the battered wife excuse, and this person
(argus1000) actually buys it!
Mhw61
I have often said that I buy into the "battered woman" defense very rarely. I
view it as a mitigating circumstance, but I believe some penalty should still
apply--not that it should qualify you to get off scot-free, or receive parole
after you were sentenced for a manslaughter conviction. IMHO, Karla should be
damn glad that's all she got.
On the flip side, we have Robert Chamberlain finishing up his sentence--I still
can't believe anybody bought his defense.
tiny dancer
"Mhw61" <mh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030204151701...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >Now do you see what I mean about people making excuses for women who
kill?
>
> I have often said that I buy into the "battered woman" defense very
rarely. I
> view it as a mitigating circumstance, but I believe some penalty should
still
> apply--not that it should qualify you to get off scot-free, or receive
parole
> after you were sentenced for a manslaughter conviction. IMHO, Karla
should be
> damn glad that's all she got.
>
> On the flip side, we have Robert Chamberlain finishing up his sentence--I
still
> can't believe anybody bought his defense.
> Max
Me either..........I predict he'll be back in prison once again. One's like
him never change.
td
Sunny
Karla Homolka says:
> So I didn't invent the battered wife notion to save my skin. In
>fact, my lawyer had even advised me that a defense based on this idea
>would not work out.
It wouldn't work out because it's simply not true. She's no battered
wife. She was a willing accomplice, and enjoyed herself doing it. Knee
prints that Karla left in the form of bruises on her own sister's
backside helps corroborate this. She should be glad she only got 12
years and not the chair.
argus1000
<msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>Mhw61 wrote:
>>
>> >This is a letter from Karla Homolka written to her Parole Board
for
>> >her 2003 review. She has just been refused parole again. Something
>> >unheard of in Canada, she will actually do her full 12 years
behind
>> >bars! Why? because her name is Karla Homolka.
>>
>> No, it's because she's a lying, conniving criminal who murdered her
sister.
>> Max
>
>Now do you see what I mean about people making excuses for women who
kill?
>Karla actually dares to claim the battered wife excuse, and this
person
>(argus1000) actually buys it!
Where do you get the idea that I believe in the battered wife excuse
for Karla? On the contrary, I believe Karla fully participated in the
crimes because she enjoyed what she was doing. Karla is NO battered
wife.
Just because I publish a paper written by Karla doesn't mean I agree
with her... hello?
argus1000
Sunny
>Wouldn't it be wiser to give me a hand right now rather
>than throwing me out in the street in two years?
Karla, it would have been wiser to lock you up for the rest of your
life for what you did. You are a sadistic murderess and sexual
psychopath. And believe me, when you are "thrown out in the street" in
2005, you'll wish you stayed in prison. The attention you will garner
will be very negative indeed.
Either that, or they'll put you on "Celebrity Boxing."
Misstiblu
I am in Ontario Canada where this all happened.
I am one of the believers that she enjoyed every minute
of what they did and that not only should she be behind bars
for life but the lawyer that caused this mess should be in the
next cell.
I am surprised she wasn't already killed in the prision but
don't expect it will take long before something happens to
her once she does get out.
Misstiblu
argus1000
wrote:
>
>Karla Homolka says:
>> So I didn't invent the battered wife notion to save my skin. In
>>fact, my lawyer had even advised me that a defense based on this
idea
>>would not work out.
>
>It wouldn't work out because it's simply not true. She's no battered
>wife. She was a willing accomplice, and enjoyed herself doing it.
Knee
>prints that Karla left in the form of bruises on her own sister's
>backside helps corroborate this. She should be glad she only got 12
>years and not the chair.
Yes, you are right. She's a murderess. And she should do her time. But
in Canada, it is mandatory to release prisoners after two-thirds of
their sentences. Only in the case of an extremely dangerous individual
could this be overruled. I don't think Karla is dangerous. I think the
chances of her meeting another Bernardo are nil. So I think the
Correctionnal system should have had the courage to release her in
2001 instead of being intimidated by public pressure.
argus1000
Bobby Smith
"argus1000" <g_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf010773.03020...@posting.google.com...
I know that Bernardo was charged with 1st degree
murder but what was homolka charged with?
Bobby
argus1000
wrote:
>
>"argus1000" <g_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bf010773.03020...@posting.google.com...
>> On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:24:32 -0600, Sunny
<mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Karla Homolka says:
>> >> So I didn't invent the battered wife notion to save my skin.
In
>> >>fact, my lawyer had even advised me that a defense based on this
>> idea
>> >>would not work out.
>> >
>> >It wouldn't work out because it's simply not true. She's no
battered
>> >wife. She was a willing accomplice, and enjoyed herself doing it.
>> Knee
>> >prints that Karla left in the form of bruises on her own sister's
>> >backside helps corroborate this. She should be glad she only got
12
>> >years and not the chair.
>>
>> Yes, you are right. She's a murderess. And she should do her time.
But
>> in Canada, it is mandatory to release prisoners after two-thirds of
>> their sentences. Only in the case of an extremely dangerous
individual
>> could this be overruled. I don't think Karla is dangerous. I think
the
>> chances of her meeting another Bernardo are nil. So I think the
>> Correctionnal system should have had the courage to release her in
>> 2001 instead of being intimidated by public pressure.
>>
>> argus1000
>
>I know that Bernardo was charged with 1st degree
>murder but what was homolka charged with?
>
>Bobby
>
Two counts of manslaughter, I believe. She made a deal with the
government in return for her cooperation, i.e.: divulging what she
knew of the murders. The government had no proof at the time.
Otherwise, she would have been charged with first degree murder, of
course. But the government needed her too much at the time to convict
Bernardo. And now, the government can't stick to the deal they made.
Suddenlty, she's a psychopath. And she has to do her full term. Not
that want to absolve Karla, but I think this smells bad... Hoe can you
trust a government that shifts where the wind blows?
argus1000
Michael Snyder
>
> On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:24:32 -0600, Sunny <mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Karla Homolka says:
> >> So I didn't invent the battered wife notion to save my skin. In
> >>fact, my lawyer had even advised me that a defense based on this
> idea
> >>would not work out.
> >
> >It wouldn't work out because it's simply not true. She's no battered
> >wife. She was a willing accomplice, and enjoyed herself doing it.
> Knee
> >prints that Karla left in the form of bruises on her own sister's
> >backside helps corroborate this. She should be glad she only got 12
> >years and not the chair.
>
> Yes, you are right. She's a murderess. And she should do her time. But
> in Canada, it is mandatory to release prisoners after two-thirds of
> their sentences. Only in the case of an extremely dangerous individual
> could this be overruled. I don't think Karla is dangerous. I think the
> chances of her meeting another Bernardo are nil.
You still don't get it -- Paul never killed anyone UNTIL HE MET KARLA.
A lot of the shit that went down was HER IDEA. She's not dangerous
because she met Paul -- she's dangerous because she's a monster.
Michael Snyder
She plea-bargained to homicide -- BEFORE the cops saw her
raping her baby sister in the video.
jan49
> You still don't get it -- Paul never killed anyone UNTIL HE MET KARLA.
> A lot of the shit that went down was HER IDEA. She's not dangerous
> because she met Paul -- she's dangerous because she's a monster.
Aww, Snyder, I see you're still man's best friend <g>
Gotta ask: Whom did Karla rape and kidnap prior to meeting Paul?
--
Jan
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of
Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to
terrorize himself." - Pres. GW Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003
My funny face
Karla should have been given a sentence to keep her BONES in prison until hell
freezes over!
She wants a life? What about the lives she helped to take? Bitch, get real.
Lots of women have escaped abusive relationships, and Michael Snyder could
point out that yes, even men have escaped abusive relationships- why should she
expect rewards for being a piece of crap?
Karla- stay in prison, BEG to stay in the bowels of prison. You not only
belong there, but you obviously SHOULD be there,.. and you should look at a
picture of your younger sister, every single day. I bet you have no real shame
over your pathetic actions.
Cry me a river, you worthless girl- and then go drown in it..
I am trying to become the person I imagine myself to be, have patience.
Bobby Smith
The government was forced to keep their promise in respect to Homolka's
sentence because to do otherwise
would have ruined their credibility in future plea bargain
agreements. The parole board is responsible for not
releasing Homolka after she completed two-thirds but
I believe that the parole board operates independently
of the government so technically the government can't
be blamed. I agree with you on principle but I think that
the parole board is willing to take the blame in this case
for any perceived broken promises.
Wasn't David Milgard turned down for parole because
he refused to admit to a crime he didn't commit? Maybe
thats a loophole that the parole board can use.
Bobby
My funny face
It is because of your opinions that Karla should be released, that I for one,
am grateful you have NO SAY with the Parole board.
You are saying that, had she not met Bernardo, she would have been June F'ing
Cleaver???
Get it overwith, already!
>Yes, you are right. She's a murderess. And she should do her time. But
>in Canada, it is mandatory to release prisoners after two-thirds of
>their sentences. Only in the case of an extremely dangerous individual
>could this be overruled. I don't think Karla is dangerous. I think the
>chances of her meeting another Bernardo are nil. So I think the
>Correctionnal system should have had the courage to release her in
>2001 instead of being intimidated by public pressure.
>
>argus1000
>
>
>
>
>
>
I am trying to become the person I imagine myself to be, have patience.
My funny face
[snip]>
>Either that, or they'll put you on "Celebrity Boxing."
>
COOL! Can a non-celebrity, such as myself, offer to step in the ring with her?
jan49
> Argus-
> It is because of your opinions that Karla should be released, that I
> for one, am grateful you have NO SAY with the Parole board.
It's probably a positive that none of us do.
> You are saying that, had she not met Bernardo, she would have been
> June F'ing Cleaver???
In fact, this is what he is saying:
>> Yes, you are right. She's a murderess. And she should do her time.
>> But
>> in Canada, it is mandatory to release prisoners after two-thirds of
>> their sentences.
Can that be any clearer?
argus1000
<msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>argus1000 wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:24:32 -0600, Sunny
<mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Karla Homolka says:
>> >> So I didn't invent the battered wife notion to save my skin.
In
>> >>fact, my lawyer had even advised me that a defense based on this
>> idea
>> >>would not work out.
>> >
>> >It wouldn't work out because it's simply not true. She's no
battered
>> >wife. She was a willing accomplice, and enjoyed herself doing it.
>> Knee
>> >prints that Karla left in the form of bruises on her own sister's
>> >backside helps corroborate this. She should be glad she only got
12
>> >years and not the chair.
>>
>> Yes, you are right. She's a murderess. And she should do her time.
But
>> in Canada, it is mandatory to release prisoners after two-thirds of
>> their sentences. Only in the case of an extremely dangerous
individual
>> could this be overruled. I don't think Karla is dangerous. I think
the
>> chances of her meeting another Bernardo are nil.
>
>You still don't get it -- Paul never killed anyone UNTIL HE MET
KARLA.
>A lot of the shit that went down was HER IDEA. She's not dangerous
>because she met Paul -- she's dangerous because she's a monster.
Snyder, the point is not whether Karla is a monster. Maybe she is. But
for all I know, YOU might be the monster. Karla WOULD NOT BE dangerous
without Paul, go that? The point is the government didn't hold up to
their 12-year deal. Got that?
argus1000
argus1000
>Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>> You still don't get it -- Paul never killed anyone UNTIL HE MET KARLA.
>> A lot of the shit that went down was HER IDEA. She's not dangerous
>> because she met Paul -- she's dangerous because she's a monster.
>
>Aww, Snyder, I see you're still man's best friend <g>
>
>Gotta ask: Whom did Karla rape and kidnap prior to meeting Paul?
That's what I would like to know
argus1000
argus1000
>> >news:bf010773.03020...@posting.google.com...
>> <mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Karla Homolka says:
skin.
>> In
>> >> >>fact, my lawyer had even advised me that a defense based on
this
>> >> idea
>> >> >>would not work out.
>> >> >
>> battered
>> >> >wife. She was a willing accomplice, and enjoyed herself doing
it.
>> >> Knee
>> >> >prints that Karla left in the form of bruises on her own
sister's
>> >> >backside helps corroborate this. She should be glad she only
got
>> 12
>> >> >years and not the chair.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you are right. She's a murderess. And she should do her
time.
>> But
>> >> in Canada, it is mandatory to release prisoners after two-thirds
of
>> >> their sentences. Only in the case of an extremely dangerous
>> individual
>> >> could this be overruled. I don't think Karla is dangerous. I
think
>> the
>> >> Correctionnal system should have had the courage to release her
in
>> >> 2001 instead of being intimidated by public pressure.
>> >>
>> >> argus1000
>> >
brain on your shoulders.
argsu1000
Michael Snyder
jan49 wrote in message ...
>Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>> You still don't get it -- Paul never killed anyone UNTIL HE MET KARLA.
>> A lot of the shit that went down was HER IDEA. She's not dangerous
>> because she met Paul -- she's dangerous because she's a monster.
>
>Aww, Snyder, I see you're still man's best friend <g>
Jan! Where ya been, ol' girl?
>Gotta ask: Whom did Karla rape and kidnap prior to meeting Paul?
Ask away! The fact remains, it was HER idea to keep a sex slave
for Paul, HER idea to give him her baby sister for christmas, and
HER idea to kill the victims when he was done with them.
Michael Snyder
jan49 wrote in message ...
>
>> Argus-
>> It is because of your opinions that Karla should be released, that I
>> for one, am grateful you have NO SAY with the Parole board.
>
>It's probably a positive that none of us do.
>
>> You are saying that, had she not met Bernardo, she would have been
>> June F'ing Cleaver???
>
>In fact, this is what he is saying:
>
>>> Yes, you are right. She's a murderess. And she should do her time.
>>> But
>>> in Canada, it is mandatory to release prisoners after two-thirds of
>>> their sentences.
>
>Can that be any clearer?
They ain't gonna let her out. Can that be any clearer?
jan49
> Jan! Where ya been, ol' girl?
Trying to earn a living!! It sucks!!! :))
>
>> Gotta ask: Whom did Karla rape and kidnap prior to meeting Paul?
>
> Ask away! The fact remains, it was HER idea to keep a sex slave
> for Paul, HER idea to give him her baby sister for christmas, and
> HER idea to kill the victims when he was done with them.
LOL, well, I'm no Karla fan. She's seriously whacked, IMO.
Phoenix
@typhoon.sonic.net>, msn...@nospam.net
says...
Where has it been printed that it was Karla's
idea to kill the girls? Did Karla do the
actual killing or did Paul?
Also, since Karla hadn't committed any crimes
before meeting Paul, who's influence was
really the greater?
Toxic couple if you ask me, not good for the
world either of them. So I'm not trying to
bate you, Snyder, I'm just wondering where you
got this info.
bel
>
>
>
Lady Libra
Paul, the true blind fucking fact is that he brought out in her a
characteristic that not only traumatized countless young girls, but resulted
in death, the first of which was her SISTER. Did that stop her? The other
two victims would say no, but they cant, because they're DEAD.The blame is
on her for that one... the combo animal drug cocktail she gave to lil' sis
caused her death. SHE SHOWED NO REMORSE, AND STILL DOESN'T.
Would she do these crimes again on her own? Maybe, maybe not. When the
sickness is fed, the psyche yearns for that satisfaction again. What about
when she meets up with another man? And what if his kinky inclinations go
beyond that of Bernardo's sicko mind twists... What psychological term do we
give her then?
Why are you so eager to let her on her merry way?
Lady Libra
> I am surprised she wasn't already killed in the prision but
> don't expect it will take long before something happens to
> her once she does get out.
>
> Misstiblu
>
Again, I would be terribly remiss if I did't post this link... Place your
bets!
http://www.geocities.com/byebyekarla/
Remember, rule #3 states - No "fixing" the bet by killing her yourself -
wait, do I actually have to mention this? First of all, this would be
illegal and, more importantly, you will forfeit your place as Karla Death
Pool Champion. Killing is wrong. (Maybe we should have told Karla that!)
spo...@petitmorte.net
news:bf010773.03020...@posting.google.com:
> This is a letter from Karla Homolka written to her Parole Board for
> her 2003 review. She has just been refused parole again. Something
> unheard of in Canada, she will actually do her full 12 years behind
> bars! Why? because her name is Karla Homolka.
You don't think it has anything to do with her participation in the
murders?
It's her name that is keeping her in prison?
> Karla's letter below comes from Stephen Williams new book: 'Karla:
> Pacte avec le diable' soon to be published in English as 'Karla: Pact
> with the devil'.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> " Listen to what/
Nobody needs to read Homolka's rationalizations for helping to kill her own
sister.
Karla is no victim.
--
The power alone stored in my little hand
Could melt the Eiffel Tower
Turn the Sphinx into sand
Longtime Lurker
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:3E407076...@redhat.com...
> She plea-bargained to homicide -- BEFORE the cops saw her
> raping her baby sister in the video.
That I think is the whole problem - the deal was made BEFORE they saw ANY of
the videos. Apparently once the videos turned up the impression was that
she had been a willing participant but the deal had already been made. (I
cant really remember but wasnt it the lawyer who had the videos and then
turned them overto the police???)
Longtime Lurker
argus1000
Because a deal is a fucking deal. Do you have any notion what a deal
is?
At first, the government needed Karla testimony to convict Bernardo.
So they hired psycholigical 'experts' who said: "Poor Karla is a
'battered woman'; she has a 'learned helplessness' disorder; she is a
'compliant victim', etc..."plus all kinds of other assorted bullshit.
So they convicted Bernardo. Eveybody was happy. Karla was supposed to
serve 12 years, meaning she would be out in eight years. It's
compulsory. It's the Law.
Now when time came to hold up to the deal, the government sent Karla
in an institution where another hired bunch of psychological 'experts'
determined, all of a sudden, that she was a psychopath who had no
remorse. Under public pressure, now some cowardly politicians want to
see her serve her full 12 years.
Well, I'm sorry. That doesn't wash. I don't care if Karla killed my
own sister, a deal is a binding agreement. It is not subject to
political wishy-washy shennanigans.
Who can you trust if you can't trust the government?
argus1000
Nancy Rudins
"jan49" <jrodak_@_inorbit.com> writes:
>Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>> You still don't get it -- Paul never killed anyone UNTIL HE MET KARLA.
>> A lot of the shit that went down was HER IDEA. She's not dangerous
>> because she met Paul -- she's dangerous because she's a monster.
>
>Aww, Snyder, I see you're still man's best friend <g>
>
>Gotta ask: Whom did Karla rape and kidnap prior to meeting Paul?
>
>
>--
>Jan
>
Hi Jan,
Welcome back. I hope your book is going okay.
Kind regards,
Nancy
--
Nancy Rudins nru...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/nrudins/
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.
argus1000
Yes, there was a whole lot of shenannigans the week before the arrest.
It would fill a whole book. And books have been written, like "Pact
with the Devil". An enquiry commision has been instigated led by Judge
Galligan.
In early February 1993, police
had just received DNA evidence that Paul was the Scarborough rapist.
Toronto Police was interrogating him. At the same time, battered Karla
was hiding in her uncle's place. She was scared of Bernardo. So one of
the Toronto Police officers went to see Karla, and asked her some
pointed questions. Karla didn't reveal anything at this first
interview, but she got scared. She felt that police were on to
something more than the rapes, something in which she was involved.
She went into a trauma. During that week, she couln't conceal the
truth anymore and she spilled her guts to her aunt. They were offended
by the enormity of the crimes. They told her maybe she should hire a
lawyer. Next day, Karla went to see a lawyer of her acquaintance in
St-Catherines. One of the Toronto Police officer drove her there, but
Karla didn't reveal anything to that officer. Nevertheless, word got
around that she was seeing a lawyer, and she was contacted by Bevan of
the Green Task force. Her lawyer, Walker, told her she should tell the
police the truth in return for special consideration ("the deal"). At
that time, Walker contacted Segal, of the Justice Ministry, and they
started negociations.
That was in the second week of February 1993. Bevan then pretty much
knew that Bernardo and Karla was involved in the murders. He wanted to
arrest Bernardo for it. He couldn't arrest him for the rapes, even
though they had enough evidence, because rape was Toronto Police
jurisdiction. The Green Ribbon Task force jurisdiction was murder
only. So Bevan needed to arrest Bernardo for murder.
Metro Police had already an arrest warrant made for the rapes, but
Bevan had priority. Murder always has priority. Besides, Green Ribbon
was an arm of the Justice Ministry. They were boss. But Bevan needed
Karla confession to write the warrant. Bevan himself had nothing on
which to arrest Bertnardo. So they interviewed Karla, and she talked.
A handwritten agrrement in that second week of February 1993 was made
between Karla and her lawyer and Segal, just a few days before they
arrested Bernardo. And Bevan wrote down the arrest warrant for the
murders.
So when the Green Ribbon task force and Toronto Police entered
Bernardo's premises on February 17, it was mainly to corroborate
Karla's admissions, that is: find evidence. They were looking for
proof of what she was saying. They didn't find the compromising videos
(except one 2 minute long), but they did find something. Karla showed
them the area where Kristen French vomited, from which they extracted
her DNA. As proof evidence was coming in, there were revisions to "the
deal", which had been in force since February 14 1993.
Bevan had to rely on Karla's word to write the warrant and enter the
house. Even if some officials will deny it for fear of being branded
as too "liberal", Karla "deal" everything from the beginning.
argus1000
jan49
> Hi Jan,
>
> Welcome back. I hope your book is going okay.
Hey Nancy!!! You're one of the folks I've missed most of all. If I can ever
figure out how to get back into the other group, I'll be there forthwith.
The book is taking shape, but there are continual surprises -- such as
yesterday, when the receiver in this case filed suit against big-name sports
figures (Kareen Abdul-Jabaar, Eric Dickerson, etc.) for their role in
bilking unsuspecting investors.
It just gets curioser and curioser.
How are you, hon?
jan49
> I can't believe this... The fact is not that she didn't rape or kill
> before Paul, the true blind fucking fact is that he brought out in
> her a characteristic that not only traumatized countless young girls,
> but resulted in death, the first of which was her SISTER.
Relax, LL. We were addressing Snyder's points about the couple's behaviors
prior to their meeting.
Michael Snyder
jan49 wrote in message ...
>
>> I can't believe this... The fact is not that she didn't rape or kill
>> before Paul, the true blind fucking fact is that he brought out in
>> her a characteristic that not only traumatized countless young girls,
>> but resulted in death, the first of which was her SISTER.
>
>Relax, LL. We were addressing Snyder's points about the couple's behaviors
>prior to their meeting.
And I wasn't trying to say Karla was worse than Paul -- just that she was no better.
Michael Snyder
Phoenix wrote in message ...
Let's leave it at "toxic couple". Neither one of 'em should be free.
jan49
Gotcha.
--
Jan
"Columbia carried in its payroll classroom experiments from some of our
students in America." - Pres. GW Bush, Bethesda, Md., Feb. 3, 2003
Nancy Rudins
"jan49" <jrodak_@_inorbit.com> writes:
>Nancy Rudins wrote:
>
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> Welcome back. I hope your book is going okay.
>
>Hey Nancy!!! You're one of the folks I've missed most of all. If I can ever
>figure out how to get back into the other group, I'll be there forthwith.
>
Send me email and I'll let you know who to contact.
>The book is taking shape, but there are continual surprises -- such as
>yesterday, when the receiver in this case filed suit against big-name sports
>figures (Kareen Abdul-Jabaar, Eric Dickerson, etc.) for their role in
>bilking unsuspecting investors.
>
Wow! I'm going to have to read it. When do you anticipate
publication?
>It just gets curioser and curioser.
>
>How are you, hon?
>
I've been fine--just busier than a one-armed juggler. I've
had to cut back on my Usenet time but I hope things ease
up soon. It's sure good to see you back in action.
Glek
> When the sickness is fed, the psyche yearns for that satisfaction again.
> What about when she meets up with another man? And what if his kinky
> inclinations go beyond that of Bernardo's sicko mind twists... What
> psychological term do we give her then?
> Why are you so eager to let her on her merry way?
>
>
I can't imagine anyone having a more twisted mind than Paul Bernardo. (Nor do
I want to.)
Bernardo and Homolka both ought to have gotten life imprisonment.
After her release in a few years, I hope she never runs into Robert Chambers.
(Two freaks on the loose.)
tiny dancer
"Glek" <gle...@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9319B25FC...@207.217.77.22...
Wouldn't they make a great pair........what I can't understand is her
parents on cordial terms with her........after the murder of their other
daughter that way. That just blows my mind.
td
jan49
> what I can't understand is her
> parents on cordial terms with her........after the murder of their
> other daughter that way. That just blows my mind.
Did you read that book about the case? Those people are ... erm ...
*different ducks* to begin with, IMO.
tiny dancer
"jan49" <jrodak_@_inorbit.com> wrote in message
news:bIg0a.2998$HN5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> tiny dancer wrote:
> > what I can't understand is her
> > parents on cordial terms with her........after the murder of their
> > other daughter that way. That just blows my mind.
>
> Did you read that book about the case? Those people are ... erm ...
> *different ducks* to begin with, IMO.
No, I didn't read the book, what's the name of it??
td
jan49
> "jan49" <jrodak_@_inorbit.com> wrote in message
> news:bIg0a.2998$HN5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>> tiny dancer wrote:
>>> what I can't understand is her
>>> parents on cordial terms with her........after the murder of their
>>> other daughter that way. That just blows my mind.
>>
>> Did you read that book about the case? Those people are ... erm ...
>> *different ducks* to begin with, IMO.
>
> No, I didn't read the book, what's the name of it??
Ack! It's been forever since I read it .. I don't recall.
I believe a man wrote it.
Anyone have any clue?
Glek
news:8_g0a.2576$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net:
The book I have is "Deadly Innocence" by Scott Burnside and Alan Cairns,
though there have probably been other books written about this case.
Sirzappajoe
>From: g_a...@hotmail.com (argus1000)
>Date: 05/02/2003 8:09 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <bf010773.03020...@posting.google.com>
Who gives a shit!
Do you have any notion what a deal
>is?
>
>At first, the government needed Karla testimony to convict Bernardo.
>So they hired psycholigical 'experts' who said: "Poor Karla is a
>'battered woman'; she has a 'learned helplessness' disorder; she is a
>'compliant victim', etc..."plus all kinds of other assorted bullshit.
That what society does for woman who commit crimes, they envent a *disorder*
>So they convicted Bernardo. Eveybody was happy. Karla was supposed to
>serve 12 years, meaning she would be out in eight years. It's
>compulsory. It's the Law.
LOL
>Now when time came to hold up to the deal, the government sent Karla
>in an institution where another hired bunch of psychological 'experts'
>determined, all of a sudden, that she was a psychopath who had no
>remorse.
Smart, wasn't it?
Under public pressure, now some cowardly politicians want to
>see her serve her full 12 years.
Cowardly? In this world where woman are the perpetual *victim*, it takes balls
to put her in jail and keep her there. Be happy this bitch is doing time at all
and not spending a lousy six months in a psycho ward.
>
>Well, I'm sorry. That doesn't wash. I don't care if Karla killed my
>own sister,
PUKE!
> a deal is a binding agreement
Oh I get it now, your a sick fuck.
. It is not subject to
>political wishy-washy shennanigans.
Whaaaaaaa
>
>Who can you trust if you can't trust the government?
ROTFLMFAO!!!
mozzie
tiny dancer
Was it worth the read?? Did it go into her family at all? That whole part
of it always amazed me, how her family could support her after what she did
to her own sister.
td
jan49
Even though I think they are flat-out *weird*, I can understand why they
might. Imagine if one of your daughters did something horrible ... you'd
likely support her, even if it was to another.
In this case, the death was accidental (even though it was horribly
negligent), so it's not THAT much of a stretch, IMO, to understand where
they are coming from.
Glek
news:jei0a.16467$ZK1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com:
I haven't read it in years. My edition doesn't have an index. It is mostly
about Bernardo, and the trial. A perusal doesn't uncover much about her
family. Near the end of the book, the authors do speculate that Karla's
parents have kept loyal to her because they feel guilt in encouraging the
relationship between Paul and their daughter when they began seeing each
other, and for allowing Tammy and Lori--Karla's other sister--to visit them.
This by itself doesn't seem like a sufficient explanation to me. Were I her
father, I would be furious with her for not protecting her sister, let alone
participating in her torture.
I suspect that 1) the parents are in denial over the extent of Karla's
participation in these crimes, and 2)they bought into her argument that she
participated in them because she was a battered woman. These explanations,
in addition to feelings of guilt and love, may explain their support IMO.
This book does not seem to dwelve into that area very much.
Whether you or anyone else would find it worth reading, I cannot say. I plan
to reread it, but I would not mind reading another book as well to get a
different perspective.
Phoenix
@typhoon.sonic.net>, msn...@nospam.net
says...
Cool.
Yes I think they were equally culpable -
bel
>
>
>
tiny dancer
Thanks for the great synopsis Glek........I like to read things that delve
into the why's and where fors........what was this person like growing up.
You know, why did Karla turn out the way she did? What makes someone enjoy
hurting and killing other people? I just can't understand it. Hell, I cry
if I see one of my squirrels get hit by a car.......can't stand to see
anything hurt or in pain. It just boggles my mind.
td
jan49
> Thanks for the great synopsis Glek........I like to read things that
> delve into the why's and where fors........what was this person like
> growing up. You know, why did Karla turn out the way she did? What
> makes someone enjoy hurting and killing other people? I just can't
> understand it. Hell, I cry if I see one of my squirrels get hit by a
> car.......can't stand to see anything hurt or in pain. It just
> boggles my mind.
Well, then, I'm going to have to come up with the name of this book, TD,
because this is exactly the kind of stuff it covers: Karla's early days; how
she met Paul, etc.
tiny dancer
> tiny dancer wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the great synopsis Glek........I like to read things that
> > delve into the why's and where fors........what was this person like
> > growing up. You know, why did Karla turn out the way she did? What
> > makes someone enjoy hurting and killing other people? I just can't
> > understand it. Hell, I cry if I see one of my squirrels get hit by a
> > car.......can't stand to see anything hurt or in pain. It just
> > boggles my mind.
>
> Well, then, I'm going to have to come up with the name of this book, TD,
> because this is exactly the kind of stuff it covers: Karla's early days;
how
> she met Paul, etc.
Oooohhhh yeah, the fam,
td
jan49
> "jan49" <jrodak_@_inorbit.com> wrote in message
> news:unl0a.5514$tq4.2425@sccrnsc01...
>> Well, then, I'm going to have to come up with the name of this book,
>> TD, because this is exactly the kind of stuff it covers: Karla's
>> early days; how she met Paul, etc.
>
>
> Oooohhhh yeah, the fam,
Here it is, td:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H43725C53
tiny dancer
> tiny dancer wrote:
> > "jan49" <jrodak_@_inorbit.com> wrote in message
> > news:unl0a.5514$tq4.2425@sccrnsc01...
>
>
> >> Well, then, I'm going to have to come up with the name of this book,
> >> TD, because this is exactly the kind of stuff it covers: Karla's
> >> early days; how she met Paul, etc.
> >
> >
> > Oooohhhh yeah, the fam,
>
>
>
> Here it is, td:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?H43725C53
>
> --
> Jan
Thanks Jan, I'm going to order it.
td
Ranger00089
>Well, then, I'm going to have to come up with the name of this book, TD,
>> because this is exactly the kind of stuff it covers: Karla's early days;
>how
>> she met Paul, etc.
Invisible Darkness by Stephen Williams. A very good read. My wife and myself
read it and recommended it to our daughters, they both read it and agreed. It
is frightening to think that anyone so twisted can walk among us. Talking about
Karla and Paul. Each is twisted, together they became monsters.
Steve, SFC/US Army
tiny dancer
"Ranger00089" <range...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030206003012...@mb-ca.aol.com...
Thanks for the recommendation........I'm definitely going to read it after
seeing your wife and daughters did and liked it. It is frightening to know
that these kinds of people are out there, could be our neighbors.........
After reading and posting here for over a year now, I will admit, I do tend
to look at my neighbors a bit differently, wondering what's behind those
doors........ Thanks Steve,
td
jan49
Thanks, Steve. I'm glad someone else read and can recommend this book. I
thought it went into impressive detail about Karla's evolution, especially,
and while it did tend to pad the presumption that she was an abused woman,
it didn't paint her in a particularly flattering light, IMO.
tiny dancer
> Ranger00089 wrote:
> > td asked;
> >
> >> Well, then, I'm going to have to come up with the name of this book,
> >> TD,
> >>> because this is exactly the kind of stuff it covers: Karla's early
> >>> days;
> >> how
> >>> she met Paul, etc.
> >
> > Invisible Darkness by Stephen Williams. A very good read. My wife and
> > myself read it and recommended it to our daughters, they both read it
> > and agreed. It is frightening to think that anyone so twisted can
> > walk among us. Talking about Karla and Paul. Each is twisted,
> > together they became monsters.
>
> Thanks, Steve. I'm glad someone else read and can recommend this book. I
> thought it went into impressive detail about Karla's evolution,
especially,
> and while it did tend to pad the presumption that she was an abused woman,
> it didn't paint her in a particularly flattering light, IMO.
>
> --
> Jan
Thanks Jan, I always thought she carried as much guilt as he did, man she
got off easy for was it three murders?
td
shepatRE...@sympatico.ca
>Well, then, I'm going to have to come up with the name of this book, TD,
>because this is exactly the kind of stuff it covers: Karla's early days; how
>she met Paul, etc.
I think you mean Invisible Darkness by Stephen Williams.
Sheila Paterson
Note: address transmogrified.
Michael Snyder
jan49 wrote in message ...
"Horribly negligent" is too weak a term for the drugging/rape of a 13
year old.
Glek
Thank you Steve and Jan. I am definitely going to order it as well.
argus1000
> tiny dancer wrote:
> > "jan49" <jrodak_@_inorbit.com> wrote in message
> > news:unl0a.5514$tq4.2425@sccrnsc01...
>
>
> >> Well, then, I'm going to have to come up with the name of this book,
> >> TD, because this is exactly the kind of stuff it covers: Karla's
> >> early days; how she met Paul, etc.
> >
> >
> > Oooohhhh yeah, the fam,
>
>
>
> Here it is, td:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?H43725C53
Stephen Williams 'Invisible darkness' book is very good, has
penetrating psychological insights, but Burnside and Cairns 'Deadly
Innocence' has more one-on-one witnesses interviews and more details.
One is a good as the other, OMO.
argus1000
jan49
>
> "Horribly negligent" is too weak a term for the drugging/rape of a 13
> year old.
We don't know that it wasn't consensual, though.
tiny dancer
> Michael Snyder wrote:
>
> >
> > "Horribly negligent" is too weak a term for the drugging/rape of a 13
> > year old.
>
> We don't know that it wasn't consensual, though.
Yeah, she could have been asking for it..........you couldn't really see the
expression on her face.......she may have been enjoying it........and last
but not least..........she should have known better than to be
drinking..........she should have anticipated what might happen putting
herself in such a precarious position..........
Does that about sum up all the possible explanations as to why the female is
most likely at fault...........have I perhaps forgotten any snyderisms??
td
jan49
> "jan49" <jrodak_@_inorbit.com> wrote in message
> news:uZv0a.8971$2H6.372@sccrnsc04...
>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Horribly negligent" is too weak a term for the drugging/rape of a
>>> 13 year old.
>>
>> We don't know that it wasn't consensual, though.
>
>
> Yeah, she could have been asking for it..........you couldn't really
> see the expression on her face.......she may have been enjoying
> it........and last but not least..........she should have known
> better than to be drinking..........she should have anticipated what
> might happen putting herself in such a precarious position..........
Exactly. We can't take Karla's word on it.
Oh, but what about Paul? He's a guy. I'll bet HIS take would be more
reliable!!! We'll ask Paul if Tami consented.
mary
jan49 wrote:
> Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>
>>"Horribly negligent" is too weak a term for the drugging/rape of a 13
>>year old.
>>
>
> We don't know that it wasn't consensual, though.
Exactly. Perhaps it was yet another case of "'rape' in name only."
::rollseyes::
> --
> Jan
>
> "Columbia carried in its payroll classroom experiments from some of our
> students in America." - Pres. GW Bush, Bethesda, Md., Feb. 3, 2003
LMAO. Tell me this guy isn't *really* leader of the free world...
mary.
jan49
> jan49 wrote:
>
>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Horribly negligent" is too weak a term for the drugging/rape of a
>>> 13 year old.
>>>
>>
>> We don't know that it wasn't consensual, though.
>
>
> Exactly. Perhaps it was yet another case of "'rape' in name only."
>>> rollseyes::
Hehe ... I'm glad you guys got it :))
>>
>> "Columbia carried in its payroll classroom experiments from some of
>> our students in America." - Pres. GW Bush, Bethesda, Md., Feb. 3,
>> 2003
>
>
> LMAO. Tell me this guy isn't *really* leader of the free world...
Painful, but true.
mary
tiny dancer wrote:
> "jan49" <jrodak_@_inorbit.com> wrote in message
> news:uZv0a.8971$2H6.372@sccrnsc04...
>
>>Michael Snyder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Horribly negligent" is too weak a term for the drugging/rape of a 13
>>>year old.
>>>
>>We don't know that it wasn't consensual, though.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, she could have been asking for it..........you couldn't really see the
> expression on her face.......she may have been enjoying it........and last
> but not least..........she should have known better than to be
> drinking..........she should have anticipated what might happen putting
> herself in such a precarious position..........
>
> Does that about sum up all the possible explanations as to why the female is
> most likely at fault...........have I perhaps forgotten any snyderisms??
>
> td
What was she wearing? I heard it might've been a *gasp* miniskirt!!
m.
tiny dancer
"mary" <marya...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E429585...@NOSPAMattbi.com...
Plus she was that ripe old age of 13 once again. ;)
td
tiny dancer
"mary" <marya...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message
Thank you mary, how could I have forgotten that old standard! ;)
td
>
Michael Snyder
See, even when I agree with you chicks, it's not good enough for ya.
Go figure...
jan49
You're agreeing because of the gender of one of the perps, Michael. Don't be
so transparent :))
Michael Snyder
jan49 wrote in message ...
>> mary wrote:
>>>
>>> tiny dancer wrote:
>
>>> What was she wearing? I heard it might've been a *gasp* miniskirt!!
>>
>>
>> See, even when I agree with you chicks, it's not good enough for ya.
>> Go figure...
>
>You're agreeing because of the gender of one of the perps, Michael. Don't be
>so transparent :))
Show me where I've ever made light of a VIOLENT rape, by
a perp of any gender.
tiny dancer
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9bG0a.64506$Ik.26...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Show me where you've ever accepted anything as counting as a real rape to
begin with...........
td
>
>
>
argus1000
> Michael Snyder wrote:
> > mary wrote:
> >>
> >> tiny dancer wrote:
>
> >> What was she wearing? I heard it might've been a *gasp* miniskirt!!
> >
> >
> > See, even when I agree with you chicks, it's not good enough for ya.
> > Go figure...
>
> You're agreeing because of the gender of one of the perps, Michael. Don't be
> so transparent :))
You people make me feel sorry I started this thread in the first
place. Instead of discussing the isssues at hand, i.e.: Karla Homolka
predicament, with your ad hominem attacks you behave like children
playing with toys guns. Grow up, for Christsakes! And the funniest
thing some of you is calling the other sick... Don't you have
anything better to do? A pet project? Take a walk in the snow? Read a
book? Go out?
argus1000
tiny dancer
"argus1000" <g_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf010773.03020...@posting.google.com...
Hey........this is SOP around here, what did you want us to discuss??
td
mary
Michael Snyder wrote:
But it's OK to make light of a non-VIOLENT rape?
sick.
mary.
Michael Snyder
mary wrote in message <3E43E64A...@NOSPAMattbi.com>...
It's not OK to point out that there's a difference?
jan49
> mary wrote in message <3E43E64A...@NOSPAMattbi.com>...
>>
>>
>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>
>>> jan49 wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> mary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> tiny dancer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was she wearing? I heard it might've been a *gasp*
>>>>>> miniskirt!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> See, even when I agree with you chicks, it's not good enough for
>>>>> ya.
>>>>> Go figure...
>>>>>
>>>> You're agreeing because of the gender of one of the perps,
>>>> Michael. Don't be so transparent :))
>>>>
>>>
>>> Show me where I've ever made light of a VIOLENT rape, by
>>> a perp of any gender.
>>
>>
>> But it's OK to make light of a non-VIOLENT rape?
>
> It's not OK to point out that there's a difference?
Snyder, you're losing it.
--
Jan
Atheist #2028
"I need to be able to move the right people to the right place at the
right time to protect you, and I'm not going to accept a lousy bill out
of the United Nations Senate." - Pres. GW Bush, South Bend, Ind., Oct.
31, 2002
mary
Michael Snyder wrote:
> mary wrote in message <3E43E64A...@NOSPAMattbi.com>...
>
>>
>>Michael Snyder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>jan49 wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>mary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>tiny dancer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What was she wearing? I heard it might've been a *gasp* miniskirt!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>See, even when I agree with you chicks, it's not good enough for ya.
>>>>>Go figure...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>You're agreeing because of the gender of one of the perps, Michael. Don't be
>>>>so transparent :))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Show me where I've ever made light of a VIOLENT rape, by
>>>a perp of any gender.
>>>
>>
>>But it's OK to make light of a non-VIOLENT rape?
>>
>
> It's not OK to point out that there's a difference?
Not when your implication is that a non-violent rape isn't *really* a rape.
mary.
Michael Snyder
mary wrote in message <3E45175F...@NOSPAMattbi.com>...
>
>
>Michael Snyder wrote:
>
>> mary wrote in message <3E43E64A...@NOSPAMattbi.com>...
>>
>>>
>>>Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>jan49 wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>mary wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>tiny dancer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What was she wearing? I heard it might've been a *gasp* miniskirt!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>See, even when I agree with you chicks, it's not good enough for ya.
>>>>>>Go figure...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>You're agreeing because of the gender of one of the perps, Michael. Don't be
>>>>>so transparent :))
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Show me where I've ever made light of a VIOLENT rape, by
>>>>a perp of any gender.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But it's OK to make light of a non-VIOLENT rape?
>>>
>>
>> It's not OK to point out that there's a difference?
>
>
>Not when your implication is that a non-violent rape isn't *really* a rape.
You girls have an extremely poor track record at deducing my implication.
Which is worse, Mary? Violent rape? Or a statutory rape that involves
no violence or coercion? You feminists like to imply that there is no
difference.
jan49
And you whateverists like to imply that you can classify an entire crime,
ascribing to it universal characteristics and side effects.
Michael Snyder
jan49 wrote in message ...
>Michael Snyder wrote:
>> mary wrote in message <3E43E64A...@NOSPAMattbi.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>
>>>> jan49 wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> mary wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tiny dancer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What was she wearing? I heard it might've been a *gasp*
>>>>>>> miniskirt!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See, even when I agree with you chicks, it's not good enough for
>>>>>> ya.
>>>>>> Go figure...
>>>>>>
>>>>> You're agreeing because of the gender of one of the perps,
>>>>> Michael. Don't be so transparent :))
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Show me where I've ever made light of a VIOLENT rape, by
>>>> a perp of any gender.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it's OK to make light of a non-VIOLENT rape?
>>
>> It's not OK to point out that there's a difference?
>
>Snyder, you're losing it.
Jan, my sweet! It doesn't seem as if your vacation was very restful for you!
You used to be able to do better than meaningless, non sequitur one-liners.
Michael Snyder
jan49 wrote in message <0O91a.30866$2H6.871@sccrnsc04>...
>
>And you whateverists like to imply that you can classify an entire crime,
>ascribing to it universal characteristics and side effects.
And you jan49's and tiny-dancers like to foolishly attempt to put words
in my mouth. I am in fact saying the opposite -- that you CANNOT
lump statutory rape and violent rape into one category, and ascribe
the same characteristics to both.
jan49
I don't lump anything into one category, my dear. I speak on the merits of
each case. How could anyone not?
Michael Snyder
jan49 wrote in message ...
>> jan49 wrote in message <0O91a.30866$2H6.871@sccrnsc04>...
>>>
>>> And you whateverists like to imply that you can classify an entire
>>> crime, ascribing to it universal characteristics and side effects.
>>
>> And you jan49's and tiny-dancers like to foolishly attempt to put
>> words in my mouth. I am in fact saying the opposite -- that you
>> CANNOT
>> lump statutory rape and violent rape into one category, and ascribe
>> the same characteristics to both.
>
>I don't lump anything into one category, my dear. I speak on the merits of
>each case. How could anyone not?
Oh! So then, you're NOT the person who just posted this?
> Charles Stuart didn't seem to have a problem.
>
> Why should Scott Peterson?
jan49
Yes, and with your usual inability to think critically and analytically, you
totally missed the point.
tiny dancer
> Michael Snyder wrote:
> > jan49 wrote in message ...
> >> Michael Snyder wrote:
> >>> jan49 wrote in message <0O91a.30866$2H6.871@sccrnsc04>...
> >>>>
> >>>> And you whateverists like to imply that you can classify an entire
> >>>> crime, ascribing to it universal characteristics and side effects.
> >>>
> >>> And you jan49's and tiny-dancers like to foolishly attempt to put
> >>> words in my mouth. I am in fact saying the opposite -- that you
> >>> CANNOT
> >>> lump statutory rape and violent rape into one category, and ascribe
> >>> the same characteristics to both.
> >>
> >> I don't lump anything into one category, my dear. I speak on the
> >> merits of each case. How could anyone not?
> >
> > Oh! So then, you're NOT the person who just posted this?
> >> Charles Stuart didn't seem to have a problem.
> >>
> >> Why should Scott Peterson?
>
> Yes, and with your usual inability to think critically and analytically,
you
> totally missed the point.
I'm certain it was all that celebrating.......after all, it isn't everyday
your group takes 'kook of the month'......... ;)
td
DedNdogYrs
What's snow?
Dogs & children first.
Michael Snyder
jan49 wrote in message <2xn1a.42352$tq4.2608@sccrnsc01>...
>Michael Snyder wrote:
>> jan49 wrote in message ...
>>> Michael Snyder wrote:
>>>> jan49 wrote in message <0O91a.30866$2H6.871@sccrnsc04>...
>>>>>
>>>>> And you whateverists like to imply that you can classify an entire
>>>>> crime, ascribing to it universal characteristics and side effects.
>>>>
>>>> And you jan49's and tiny-dancers like to foolishly attempt to put
>>>> words in my mouth. I am in fact saying the opposite -- that you
>>>> CANNOT
>>>> lump statutory rape and violent rape into one category, and ascribe
>>>> the same characteristics to both.
>>>
>>> I don't lump anything into one category, my dear. I speak on the
>>> merits of each case. How could anyone not?
>>
>> Oh! So then, you're NOT the person who just posted this?
>>> Charles Stuart didn't seem to have a problem.
>>>
>>> Why should Scott Peterson?
>
>Yes, and with your usual inability to think critically and analytically, you
>totally missed the point.
Bunch of words, no substance. Did you treat those two men individually?
Or did you lump them together?
Michael Snyder
bravo wrote in message ...
>you, Snyder.
1) I didn't do that, and 2) I'm not the one here saying "I don't lump anything
jan49
> 1) I didn't do that, and 2) I'm not the one here saying "I don't lump
> anything into one category, my dear".
Well, dear, you seem to be the ONLY one not capable of understanding my
point in this thread. But .. what's new, eh?
tiny dancer
"jan49" <kpo...@notathome.com> wrote in message
news:UKF1a.58238$HN5.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> Michael Snyder wrote:
>
> > 1) I didn't do that, and 2) I'm not the one here saying "I don't lump
> > anything into one category, my dear".
>
> Well, dear, you seem to be the ONLY one not capable of understanding my
> point in this thread. But .. what's new, eh?
>
>
> --
> Jan
> Atheist #2028
Ah give him a break jan, was probably out all night celebratin his big
win........after all, one doesn't get 'kook of the
month'........everyday.........well wait a minute, in mikeys case I souldn't
speak so soon, should I?? I nominate soc boyz for February! <g>
td
tiny dancer
"bravo" <br...@yachoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8fe4v0so9ni4frmh...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 04:40:27 GMT, "tiny dancer"
> <tinyda...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"jan49" <kpo...@notathome.com> wrote in message
> >news:UKF1a.58238$HN5.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >> Michael Snyder wrote:
> >>
> >> > 1) I didn't do that, and 2) I'm not the one here saying "I don't lump
> >> > anything into one category, my dear".
> >>
> >> Well, dear, you seem to be the ONLY one not capable of understanding my
> >> point in this thread. But .. what's new, eh?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jan
> >> Atheist #2028
> >
> >
> >Ah give him a break jan, was probably out all night celebratin his big
> >win........after all, one doesn't get 'kook of the
> >month'........everyday.........well wait a minute, in mikeys case I
souldn't
> >speak so soon, should I?? I nominate soc boyz for February! <g>
> >
> >td
>
> or stopped by the novelty shop and bought one of the cheap ones for a
> tawdry one-night stand.
I think that must be it cuz I'm sure 'the big girl' sprang a leak a couple
weeks back when mikey boy flipped out big time, I believe he hit menstrual
blood red on giselle's chart that day...... ;)
Michael Snyder
>
> One would wonder if in his celebrating, he took his blow-up girlfriend
> or stopped by the novelty shop and bought one of the cheap ones for a
> tawdry one-night stand.
The maturity of this little girl's circle never ceases to amaze me...
tiny dancer
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:3E487E6C...@redhat.com...
Yup, mikey's been runnin around just a chatterin away tonight, I'd say he
managed to patch up the big girl. ;)
td