Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Who's Paul Bernardo?
    
    Paul
    

    You dont really need to know.
    
    chris
    

    Were you drunk when you wrote the basenote ??
    
    no offence but, I have never read so much bollox in my entire life.

For .1 
    
    
    AP 18 May 95 18:06 EDT V0445
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
    TORONTO (AP) -- One of Canada's most sensational murder cases opened
    Thursday with a prosecutor alleging that Paul Bernardo strangled two
    teen-age girls after kidnapping them and forcing them to commit
    degrading sexual acts which he videotaped. 

    The opening statement by prosecutor Ray Houlahan lifted the veil on
    nearly two years of court-ordered censorship. 

    It is only now, as the case is being presented to the jury, that the
    graphic details of the allegations against Bernardo, 30, can be
    published legally. 

    Still at issue is whether journalists and other courtroom spectators
    can view the videotapes, which the judge said would be graphic and
    potentially disturbing. 

    The victims' families want only the judge, jury and lawyers to see and
    hear the videotapes. News organizations and Bernardo's lawyer argue the
    need for an open court. 

    Bernardo faces two counts of first-degree murder in the 1991 and 1992
    deaths of Kristen French, 15, and Leslie Mahaffy, 14. He also faces two
    counts of aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible
    confinement, and one of indignity to a human body. 

    Houlahan outlined his case against Bernardo and described the
    involvement of his former wife, Karla Homolka, 25. 

    Homolka was convicted of manslaughter in the same cases and sentenced
    to 12 years in prison after a brief trial in 1993. The judge banned
    publication of details of her trial until her husband's trial has
    concluded, fearing that making them known before then would prejudice
    the trial. 

    Houlahan said he would outline details of a plea bargain she worked out
    with the prosecution, reportedly in exchange for testimony against her
    husband. 

    Mahaffy's mother slumped and sobbed as Houlahan described how her
    daughter was kidnapped, abused, strangled with electrical wire and cut
    into 10 pieces that were encased in cement and tossed in a lake. 

    Houlahan said Bernardo kidnapped Mahaffy on June 15, 1991, near her
    home and took her to his house, "keeping her captive and forcibly
    blindfolded" for a day. He beat her and forced her to commit degrading
    sexual acts. 

    After questioning the teen-ager to determine if she could identify him,
    he decided to strangle her, said Houlahan. 

    A year later, Houlahan said, Bernardo and Homolka lured French to their
    car on the pretense of asking for directions. French also was beaten
    and forced to engage in various sexual acts before she was strangled
    three days later. 

    All the sex acts were videotaped. The killings occurred in southern
    Ontario in the Niagara Falls region. 

    Bernardo's trial formally began a year ago. But it has been tied up
    with procedural wrangling, so Thursday was the first time the public
    could hear details of the prosecution's case. 

    Toronto's biggest courtroom was packed with 100 spectators and 60
    reporters. The court earlier rejected a bid by the Canadian
    Broadcasting Corp., Canada's public radio and television network, to
    broadcast the trial live. 

    >Still at issue is whether journalists and other courtroom spectators
    >can view the videotapes, which the judge said would be graphic and
    >potentially disturbing.
    
    The videos should not be shown in open court.  It would be a violation
    of the privacy of the victims.  Why should their last horrible moments
    on earth - bound, tortured, and humiliated - be displayed publicly?  
    

    I would have thought such things would be more influential towards a
    suitable punishment ?

    re: .5
    
     Understood, and I agree with you. But I still think that the judge and
    jury ought to see them.

    
    The judge and jury will see the tapes...but the spectators and
    media are still up in the air at the moment.
    

     On the one hand, I have a morbid curiousity to see such things for
    myself. I really don't know why, but, for example, I'd like to see the
    crime scene photos from the Brown-Simpson/Goldman murders. No doubt it
    would turn my stomach, but I'd still like to see them. But I also
    believe that there ought to be some level of dignity afforded the
    decedents' relatives, some amount of privacy. It's difficult to
    reconcile. Must be the influence of watching years of crime
    investigations on TV...

    
    There's a similar case in the U.S. I believe...the case of Charles
    Ng, who (along with another guy who has since killed himself) kid-
    napped, tortured and raped several women, and videotaped the incidents.
    How were those tapes handled in court, or has he even gone to trial
    yet?
    

    Levesque,
    
    The prosecution is trying to get Simpson/Goldman photos shown to
    the jury right now and the defense is fighting them tooth and nail
    (says photos too prejudicial).
    
    I think Ito will allow some to be shown to the jury, but if he does
    my guess is the public will never see them.
    

    
    Judge ruled yesterday that the tapes will be shown to jurors and 
    court officials only, BUT...the media and spectators will be allowed
    to LISTEN to the tapes while they are being shown.
    
    The tapes are to be introduced into evidence today.
    

    I ,for one, am glad I don't have to watch that.

    Keep a lid on it or I'll lash out and brow beat you.

They published pictures of a *badly* beaten up Karla on the front page of yesterdays paper. 
These were shown in court the day before and it looks like she is wearing dark sun 
glasses - no kidding, the black circles around both eyes are horrific and apparently she 
was similarily bruised all over her body.  Her sister (Lori) testified that, despite being 
beaten, Karla's father had to physically drag her out of the house she shared with Paul.
This was January 1993.

A bit more background in this case that I don't think anyone has written about.... Karla's 
youngest sister (Tammy) was *allegedly* killed by Paul and Karla Christmas Eve 1990.  
Paul had a fantasy of having sex with the 15 year old and kept pressing Karla until she 
finally agreed to help him.  They drugged Tammy and the pair then took turns sexually 
assaulting her and videotaping.  Tammy later started to choke and ended up dying.  After 
an investigation, her death was ruled accidental.  The prosecution claims that from that 
moment on, Paul was in complete control of Karla because of her fear that he would tell her 
family about her part in Tammy's death.  Part of the videotape shown yesterday was there 
assault on Tammy and you can hear Karla saying " I did, I did....it's disgusting"

I have a newspaper report of the chronology of events that a friend of mine in the States 
asked me to mail.  In case any of you are interested, I'll enter it now (without permission 
from the source).  

Sept 1987:  After initially showing love for Homolka, Bernardo soon asserts his control and 
domination over her

Christmas Eve 1990:  Coaxed by Bernardo, Homolka steals drugs from her veterinarian 
employer and helps drug her sister, Tammy, 15.  The pair videotape themselves taking 
turns assaulting the teen.  Tammy asphyxiates and dies.

June 15, 1991:  Bernardo trails Leslie Mahaffy, 14, to the backyard of her Burlington home 
and abducts her at knifepoint.  The teen is blindfolded and is subjected to 24 hours of 
sexual abuse.

June 16, 1991:  Bernardo, afraid Mahaffy will identify him, decides to strangle her.  Before 
he kills her, Homolka asks Mahaffy be given sleeping pills and hands her a stuffed bear for 
comfort. Later that day, Father's Day, Homolka's parents come for dinner.  Karla has to stop 
her mother from getting potatoes out of the basement where Mahaffy's body has been 
hidden.

June 17, 1991:  While Homolka works, Bernardo uses a hand-held circular saw to cut 
Mahaffy's body into 10 pieces and encases them in 8 separate blocks of cement.  The 
couple dump the blocks in Lake Gibson.

June 29, 1991:  Bernardo marries Homolka and later tells her he did it in order to prevent 
her from testifying against him for his crimes.  He refuses to have intercourse that night, 
insisting on fellatio.  That same day, police recover Mahaffy's body parts from Lake 
Gibson.

July 1, 1991:  Bernardo and Homolka take a Hawaiian trip she later calls "the honeymoon 
from hell."

Summer of 1991:  Homolka and Bernardo drug and sexually assault a young girl in a 
manner reminiscent of the Tammy incident.  A videotape shows Homolka smiling while 
performing oral sex and other acts on the unconscious teen.  (Me:  The prosecution claims 
Karla is smiling on all the videos because Paul beat her after she wrecked one by 
complaining)

April 16, 1992:  Executing Bernardo's meticulous plans, Homolka lures schoolgirl Kristen 
French to their car by asking directions on a map.  While the unwitting French assists, 
Bernardo creeps behind her with a knife.  Homolka jumps into the back seat and hold 
French's hair so she can't escape.  For four days, Kristen is abused by both Homolka and 
Bernardo, being forced into anal and oral sex with Bernardo, lesbian sex with Homolka, 
and sex with objects.  Bernardo is videotaped urinating and attempting to defecate on her.
French watches a televised appeal from her father, Doug, for her to be strong and help will 
come.  French becomes defiant and announces "some things are worth dying for".  
Enraged, Bernardo beats Kristen and forces her to watch a videotape of a naked Leslie 
Mahaffy.  French recognizes the name but becomes more defiant.

April 19, 1992:  Bernardo wants to keep his latest victim alive longer, but Homolka tells him 
they have to have Easter Sunday dinner at her parent's home.  French is strangled with the 
same electrical cord used to murder Mahaffy.  That night, Bernardo and Homolka dump 
French's naked body in a ditch north of Burlington.  Bernardo purposely dumps it near 
Mahaffy's gravesite.

May 12, 1992:  Police visit Bernardo and he tells Homolka he was as "cool as a 
cucumber."  The officers noted the handsome wedding photographs on the walls.

July 21, 1992:  Bernardo watches with glee a television special that reveals stunning errors 
in the police investigation, including a police search for a non-existent Camaro and two 
male suspects.

Jan 9, 1993:  Homolka leaves Bernardo after being beaten and within weeks has taken up 
with a Brampton-area man while staying with an aunt and uncle.

July 6, 1993:  Homolka pleads guilty to two counts of manslaughter and is sentenced to 12 
years, a conviction which includes the deaths of Mahaffy, French and Tammy Homolka.

    80 columns!

        <<< Note 432.16 by TROOA::TRP109::Chris "dedicated sybarite" >>>
                              -< Order of events >-

They published pictures of a *badly* beaten up Karla on the front page of 
yesterdays paper.  These were shown in court the day before and it looks like 
she is wearing dark sun glasses - no kidding, the black circles around both 
eyes are horrific and apparently she was similarily bruised all over her 
body.  Her sister (Lori) testified that, despite being beaten, Karla's father 
had to physically drag her out of the house she shared with Paul.  This was 
January 1993.

A bit more background in this case that I don't think anyone has written 
about.... Karla's youngest sister (Tammy) was *allegedly* killed by Paul 
and Karla Christmas Eve 1990.  Paul had a fantasy of having sex with the 
15 year old and kept pressing Karla until she finally agreed to help him.  
They drugged Tammy and the pair then took turns sexually assaulting her 
and videotaping.  Tammy later started to choke and ended up dying.  After 
an investigation, her death was ruled accidental.  The prosecution claims 
that from that moment on, Paul was in complete control of Karla because of 
her fear that he would tell her family about her part in Tammy's death.  
Part of the videotape shown yesterday was there assault on Tammy and you 
can hear Karla saying " I did, I did....it's disgusting"

I have a newspaper report of the chronology of events that a friend of mine 
in the States asked me to mail.  In case any of you are interested, I'll 
enter it now (without permission from the source).  

Sept 1987:  After initially showing love for Homolka, Bernardo soon asserts 
his control and domination over her

Christmas Eve 1990:  Coaxed by Bernardo, Homolka steals drugs from her 
veterinarian employer and helps drug her sister, Tammy, 15.  The pair 
videotape themselves taking turns assaulting the teen.  Tammy asphyxiates 
and dies.

June 15, 1991:  Bernardo trails Leslie Mahaffy, 14, to the backyard of her 
Burlington home and abducts her at knifepoint.  The teen is blindfolded and 
is subjected to 24 hours of sexual abuse.

June 16, 1991:  Bernardo, afraid Mahaffy will identify him, decides to 
strangle her.  Before he kills her, Homolka asks Mahaffy be given sleeping 
pills and hands her a stuffed bear for comfort. Later that day, Father's 
Day, Homolka's parents come for dinner.  Karla has to stop her mother from 
getting potatoes out of the basement where Mahaffy's body has been hidden.

June 17, 1991:  While Homolka works, Bernardo uses a hand-held circular saw 
to cut Mahaffy's body into 10 pieces and encases them in 8 separate blocks 
of cement.  The couple dump the blocks in Lake Gibson.

June 29, 1991:  Bernardo marries Homolka and later tells her he did it in 
order to prevent her from testifying against him for his crimes.  He refuses 
to have intercourse that night,  insisting on fellatio.  That same day, 
police recover Mahaffy's body parts from Lake Gibson.

July 1, 1991:  Bernardo and Homolka take a Hawaiian trip she later calls 
"the honeymoon from hell."

Summer of 1991:  Homolka and Bernardo drug and sexually assault a young girl 
in a manner reminiscent of the Tammy incident.  A videotape shows Homolka 
smiling while performing oral sex and other acts on the unconscious teen.  
(Me:  The prosecution claims Karla is smiling on all the videos because Paul 
beat her after she wrecked one by complaining)

April 16, 1992:  Executing Bernardo's meticulous plans, Homolka lures 
schoolgirl Kristen French to their car by asking directions on a map.  While 
the unwitting French assists,  Bernardo creeps behind her with a knife.  
Homolka jumps into the back seat and hold French's hair so she can't escape.  
For four days, Kristen is abused by both Homolka and Bernardo, being forced 
into anal and oral sex with Bernardo, lesbian sex with Homolka,  and sex with 
objects.  Bernardo is videotaped urinating and attempting to defecate on her.
French watches a televised appeal from her father, Doug, for her to be strong 
and help will come.  French becomes defiant and announces "some things are 
worth dying for".   Enraged, Bernardo beats Kristen and forces her to watch 
a videotape of a naked Leslie Mahaffy.  French recognizes the name but 
becomes more defiant.

April 19, 1992:  Bernardo wants to keep his latest victim alive longer,  but 
Homolka tells him they have to have Easter Sunday dinner at her parent's 
home.  French is strangled with the same electrical cord used to murder 
Mahaffy.  That night, Bernardo and Homolka dump French's naked body in a 
ditch north of Burlington.  Bernardo purposely dumps it near Mahaffy's 
gravesite.

May 12, 1992:  Police visit Bernardo and he tells Homolka he was as "cool as a 
cucumber."  The officers noted the handsome wedding photographs on the walls.

July 21, 1992:  Bernardo watches with glee a television special that reveals 
stunning errors in the police investigation, including a police search for 
a non-existent Camaro and two male suspects.

Jan 9, 1993:  Homolka leaves Bernardo after being beaten and within weeks has 
taken up with a Brampton-area man while staying with an aunt and uncle.

July 6, 1993:  Homolka pleads guilty to two counts of manslaughter and is 
sentenced to 12 years, a conviction which includes the deaths of Mahaffy, 
French and Tammy Homolka.

    Saw first pictures of this sick duo; they could pass for Ken and
    Barbie......unbelievable.  Can't believe Karla only gets 12 years!!
    
    I am impressed that the court was able to keep as much of a lid on
    this case as it did.  If this was happening in the U.S. there prob-
    ably would have been a reenactment on TV by now.
    
    

    <--- Yes.

Horrifying videotapes played in court

TORONTO -- The shaky voice of a terrified, blindfolded 14-year-old girl
haunted the courtroom at the gruesome Paul Bernardo murder trial Friday as
prosecutors played videotapes taken during the final hours of her life.

In one tape, Bernardo asks the girl her name. In a trembling voice, she
tells him: Leslie Mahaffy.

"Be good for me," he says.

At another point, Leslie pleads: "Just let me go, I won't ever say anything
about you. ... I want to see my family and my brothers and my friends."

She never did. Prosecutors say Bernardo raped and killed her.

Only jurors and lawyers were allowed to watch the tapes, under a ruling by
Judge Patrick LeSage. Courtroom spectators have been listening to the
soundtracks despite objections by the victims' families.

Jurors were mostly expressionless. One woman hid her face with her hands.
Another shot several quick glances at Bernardo.

It is the most famous, and certainly the goriest, murder trial in Canada in
many years. Bernardo, 30, faces two counts of first-degree murder in
Leslie's 1991 death and the 1992 slaying of Kristen French, 15.

He also is charged with aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible
confinement and indignity to a human body. The prosecution contends
Bernardo repeatedly raped the girls before strangling them with an
electrical cord.

If convicted, Bernardo could face life in prison.

Karla Homolka, 24, Bernardo's ex-wife and the prosecution's star witness,
pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the deaths and is serving 12 years in
prison.

The prosecution contends Ms. Homolka was a battered wife who Bernardo
blackmailed into helping in the sex slayings after filming her performing
sex on her drugged sister, Tammy, in 1990. The 15-year-old later died when
she choked on her own vomit, and her death was ruled an accident.

In graphic videos shown in the courtroom Thursday and taken about two weeks
after Tammy's death, Bernardo and a smiling Ms. Homolka discuss finding a
young virgin to rape.

Ms. Homolka tells Bernardo she is "proud" he took Tammy's virginity. And
she is shown dressed up as Tammy before the two have sex on the dead girl's
bed.

Some spectators squirmed and turned red. About half the people left the
courtroom after the first explicit segments were shown.

The prospect of hearing -- or seeing -- videotapes attracted big crowds to
the downtown courthouse. Lines began forming at 4 a.m. in the pouring rain
for the 118 available public seats.

"It is something really sick, but I am a curious person. I have to know,"
said Colleen Anderson, 22.

LeSage refused to grant a request from victims' families to stop playing
the soundtracks of the videotapes.

In them, Bernardo and Ms. Homolka sound like bad actors. Their stilted
conversations take place during sex acts in front of the fireplace at her
parents' home. They talk about raping young virgins.

"Will you help me get the virgin?" asks Bernardo.

"I'll do everything I can because I want you to be happy -- because you're
the king," she replies.

"It's my mission in life to make you feel good."

    The Sunday Globe ran an article about Bernardo and his cohort.
    
    Assuming the charges are true, I don't undersand how any rational
    person could fail to see the death penalty as the only appropriate
    punishment.
    
    

    
    Some of us see death as the kindest and gentlest of many possible
    punishments he could suffer.
    

    Does Canada HAVE the death penalty?
    

    
    .24:
    
    No.
    

    No death penalty,... that's a real shame !
    
    Maybe you guys can do something about the problem.
    
    Dan

     As if the death penalty would have prevented this pervert from doing
    what he did.
    
    								Derek
    

    Not prevented maybe but it will certainly remove him from being any
    further burden to your society if proven guilty of his alleged crimes.  
    
    Brian 

    Funny, I see "deterant" trotted out regulary to promote the death
    penalty. As I have said, I feel this is not possible due to the thought
    processes (or lack of them) in homicidal types.
    
    >>Maybe Canadian society has different values than American society.
    
     Yes, and using the justice system for revenge would appear to be one
    of them.
    
    							Derek.

    
    
    	the death penalty prevents recindivism....
    
    

    
>>    	the death penalty prevents recindivism....

    er, hmmm.
    
    

	the death penalty prevents repentance...

    -.1 good answer.

    .33
    
    On the contrary -- knowing with certainty that death is coming at 12:01
    am would very likely, paraphrasing Samuel Johnson, "focus the mind".
    
    Deadlines can be very useful.  (there must be a pun there somewhere).
    
    Forget deterrence, forget recidivism. In certain cases, a death penalty
    is the just punishment -- the punishment that fits the crime.
    

    Agreed.  IMO it is best to permanently remove him (and his ex IMO) from
    the face of the Earth.  If I were a member of the victim's families, I 
    think I would have a hard time being at peace knowing they still
    breathe while my loved one doesn't.  Providing he is found guilty of
    course.
    
    Brian

    .35
    
    > In certain cases, a death penalty
    > is the just punishment -- the punishment that fits the crime.
    
    This EXACT sentiment was echoed recently by Ricardo Eichmann, whose
    father was Adolf Eichmann (the author and executor of Hitler's "Final
    Solution to the Jewish Problem").  The son said that despite his own
    personal opposition to the death penalty, he felt that in his father's
    case it was a just punishment.

    
    	RE: COVERT
    
	>the death penalty prevents repentance...

    
    	Spelled it wrong ... that's "repetition".
    

I have to agree with John Griffin. Perhaps /john would care to elucidate
as to how capital punishment _prevents_ repentance.

    seems to me it accelerates it.

    >the death penalty prevents repentance...
    
    So does Murder!
    
    ...Tom

    great, let's murder the murderers and be done with it!
    
    Chip

    >great, let's murder the murderers and be done with it
    
    I'd be open to a better way Chip. A way where society would not have to
    deal with them or support them. Life is very important. But, the
    murder's life isn't more important than the life of the murdered.
    
    ...Tom

    
    	Is it just as important?
    
    	Is it less important?
    

    A murderer's life has no worth.  He or she has volutarily disposed of
    their worth by their own actions.  I would feel worse about
    accidentally running over a dog than I would the elimination of such a
    threat to society.
    
    Dan

    
    	Here's a great line from the movie "Buy and Cell":
    
    
    	Prison psychologist, of the "they can be reformed" school:	
    
    	"Warden, did you know that the recidivism [sp??] rate is 7/10?
    	 Doesn't that bother you?"
    
    
    	Warden:
    
    	"Yes ... it means that 3 of the scum are still on the streets!!"
    

    
    I think I speak for a large number of people when I say that there is
    NO punishment a civilized society can mete out that would adequately
    punish this crime.
    

    -1 agreed, but it would be fun to take a shot at it.
    
       Chip

    
    Give him to the victim's families...
    
    

Who gets what piece?

    separate. NNTTM.

>    A quickly administered death sentence...
    
    See current Harper's magazine for gruesome details of executions since
    1976 in U.S. that weren't "quickly administered," due to problems with
    equipment, procedures, etc.
    
    -Stephen

    I sure hope Canada has very secure prisons!!
    

    > 1976 in U.S. that weren't "quickly administered," due to problems with
    > equipment, procedures, etc.
    
    I would think that quickly administered has nothing to due with howlong
    is takes the S*** B** to die, it would refer to how long it takes to
    start frying him.
    
    Also, if you want to prevent equipment failure, you should USE and
    maintain the equipment OFTEN !
    
    Dan

    If revenge/punishment is the object, I can think of something that
    might just be ugly enough: guillotine.
    
    The shock of being guillotined knocks the victim instantly unconscious,
    apparently with no pain; for this reason, the guillotine is perhaps the
    most humane form of execution known.
    
    But unconscious is not the same as dead, and a good slap in the face
    can wake the severed head up again.  There are documented cases of this
    in which the head looked at the person holding it and mouthed words. 
    Somehow the horror of knowing you were a severed head and absolutely,
    positively dead, might just be hurtful enough.  And the knowledge that
    they could suffer the same fate might deter potential perps.

        And for full effect, face up...
        
        Reminds me  of the Catholic martyr who was guillotined, but was
        so saintly, she picked up her own head and kissed it.
        

>        so saintly, she picked up her own head and kissed it.

This of course presents some problems with anatomy and physiology.

Nice visual, though

TTom

    .59
    
    > This of course presents some problems with anatomy and physiology.
    
    Depends on what "it" was, n'est-ce pas?

        last couple - the ";*}" was implicit...
        

        I've entered  the same story in three different versions of the
        'box over the last  ten  years  -  remarkably similar responses
        each time.
        

    
    
    Hey Andy, where's that stuff from the old box you was gonna forward
    me?????
    
    
    Tanx,
    
    Mike

        In the mail, m'boy! ;*)
        
               

Wif 'er 'ead ... tucked ... underneaf 'er arm,
She walks the midnight hour.
Wif 'er 'ead ... tucked ... underneaf 'er arm,
She walks the Bloody Tower.

Fer those of you who might read the crap from the old box, keep in mind that
some of us, in the meantime, may have come to realize that the sort of
thinking expressed ten years or so ago is precisely what got society to
the Paul Bernardo stage.

/john

This case has caused more than a few tears to spring to my
eyes, especially when reading the columns of Christie Blatchford,
who I feel is one of the finest columnists in any newspaper.  I don't
have her permission, and maybe someone can fill me in on what
we are allowed to reprint (even with the disclaimer that no permission
has been granted) but thought I would take the time to enter what I
consider only one of many excellent articles she has written....
(published the day after the 1st day of the trial)

(from the Toronto Sun, May 19)

"Let us look upon the accused and harken to his charge" is part of
what the clerk reads out at the start of any Ontario Court (General
Division) criminal trial.  "Harken to the evidence," he says.

Well, in Regina vs Paul Bernardo a.k.a. Teale, let us, in the lovely,
archaic language of our much-maligned but quite magnificent justice
system, harken to it all, because if that way lies despair, so perhaps
does salvation.  For all the dreadfulness of this story, for all the
tawdry cruelties that are being laid at the feet of the oddly
delicate-looking man in the prisoner's dock, there are shards, here
and there, of goodness, and remarkable courage, and grace that 
will rob you of breath.

If you turn from the horror, you may miss the honor in prosecutor
Ray Houlahan - in his shyness in describing the sex acts he alleges
Bernardo forced on his victims; in his mispronounciation, so touching
in contrast to the degradation he was detailing, of "anus" as "annus";
in the way he would buy time, for himself and everyone else in 
Courtroom 6-1 yesterday, with his lengthy geographical flights of 
fancy, as when he place the scene of many of the alleged crimes
for the jurors, St. Catharines, which has a population of 130,000,
in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, situated on Lake Ontario,
about an hour and a half driving time from Toronto."

Houlan spoke yesterday, by my count, for four hours and 20 minutes,
with appropriate breaks.  After each, he was scrupulously responsible
in reminding the jurors that what he was presenting was not evidence,
but merely the evidence he anticipates calling.  Not once did he
resort to theatrics; his body language was as restrained and composed
as his entire opening statement.  At his most vehement, his most
dramatic, what he would do is point one finger of his right hand.

He was considerate and respectful of the families of Leslie Mahaffy
and Kristen French.  The best example of this is how he first described
Leslie's situation the night she was allegedly abducted from her own
backyard.

"Being unable to gain entry to her home without waking her parents,"
Houlahan began; only a little later could he finally bring himself to
say what he meant - that she had been locked out of the house and
was afraid of waking her mom and dad because it was late - because
he knew they were the unluckiest parents if, not in the world, at
least situated in Southwestern Ontario.

He was giving the jurors, he said, the index to a book, the picture on 
the box of a picture puzzle - something to which, in the coming weeks
and months, they can refer.

The portrait he painted of Paul Bernardo, and Houlahan, in 260 minutes
of talking, did not once refer to him by name, only as "the accused", is
of a clever, cunning and vicious predator with perverse (but for all
that, banal) sexual tastes.  In Houlahan's imaginary book, Bernardo is
like thousands of other clowns.  He likes to videotape himself having
sex; he likes to talk dirty; he has a schoolgirl fetish; he scripts corny
dialogue for women to parrot to him, such sad, silly things as "You're
the king", and "I like sucking your - - - , master", and "You deserve
to rule the world."  He even has, in Houlahan's portrait, a pee-pee
penchant, a thing for watching women on the toilet.  Guys like this,
for any reasonably sophisticated woman or run of the mill hooker will
tell you, are not exactly rare birds.

What separated Bernardo from the pack, it is alleged, is that he acted
out his wretched desires, stole two real schoolgirls (one, Kristen, still
in her green Holy Cross High School uniform, underneath which she
wore, dear, good Catholic girl that she was, University of Georgetown
boxer shorts, the pattern repeating the school's Bull Dogs logo, and,
oh sweet, daring 15 year old touch, a black bra), and made, not rented
his own sex videos with partners who were neither consenting adults
nor paid professionals, but tender, whimpering teenagers, and that 
when he was done with them, they didn't get to go home, but died
instead, in fron of the hope chest in Karla Homolka's and Paul
Bernardo's bedroom, as, straddled over them, he pulled tight two ends
of a black electrical cord.

These are merely the prosecutions allegations, of course, what Ray
Houlahan and his three associates hope to prove with the testimony of
their chief witness, Homolka, DNA evidence, and the six original 8mm
videotapes that were handed over to the police for the very first time
last September, some 15 months after Ken Murray, Bernardos' original
lawyer, first took a call on his cellular phone from his client while he
and two fellow lawyers were in the Homolka-Bernardo home, and about
the same length of time after Homolka, her lawyer George Walker and
senior Crown law officer Murray Segal formally signed a "plea 
resolution agreement" - the much rumored plea bargain that was
officially kept secret under the publication ban imposed on Homolka's
trial.

These are the videotapes which were used to cull the jurors, which the
Mahaffy and French families want restricted to the eyes and ears of the
judge and jury only and which have reportedly "changed" the handful
of those who have viewed them.  No wonder, if Houlan's minute-by-
minute description yesterday of two the tapes even begins to do them
justice.

Tape A, the prosecutor said, contains an hour and 40 minutes, about
seven distinct segments, the shortest 24 seconds in length (involving
Homolka's dead baby sister, Tammy, undressing in her bedroom,
completely unaware she was being filmed), the longest 35 minutes
(in which, after Tammy's death, Homolka and Bernardo first do a
walkabout of her room, then, with Homolka wearing her late sister's
clothes and a photograph of Tammy nearby, and Bernardo allegedly
having covered his wife's face with her own hair, the two have sex
until he climaxes) and the most awful, perhaps, the segment in which
a young girl identified only as Jane Doe is allegedly drugged and
assaulted by Homolka who takes the unconscious girl's fingers and 
puts them in her vagina.

It is the prosecution's position that despite this very graphic sort of
scene, and the fact that she will be shown smiling in most of the
videotapes even as she engages in repulsive acts, and the fact
that twice given the opportunity to free Kristen French (Bernardo,
allegedly, was out picking up takeout food), she twice denied her,
despite all of that and more, Karla Homolka was a victim herself-
under the control of her then-husband, a fearful, timid creature.

This vision of her, if accepted by the jury, would render Homolka
as frightening as Bernardo is in Ray Houlahan's picture book -
just another, typical battered wife, with a fatal twist, the very way
he allegedly was just another typical, kinky S-M type, with a 
fatal twist.  It is this mix - such alleged evil amid that which is
so clearly mundane - which makes these two so truly scary as 
they have been portrayed by the prosecution.

Regardless of how the jurors weigh things up in the end, the
notion of Homolka as pathetic victim will be, I suspect, a hard
sell to the general public, especially now that her deal, in all
its inglorious nature, has been revealed - 12 years on two counts
of manslaughter, with her late sister thrown in there as a kind of
afterthought.  Add to that Houlahan's acknoledgement yesterday
that not too long after leaving Bernardo and hiring Walker to
work out the deal, Homolka was cruising the bars, looking, again,
for love in all the wrong places, and you have a recipe for public
outrage.

After almost two years of secrecy and bans and sealed court files,
there is now, after merely one day in court, little left to the
imagination.  The most compelling mystery, to me, is the miracle
of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, and where, in their too-short
lives, they developed the recources they so clearly had.

This became particularly clear yesterday about Kristen French, not,
I suspect, because she was any braver than Leslie Mahaffy, but
rather because she lived long enough - was allegedly, allowed to
live long enough - to reach that stage where, if you are smart
and courageous, you may be able to conquer your fear.  Allegedly,
Leslie was abducted on June 15, 1991; she was dead about 24
hours later.  She barely had the chance to still her terror and
disbelief; that she apparently thought of her little brother so much,
that she was able to do this at this dreadful moment, speaks volumes
of her grace and fortitude.  What is more important is that she was
able to take comfort from the stuffed bear that Homolka, in a moment
of some empathy, handed to her; after all she had been through,
Leslie was still a child.

It was different with Kristen, allegedly kidnapped on April 16, 1992, 
and murdered only on April 19, Easter Sunday, and allegedly only
then because Bernardo and Homolka had an Easter dinner to attend.
She endured days of captivity; she had, as crazy as it sounds, time
to develop the reckless brilliant heroism which characterized her
last days.

Her intelligence was marked, though, even in the early hours, when
her terror must have been at its height.  Abducted in broad daylight,
it is alleged, Kristen was forced at knifepoint into Bernardo's car
and managed to call her assailant a bastard.  The name, at first,
that she gave her abductors was a fake one, a bit of fast thinking,
I feel sure, that was designed to protect her family.  Whenever she
was asked what she wanted to eat, and in the first 12 hours or so,
it is alleged Bernardo was, in his fashion, kind to her and asked
such things, Kristen each time had the presence of mind to try to
get him out of the house; she demanded McDonald's new pizza,
Swiss Chalet.  He would, according to prosecutor Houlahan,
leave Kristen bound in a closet, with Homolka on guard, a rubber
mallet in hand, outside.  Kristen's pleas fell on Homolka's hard
deaf ears, but God, wasn't she clever to have tried it?

For a short time, quite afraid but trying to stay alive, Kristen played
along with Bernardo's alleged bidding, repeating the bad-girl
dialogue he adored.  But then came Saturday, April 18, when
gathered in a bedroom, eating, the television on so Bernardo and
Homolka could monitor the news of Kristen's disappearance, a
bulletin came on, and there were Kristen's parents, pleading with
her abductor for her life, her dad, Doug, saying, be strong, honey;
we're going to find you.

Kristen, well, Kristen fell apart; what the degradation had failed to
do, this bulletin accomplished.  Her pain, she could bear; theirs,
she could not.  It is exactly the reverse of what you now see on
Doug and Donna French's faces in the courtroom; their only wish
is that they could have spared her, as she wanted to spare them.

She was, I think, a daddy's girl, one of those young women lucky
enough to have the kind of relationship with her father (I was one
myself) that imbues her with confidence, an enduring sense of
herself, and the knowledge she is absolutely loved, that will 
last her all her life.

Kristen's life was to last one day more.  She made of it all she
could.  It was after she saw the bulletin with her parents, Ray
Houlahan said, that she became "less submisive.. she started
to rebel".  When Bernardo played his rap music for her, "she
acted as if she was bored".  When he showed her a video of
Leslie Mahaffy, "she remained defiant".  When he allegedly
beat her, "she did not cry".  She treated him with more contempt
than he could show for her.  When she refused, allegedly, to
do his sexual bidding, "she said, 'Some things are worth
dying for'"

Kristen French did in the end of course die, but oh, what a light
she shone on the darkness that is Ray Houlahan's terrible
terrible painting.

        Turn them loose.
        
        One hour head start in a hunting preserve...
        

    
    God, this whole thing makes me sick and tears at my heart.
    It is simply beyond my scope of comprehension how people
    can do things like this.
    
    As for their punishment...
    I wish we could make them suffer just as much as their victims.
    If it is based on vengeance, so be it!
    
    						Hank

    Nonsense. Drop them off, naked, on the Serengheti, with the other
    animals. Nature will take its course.

    -1 smeared with honey?
    
       Chip

    
    I have been dying of curiosity to know exactly what kind of defence
    Bernardo's lawyer plans to offer in the face of such damning video
    evidence.  So far, it's been a real letdown: petty quibbling over
    the interpretation of minor conversations on the video soundtrack,
    and pathetic attempts to describe Leslie Mahaffey's neck bruises as
    hickeys.
    

    I agree with Hank.  The brutality of the crimes is sickening.  If found
    guilty their is not argument in my mind that could persuade me not to
    call for death.  
    
    Brian

    What on God's green earth could the defense lawer say ???
    
    If the guy is stupid enough to video tape his actions, what is left
    except the execution ?
    
    Dan

    basically that he is accorded due process. i think that about sums 
    it up.
    
    Chip

    
    .76, Dan:
    
    I don't know...but he DID plead `not guilty', so I would expect
    SOME kind of defence.
    

    DefenSe, he should get some defenSe.  

    I'll guess that the lawyer will say he was not in control of his
    actions, that's suffering from some sort of mental defect or something.

    DefenSe, he should get some defenSe.  


Won't do him any good in Canada.

He needs defenCe there.

/john

    No, defense because if he ever gets off or out, he will need all the
    protection he can get.  

    
    .79, Brian:
    
    Don't even bother, Brian.  Defence is a correct spelling according
    to Webster's New Collegiate, and is the accepted spelling here in
    Canada.
    
    Especially don't bother when you write stuff like this:
    
    >If found
    >guilty their is not argument in my mind that could persuade me not to
    >call for death.  
    
    No 'boxpendantry from you, my friend!!  :^)
    
    jc
    

    :-)

    I think that he should just be released. Oh yea, and make sure
    EVERYBODY knows when!
    
    ...Tom

    in tears... I haven't heard of this before.
    
    

The last video shown was Paul and Karla at the Trump Tower
in Atlantic City.  They had hired a prostitute and had secreted
a camera in the closet to record their "activities".  However,
it seems Paul had more than a little trouble "cracking a
fatty" (as they say in Oz) when confronted with an adult
who wasn't conforming to his standards of the ideal
submissive partner. The hooker gave up after a few hours
saying that Paul and Karla expected too much for the money
they were paying her and that they were "rough people". The
prostitute also commented on the number of scars and bruises
on Karla, who explained them by saying she worked in a 
vet's office and the animals marked her.  (Animal is more
likely and I think that term is too kind.... he's not of this species!)
The people in court acted mostly bored by the latest video
and many could be seen yawning.  One reporter was even
doing a crossword. There are a few other sickos in the 
courtroom who are apparently getting off on the videos and
going to the public washroom in the courthouse to "spank
the monkey"

    AP 9 Jun 95 0:37 EDT V0829
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
                                                             
    TORONTO (AP) -- The videotaped shrieks and sobs of a terrified
    teen-ager being raped and sodomized sear the Toronto courtroom,
    horrifying most of the 200 people present. 

    A juror holds a hand to her mouth. Another stares blankly into space. A
    spectator flinches at a sound of agony he hears but can't see. Another
    merely shakes his head. 

    Details of how the young girl was sexually assaulted, tortured and
    murdered pound the senses of the jurors, court personnel and members of
    the public attending the trial of Paul Bernardo. 

    These same terrible details -- filtered, toned down and shorn of much
    of their gruesome reality -- are eventually published or broadcast to a
    disbelieving public. 

    Bernardo, 30, faces two counts of first-degree murder in the 1991 and
    1992 deaths of Leslie Mahaffy, 14, and Kristen French, 15, both of
    southern Ontario. He also is charged with aggravated sexual assault,
    forcible confinement and indignity to a human body. 

    The prosecution contends Bernardo repeatedly raped the girls before
    strangling them with electrical cord. 

    Karla Homolka, 24, Bernardo's ex-wife and the star prosecution witness,
    pleaded guilty to manslaughter and is serving a 12-year prison
    sentence. The videotapes depict her participating with her husband in
    the sexual assaults on the young girls. 

    For two years, judicial censorship prevented the press from publishing
    details of the case. This was done, prosecutors say, in the interest of
    assuring a fair trial for Bernardo. 

    Now, it's all coming out. 

    "Despite the press ban, most journalists and editors had a reasonable
    idea of what this case was going to be about," said Philip McLeod,
    editor of the London Free Press, a southern Ontario newspaper. 

    "But it wasn't until the testimony unfolded that any of us realized
    just how horrible it would be." 

    Highlighted in recent days have been videotapes taken by Bernardo and
    Ms. Homolka as the victims were raped, debased and tortured. The tapes
    were shown only to the jury and the court officers. The public and the
    press, however, heard the audio portion and the prosecution's
    description of the scenes. 
 
    Some are fascinated by the horror. 

    People line up for hours to get tickets for one of the 118 public seats
    available in the courtroom. Many have attended every day since the
    trial started May 1. Court officials say the trial seems to attract an
    unusually large number of young women. 

    Editors have been faced with daily decisions about how much the public
    needs to know. 

    "We've really struggled and agonized over this," said Paul Woods,
    Ontario bureau chief of the Canadian Press news agency. 

    Each day, CP editors discuss the testimony. One day, they decided
    readers did not need to know how a wine bottle was used in assaulting
    one of the girls. Another day, references to defecation were omitted.
    There have been debates about whether editors are protecting the
    defendant by suppressing details. 

    "We are trying not to be too graphic," said Steve Roberts, managing
    editor of the Calgary Herald in Alberta, which, like most newspapers in
    Canada, has played the story largely on inside pages.
     
    Canadian Broadcasting Corp. television gives hourly live updates on
    testimony, sometimes fairly graphically. This is usually toned down by
    the time it reaches the main newscasts. 

    Some of the Toronto newspapers and tabloids are hitting the story very
    hard. Articles begin with a warning that readers may find them
    disturbing. 
 
    "Our readers are the jury in the larger sense of judging if the system
    worked fairly and if justice was done. It is important that readers get
    enough of the flavor and detail of the case to pass that judgment,"
    McLeod said. 

    

	.88  what's the point of this article?

Karla Homolka is rumoured to have been moved from the Kingston Womens 
Penitentiary to the Metro Detention Centre leading one to believe that she 
will be on the witness stand late this week. The argument Bernardo and his 
lawyer seem to be leading to is... how do you know it was him that killed 
the girls and not Karla?  They argue that since the girls were under some 
sort of drug influence, a woman of Karla's strength could have knelt on 
their back and strangled them (seems Kristen had large bruises on her back)
Karla has also had her plea bargain extended to give her protection from
any charges related to the Jane Doe in the videos. The prosecution made the 
original bargain with her before they knew anything about the tapes. Don't 
know how they justify the latest deal.

    
    What follows is not for you.
    
    No, really, I'm serious.  You don't want to read this.
    
    Okay, if you insist...but I *warned* you.
    
    
    Homolka has testified that Bernardo forced her to eat feces.  Video
    evidence shows her (forced to, according to her) performing analingus
    on Bernardo.  Videotapes of Bernardo's assaults on Leslie Mahaffey and
    Kristen French show pretty much the same thing.
    
    As I said, these crimes cannot be adequately punished in a civilized
    society.
    

    You are right, that wasn't for me.....

    
    Sorry.  Maybe I shouldn't have posted it.  I just wanted you all to
    know what we're being bombarded with on a daily basis as a result of
    this trial.
    

    I'm feeling better.

    
    
    Variations on a "natural" theme....
    

    
    Straws.  Grab 'em while you can.
    

The defence started questioning "Karly Kurls" yesterday.
If they can prove that she killed any of the girls,
her plea bargain will become void. As it stands now,
starting today she is eligible for supervised day passes
and can be on parol starting next January. The defence
is trying to show that *she* was the intelligent one in
the relationship and that she was in it for the sex.
Bernardo's lawyer started his questioning by thrusting
pictures of the dead girls (including Tammy) in Karla's
face and she lost her composure for a few minutes but
quickly gained it back and handled the rest of his
questions well.

    re: .91
    
    You were correct.  I should have taken your advice.
    
    (ick)
    
    -steve

    a heroic SNARF!

Toronto Sun - July 14 (Reprinted without permission)

He didn't prove she did it, not by a long shot. But then he
didn't have to, and what lawyer John Rosen did establish in
his remarkable week-long run at the Crown's chief witness
in the Paul Bernardo trial was that Karla Homolka is capable
of it, oh my yes, that she has the right stuff for murder-
the mind unclouded by conscience, the great brass balls
that are the hallmark of fearlessness, the cool gray heart.

The question of who killed Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French
remains, blessedly, a matter only for the Bernardo jurors.

This glorious dozen will decide if it was the accused man 
who, as the prosecution alleges, strangled the two
teenagers, or, as the Rosen-led defence contends, if it was
his ex-wife, Homolka, who actually caused their deaths.

But the jurors' task, I think, has been rendered more
complicated by the Homolka who emerged over the past seven
days on the witness stand and who bears virtually no
resemblance to prosecutor Ray Houlahan's shrinking violet
of a girl victim.

That Homolka was the abject Karly-Curls, she of the soppy
love notes, mewling eagerness to please, any which way she
could, the big bad businessman who had captured her heart.
She did exist; more than 200 cards and notes introduced
into evidence attest to that. But this was, I believe, just
one side of a rather classic example of the passisve-
aggressive personality; Karly-Curls, who could sometimes
appear virtually without ego, was in fact driven by nothing
but.

As a girl, which she was when she met Bernardo, unsure of
how to weild her power, she pretended to have none (thus
the notes, the clinginess,the great sucking need); as a
young woman, she grew increasingly manipulative (thus the
teasing promises, in her letters to Bernardo, of great
sucking, this if he would only come whistling down the 401
to St. Catharines more often); as a 25-year-old adult, well
aware both of her sexual clout and her intelligence, she is
a prickly, articulate, opinionated woman who doesn't suffer
fools - or foolish questions, as both Houlahan and Rosen
have learned - lightly. 

It is not that her personality has changed, I'd suggest, 
but rather that, over the years the court has been privileged 
to see through miles of videotape and acres of paper, it
has matured.  She has always viewed the world through the
prism of her own need; it was the getting what she wanted
that changed, dependent as it was upon her age and experience.

She grew visibly tougher each day under Rosen's gun.

When he hovered like a bad waiter by her arm, invading her
space in the witness box, she never flinched, and leaned
forward into the intrustion, her body English slick and sassy.
When he attempted to haver her "agree" with his version of
events, she would snap, clearly annoyed with his termity,
"I can't agree with that Mr Rosen - it's a lie".  As the
days went by, she said his name as often as he said hers,
refusing to be patronized.  In the last two days of her
cross-examination, she began to patronize him. "You can ask
Paul that", she would tell Rosen, an up-yours reference to
his earlier comment that he would be "asking Paul" certain
things, the threat implicit he will put Bernardo on the
stand. "Paul knows what happened", she'd say "Why don;t
you ask him about that?"

In the end, when it was all over yesterday and Rosen was
sitting outside the courtroom on a bench, looking as spent
and wistful as I feel sure Homolka leaves her lovers, he
would say that he never had anyone tougher in the stand.

Still, partly because of his questions, partly because in
her refusal to yield an inch of ground she revealed herself,
Karla Homolka stands before this jury figuratively as
naked as she was physically before the court so many times
on the electronic monitors.

She is the woman who was not only unmoved three years ago,
as, in the master bedroom of her beige-and-white home, she
watched Kristen French watch her father Doug's desperate
pleas for her safe return on the TV news, but also was 
untouched by it yesterday, when Rosen had the dreadful plea
played again for her.  There was such anguish in Doug
French's voice that spectators wept at the first, familiar
sounds, but not Homolka.

She is the woman who kept the camcorder rolling on Leslie
Mahaffy during Bernardo's anal assault on her - and kept it
by Rosen's description, moving too, now in there for a 
better angle, now around here for a better shot.

She's the woman whose concerns about allowing her kid sister,
Tammy, to be drugged and raped by her then-boyfriend were
assuaged by his promise (false, it turned out) to wear a 
condom and to be fast, and who dared to justify it by saying,
well, hell's bells, he was going to grab her off the street
and rape her anyway, the suggestion being that it's better
to be raped in the comfort of your own rec room.

In her last exchange with John Rosen, he asked her
rhetorically, "Survival of the self comes first, doesn't it?"

"That", said Karla Homolka, as if she knew, as if all this 
wasn't as foreign to her as she is to us, "is a natural
human instinct."

It's for the jury to decide if she did it, if, in the jargon
of the court, she did them - Leslie and Kristen. But anyone
who spent any reasonable amount of time in courtoom 6-1 the
past two weeks would agree, I think, that she could have,
that she has all the requisite tools.  It may be every bit
as significant.

    Why was Karla granted the break for testifying against her husband;
    didn't they have enough evidence against them both?
    
    

They didn't have the videotapes and basically only had
Karla's testimony to go on when they first arrested Paul.

    Thanks.  The Today Show ran clips of their wedding video; Paul and
    Karla really were an attractive couple, make that an attractive
    couple of monsters!!
    
    I know Karla is now claiming abuse etc. saying she was forced into
    it; but transcripts of the videos make it sound like she was enjoying
    it a little too much for me to stomach it.  The twelve year sentence
    must seem a mockery to the victim's families; from what you say the
    authorities needed her cooperation, but 12 years seems like such a
    pittance when you think of the terror those young girls suffered.
    
    

any new news???

-raq

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    It worked.

    It worked.

    
    sorry about that...
    
    it kept telling me that there was no stuff in the document, so i
    retried it, and got the same thing, so i tried it again...and again,
    and again...
    
    and i can't delete...or at least i don't know how..
    
    so, like you mods can feel free to get rid of the repeats...
    
    

    The trial just started back up again this past week. The
    jury last heard evidence on July 18, after which the trial broke to
    allow for a series of legal motions and then Justic LeSage sent them on
    their way with a reminder that they not discuss the case or its
    evidence with anyone.  Initially, the trial was expected to wrap in
    early August, but given developments that threatened to push it into
    September, LeSage opted to give the jury a summer break.  He told them
    that a revised schedule estimate would see the trial end in late
    August.
    
    Developments this week:
    
    Monday - 
    
    An ex-girlfriend of Bernardo's testified that he had her kneel
    in the back seat of his car and held a rope around her neck for five to
    ten minutes while he forced her to have anal and vaginal sex.  The
    (now) 27 year old woman said that Bernardo ordered her to say "he was
    the king and I was the little servant girl and I deserved what I was
    getting and that he was the best" Bernardo climaxed quickly during the
    mock strangulation, she said, because "he liked it when you were in
    pain".  The woman said she was 16 and in high school and Bernardo
    almost 20 and in university when they began dating in August 1984.  The
    relationship lasted three years. Rosen (Benardo's lawyer) questioned
    why she continued to go out with Bernardo for another full year after
    the incident.  Christie Blatchford (Toronto Sun columnist) writes:
    "  It is less these women - the women of the Bernardo trial - who so
    perplex and consume me, but rather that I see so much of them in my own
    friends and acquaintances.  The willingness to endure, as opposed to
    enjoy, sex acts, if, in the words this trial has heard so often "it
    makes him happy"; the quick forgiveness of reprehensible acts because
    "there were also good times"; the ease with which ancient taboos are
    cast aside for "the good of the relationship", all this is, in my view,
    not merely the stuff of this trial, but also the stuff of far too many
    women's lives " He is, if not an open book, certainly easy to understand,
    for who among us does not sense the intoxication there must be in the kind
    of power he seems to have had?  It's the girls in this trial who are the
    engima, those born long after the sexual revolution and into a climate
    of empowerment so circumscribed it is sometimes legislated by
    government, but who will have none of itt.  The women in my life and
    the girls of Paul Bernardo's are not so far apart, and they baffle me
    as surely as they would have delighted him.  The first joke I've heard
    from this trial poses the question, "What's the difference between
    Karla Homolka and a mosquito?" There is, in the answer, a truth that
    goes far beyond the accused man's ex-wife: "A mosquite stops sucking
    when you bash it on the head"
    
    
    Tuesday:
    
    Testimony from co-workers at the veterinarian clinic where Karla worked
    who all noticed almost constant bruising on Homolka late in her
    relationship with Bernardo.  Wendy Lutczyn was the only one who took
    any action.  She called Niagara Regional Police after one severe
    beating that left Karl bruised from her eyebrows to her cheekbones and
    down one side of her neck.  Police did not take any action.  She also
    called a woman's shelter for advise.  Lutcyn asked a male friend to
    make another call to the Homolkas to warn them about their daughter's
    condition, and the next day (Jan 5) her mother came in and Karla was
    taken to the hospital.  " The cumulative effect of testimony from her
    co-workers was to bolster Homolka's accounts of her battering by her
    ex-husband.  These independent witnesses all testified they saw bruises
    and black eyes on their coleague and were suspicious of her bizarre
    explanations - a roughhouse with her dog there, a car accident here, a
    gardening(!!!)encounter there.  But it was Lutczyn who, in the early
    part of her testimony, made this real for the jury yesterday, who
    described the gentle Homolka she saw, the young woman who knew all the
    names of the children who came to the clinic, who loved animals, who
    was increasingly so weary that at lunch, she would sometimes put a
    towel on a table and just rest her head there." The papers published a
    number of letters that Karla has written to Wendy from prison - Karla
    thanks her for writing suportive letters on her behalf and for trying
    to understand who she is and why she'd ended up as she has.
    
    Wednesday:
    
    Jane Doe was on the stand - this is the girl who was Tammy Homolka's
    close friend and who Bernardo pursued sexually while his wife
    encouraged her to accept him. She began hanging out with the couple in
    Oct 1992 hoping to renew her closeness with the Homolka family. Column
    portions from the Toronto Sun:" The first of the living dead arrived at
    the trial of Paul Bernardo late yesterday, the first of the girls who
    got away, the first of those who were drawn into the dark lives of the
    accused man and his ex-wife Karla Homolka, and who, by dint of great
    good luck and the grace of God and some substantial personal resources,
    scrambled out again.  The young girl's identity is protected by the
    could, which is just as it ought to be, but I can tell you she is, in a
    most modern way, a really pretty kid, clean-limbed, eyes genuinely
    beautiful in a stron, androgynous face.  Still a teenager, she appears
    younger, and almost three years ago, when Bernardo and Homolka were
    allegedly hustling her like the seasoned pros they were then, she must
    have been even dewier, even riper, even more coltish.  She was in the
    witness box less than 45 minutes-she'll return today - but by the end
    of that brief time, if there was anyone in that courtroom who did not
    long to smash in the face of that smug smiler in the prisoner's dock,
    whose heart wasn't bursting with rage, I don't want to know.  Some two
    years after Tammy's death when Homolka phoned this girl out of the
    blue, she recognized it as a little strange, but rationalized it as a
    chance to be reunited with the Homolka family, to make a connection
    with her dead family.  She went over the couple's house for dinnder;
    they fed her drinks and drugs and showed off, dazzling her with grownup
    toys, flattering her by treating her as an equal.They asked her over
    again on a Saturday night for more drinks and drugs, only this time,
    she slept over, all three of them on the living room floor, the girl
    facing the couch, Bernardo behind her, at one point pressing his
    erection into her back, she testified.  Once, whe woke up to find him
    above her, staring down, she said.  The girl was uncomfortable, but she
    was also confused.  When Bernardo began to kiss her, she didn't want to
    hurt his feelings, but told him "I don't want to do this with you,
    you're married to my best friend's sister"  Homolka didn't care, he
    replied, Homolka herself told her she "wanted to see Paul and I
    together".  The rest of her testimony involved trips that the couple
    took her on to Toronto, buying her presents and wining and dining her.
    Parts of these trips were videotaped. Bernardo kept trying to sleep
    with her and she continued to deny him.  Her testimony was to continue
    the following day
    
    DNA expert testified that after extensive testing, there was nothing on
    an electrical cord to link it to Bernardo.  However, tests on saliva,
    semen, blood and vomit discovered in various locations in and around
    the home were linked to the two schoolgirls.  Samples from a
    vomit-stained section of carpet in Bernardo's walk-in closet matched
    Kristen French's DNA.  Expanded testing indicated the chances that the
    material hadn't originated with the St.Catherines schoolgirl were one
    in five billion.  The vomit stain also revealed a secon person's DNA
    present in the form of sperm.  Newall (the expert) told court it
    matched B's DNA at 9 different points and he could not be ruled out as
    the orginator of that sperm.  Two samples of blook, taken from two
    separate blankets, were matched with Leslie Mahaffy's DNA.
    

    Paul Bernardo took the stand for the first time today.  According to
    the news, he came across as confident and polite ( I kid you not!) When
    asked by his lawyer, Rosen, what he had to say about the deaths of the
    two girls, Bernardo looked directly at the jury and said softly "
    People, I know I've done some really terrible things, I know that I've
    caused a lot of sadness and sorrow to a lot of people and that I should
    be punished, but I did not kill those girls"  He claimed that he found
    Mahaffey dead with her face buried in a pillow and that both he and
    Homolka used a circular saw to cut up her body. He also claimed that
    French died while he was out getting fast food. He claims that she
    strangled herself trying to get away from Homolka. Rosen asked why they
    didn't dismember French and he said that it made his so sick the first
    time that he couldn't face it again (poor baby) He also admitted to
    raping three other girls, but said that the whole thing was about sex
    and he never murdered anyone.
    
    Yesterday, immediately after the Crown rested their case, Rosen turned
    to the jury and made a number of admissions including one revealing
    that critical videotape evidence was in fact removed from Bernardo's
    Port Dalhousie home on May 6, 1993 by his former lawyer, Ken Murray. 
    This despite police testimony that they did everything except tear the
    house down in an exhaustive seach.  The police search warrant expired
    April 30.  Murray and other members of the defence team were allowed
    acced to the home on May 6. While there, Murray received a phone call
    from Bernardo and then retrieved the six videotapes and removed them
    from the house. Unaware of the discovery, the Crown cemented its plea
    bargain deal with Homolka a week later.  Murray kept the tapes until
    Sept 12, 1994 when he turned them over to Rosen.  After a review of the
    tapes, Rosen felt it was his duty as an office of the court to turn
    them over to the police.  He did so on Sept 22. 1994.
    
    Bernardo is expected to be on the stand for the next two weeks.

    
    "I mean, obviously, looking back, I had a problem with sexuality.
     Down the road I'm going to have to seek professional help."
    
    						- Paul Bernardo
    
    
    This comment, not surprisingly, drew some derisive laughter 
    from the spectators in the courtroom.
    

    
    <groan>
    
    Where's the Understatement of the Year topic?
    
    

 I read this weekend that he has also requested that certain portions of
 the videotapes be replayed a couple times in the trial.




 Jim

    Then he asked to be excused to the restroom?

    
    Mark, that was sick, really sick...... funny, but really sick.
    

    The way Bernardo seems to like to perform, I'd guess that he'd be just
    as happy staying in the courtroom

    
    Speaking of trials, this one is likely to go to the jury this week,
    with Paul having essentially admitted to 7 of the 9 charges against him
    (2 counts of sexual assault, 2 counts of kidnapping, 2 counts of forcible
    confinement, 1 count of indignity to a human body, and 2 counts of murder).
    
    He contends that he was not present when the girls died, and that he is
    innocent of murder.
    
    Yeah...rrrrriiiight.
    

    Now why couldn't the O.J. folks have taken heed of this and gotten down
    to deliberations quickly?  

    Because everybody involved will be rich.

(from Toronto Sun - Aug 29, reprinted without permission)

Since his arrest on Feb 17, 1993, Paul Bernardo has been called 
many things.  Yesterday, defence lawyer John Rosen completed his
closing statement to the jury be repeating them all.

For minutes he rattled off every description attributed to the
accused schoolgirl killer in a rhythmic, almost sing-song
cadence:

"It has been said of Paul Bernardo that he has been the Best
Boyfriend in the World.  Big Bad Businessman. Master. Prince.
King. Most Powerful Man in the World.

Son, brother, our weekend son, philanderer, two-timer.

Groom, Wife beater, ex-husband, Paul Jason Teale. University
Graduate, Dog Owner, Mason. Virgo. Bookkeeper. Worm Picker.

Egomaniac, Superficial, Predictable. Selfish. Greedy.  Compulsive,
chronic, materialistic, capitalistic, failure, spendthrift, broke,
bankrupt.

Bright, clever, calculating, smart, dulled, stupid, self-absorbed
clothes horse, cross border shopper, preppy, yuppie.

Smuggler, thief, phony, con man, fraud, ambidextrous.

Two-fisted, twisted, bent, broken, cruiser, bruiser, boxer,
loser

Winer, Diner, Whiner (with an H). Ostentatious, show off,
narcissistic, hedonistic, misanthropic, misdirected, misogynistic

Lip licker, fornicator, sodomizer, masturbator.  Hunter, destroyer,
stalker, victimizer.  Lecher, sicko. Freak

Predator, Prowler, Pervert, Peeping Tom.  Nighthawk, Late Riser,
cool, manipulative.

Hollow. Shell. Husk. Empty. Rotten. Bereft. Vile. Atrocious.
Cruel. Heartless. Brutal. Shocking. Menacing. Maniac. Shameful.

Kidnapper. Rapist. Slave Keeper. Abysmal. Awful. Captain Video.
Rapper. Young Hype. Lousy Dancer. Camera-Man. Director.
Pornographer. Snuffles. Star.

Pleading. Threatening. Cooing. Hissing. Yelling. Insulting.
Unrelenting. Unrepenting. Grinning. Leering. Sneering.Prideful.
Spiteful. Hateful. Heathen.

Infantile. Penile. Scatological. Insatiable. Ingratiating. 
Ungrateful. Grating. Self-Gratifying. Self-Aggrandizing. 
Minimizing.

Trick. John. Flaccid. Insolent. Impudent. Arrogran. Arsonist.
Bully. Suspect. Prisoner. Accused. Coward. Incredible. 
Unbelievable. Unspeakable.

Pasty. Pallid. Dirty Blond. Notorious. Infamous. Despised.
Despicable. Deviant. Remorseless. Disrespectful.

Creep. Defendant. Client. Witness. Sad. Pathetic. Dysfunctional.

Contradiction. Mystery. Puzzle. Engima.

And then Rosen paused.... "But what he is not, members of the
jury, is a murderer," he said.

    .123
    
    Also, because the judge in this case had the very good sense to
    issue a gag order on EVERYONE involved with the case and threatened
    strong penalities if anyone violated the gag rule.
    
    I believe the judge has allowed one media person to report on the
    case and even he is restricted as to what he can report on air.
    
    

    
    .126
    
    If you are referring to the Bernardo case, then you are mistaken.
    
    The jury, certainly, is not permitted to discuss the case outside the
    courtroom, but this event is receiving blanket coverage by the media.
    Anything that is said in court before the jury is fair game for public
    consumption.
    

    
    > And then Rosen paused.... "But what he is not, members of the
    > jury, is a murderer," he said.

    eeeerrrr....I believe that that would be slander wouldn't it?  And
    correct me if I'm wrong Joan, but slander is a CRIMINAL offense in the
    peoples republic of Canada.

    
    Why "slander", Dan?  Who do you think Rosen is slandering?  His client?
    

    >clothes horse, cross border shopper, preppy, yuppie.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Oh, my...throw that man in jail.

    
    > Why "slander", Dan?  Who do you think Rosen is slandering?  His client?
    
    No, he (Bernardo) was not "called" a murderer, because until he's
    convicted, I believe it would be slander.  I could be mistaken, after
    all the laws in peoples republic of Canada are pretty twisted.
    

    
    Well, I don't think anyone here has ever believed that prosecution
    rhetoric could be construed as slanderous.  However, Dan, you just
    might be able to make a name for yourself in the annals of Canadian
    legal history by being the first!
    
    
    Meanwhile...
    
    "Paul Bernardo is a lying scumbag rapist murderer."
    
    				- John Collins
    

    Collins,
    
    I won't dispute what you say, you live there, I'm here.  It's just
    that a Canadian media type spoke on an American TV show.  He indicated he
    was covering the Bernardo trial, but in several instances where
    he was asked questions by the host he indicated that he was for-
    bidden to discuss those particular areas of the case ala rules set
    down by the judge.
    
    

    
    .133,
    
    Well, little has been left to our imagination in this case, so I'm
    not sure what he's referring to, unless it has to do with evidence
    that has been ruled inadmissable.  You see, our juries aren't sequestered,
    so the media wouldn't be allowed to report on details that the jury
    isn't being allowed to see; at least, not until after the trial is
    finished.
    
    The only real issue in that regard has to do with the videotapes of the
    assaults themselves, which have been shown to the jury and officials
    of the court, but not to the public.
    
    jc
                

    .134
    
    This clarifies it for me; some of the questions asked where of a
    speculative nature....and with unsequestered juries, it all makes
    sense.
    
    Either way, I think ya'll have a better grip on the legal system
    than we seem to most of the time these days.
    
    

	Two-fisted, twisted, bent, broken, cruiser, bruiser, boxer,
	loser                                                ^^^^^
    
    	What's his personal name, then ?
    

    "murderous deviant"

    Today's column by Christie Blatchford (printed without permission):
    
    Marianne Boucher, the CITY-TV court artist, calls it "the daily worst".
    
    It is that moment, each day at the trial of Paul Bernardo, which is
    beyond bearing, which is more awful than any of those which came before
    it but which, as we have all come to learn, likely will pale in
    comparison to those which follow.  The cumulative toll of three months
    of this may vary from person to person, but is huge; with me, for
    instance, it has left my emotions so close to the surface I am rendered
    completely transparent, readable to anyone who looks, however briefly
    and without curiosity, my way.
    
    Yesterday marked prosecutor Ray Houlahan's turn to address the jury,
    and so the daily worst came from him, which made it more shocking, if
    only because Houlahan isn't showy or especially stylish and rarely
    shocking; what he is is earnest.  It is as useful a gift for a lawyer
    as any other and more admirable than most.
    
    Prim and painstaking, with an endearing penchant for inventing new
    words - yesterday's was "discompostion," a melange, I assume of two of
    this trial's favorite words, dismember and decomposition- and Houlihan
    is also unswervingly stubborn, as is often the case with those driven
    by principle.  Under gentle, but insistent, pressure from the trial
    judge, Mr. Justice Patrick LeSage, to conclude his remarks by the end
    of yesterday, Houlahan stuck both to his guns and his 200-page address. 
    Much as he undoubtedly wanted to please LeSage, Houlahan, I suspect,
    was constitutionally unable to edit his speech lest, somehow, in
    excising say, five or six words, they might turn out to be the miracle
    five or six words that might put to rest one lingering doubt in the
    mind of one juror.
    
    Late in the day, before a mildly rueful LeSage who by now had accepted
    the fact that Houlahan would not in fact finish soon, the prosecutor
    was working to establish that Kristen French was killed on Easter
    Sunday morning of 1992, and not around supper time the day before. 
    This is a bone of contention at the trial, and important primarily as a
    way for the jury to gauge the credibility of Bernardo and his ex-wife,
    the felon Karla Homolka, in determining which of them killed Kristen
    and Leslie Mahaffy.
    
    To this end, Houlahan had played for the jurors, without the sound, a
    90 second clip of the segment of videotape known as A-7, the last tape
    of Kristen alive.  In it, the beautiful young woman is shown being
    attacked, first by Homolka, then by Bernardo, with a wine bottle they
    take turns ramming into her vagina.
    
    "See the shadow on the west bedroom wall cast by Homolka as she
    assaults Kristen with the wine bottle," said Houlahan, squatted before
    one of the large-screen monitors which face the jury box.  It was as
    though he was talking to himself.  "The sun has to be coming from the
    east," he said.
    
    "Do you see the shadow cast by the camera as it is held by the accused? 
    Do you see the accused's shadow as it moves across the floor in a
    westerly direction?"  On the tape, Bernardo had now taken the bottle
    from Homolka and taken over the attacking.
    
    "Watch," Houlahan said in his gruff voice, "the left leg of the
    accused, the shadow cast there by the bottle."
    
    "You see the shadow there? From Homolka? See it moving along the floor?
    From the east window? Again?"
    
    "What do you see there?" he asked the jurors.
    
    "The reflection of the little east window on the bottle, also? Look on
    this glass.  What's that? Isn't that the sun coming through this little
    east window right here?"
    
    He looked across the room and spoke to Det.-Const.Michael Kershaw, the
    Niagara Regional identification officer in charge, among other things,
    of running the videotape segments as the lawyers demand them.
    
    "Freeze-frame on the one on his leg, please, officer," Houlahan said.
    
    "See the shadow of the bottle on the accused's leg, the sun hitting it? 
    Do you see the rays?  Here's the sun hitting it, the bottle."
    
    Whatever the jurors make, in the end, of this evidence in terms of
    deciding who they believe, Bernardo or Homolka, about which day Kristen
    died, I feel sure they will be haunted by the incontrovertible
    knowledge that as these two assaulted this girl, the sun was streaming
    in a window, dappling the room with soft light, perhaps shining on her
    lovely face as she scrabbled to please her captors and stay alive a few
    hours longer.
    
    Perhaps, too, the jurors noticed the accused man in the prisoner's box
    as this tape was being played, watched as, in his olive suit, he raised
    his eyes a little, as if to imagine the sun slanting through a small
    east-wall window, and moved his large right hand this way and that. 
    Clearly, Bernardo seemed not distraught by the scene Ray Houlahan had
    so carefully described.  What Bernardo appeared to be trying to figure
    out was how the shadows made by a video camera, his hand, a wine
    bottle, would have fallen.
    
    The prosecutor, yesterday, had a habit of putting things to the jury by
    saying, "You may ask yourself..."  It reminded me of a couple of lines
    from a song I love, Once in a Lifetime, by the Talking Heads.
    
    "And you may ask yourself," goes the verse, "Well, how did I get here?"
    How on earth did Kristen French, did I, did any of us, end up in a
    room, soft light streaming in, with Paul Bernardo?

    Without knowing the technicalities of the law, seems to me that they
    are both guilty as sin, guilty as possible.  The fact that Homolka made
    her deal & got her light sentence is deplorable, to say the least, but
    doesn't diminish Bernardo's guilt.  I can't see how the jury could need
    to spend more than 30 minutes "deliberating."
    
    -Stephen

3:45 Toronto time - Justice Patrick LeSage has just finished his
instructions to the jury and they are now sequestered to decide 
Bernardo's fate.  Can somebody (Canadian perhaps) tell me what the
sentences are for 1st degree, 2nd degree and manslaughter?

Thanks,

Chris

5:30 - Still no word yet.  The Toronto Sun just had an advertisement
on the radio that they would be publishing a special issue tomorrow
which would tell all the details that the jury couldn't hear. It
makes me shudder to think that there are worse things we haven't heard
yet.  A few of the details mentioned on the radio:

* Bernardo tried to plea bargain for a charge of 2nd degree murder
  so that the families wouldn't have to sit through the tapes in
  court.  The French and Mahaffey families turned it down

* If the police had the tapes before the Homolka deal, she would have
  been charged with murder as well

* Bernardo's bedside reading included the book "American Psycho" which
  tells the tale of a blonde businessman who confines, rapes and
  tortures young girls.


I hope I'm not coming off as obsessed with this thing - figured a few
of you would want to hear the details.

    
    .140, Chris:
    
    In Canada, 1st degree murder is punishable by a minimum 25-year jail
    term with no chance of parole.  2nd degree murder carries the same 
    penalty, but the convict can be eligible for parole after, I believe, 
    10 years.  Manslaughter has no minumum sentence, but the maximum is
    25 years.
    

10:15 am - Jury still out (I think - haven't heard any differently)
They broke last night around 9:00pm and started back at it this
morning just after 9:00.

(John - FYI, I heard on the radio this morning that 1st degree is 
minimum 25 years, 2nd degree is minimum 17 years)

    Now will he serve those sentences consecutively or one after the other?

    
    Chris:
    
    2nd degree, like 1st degree, buys you a minimum 25-year sentence. 
    The only difference is the percentage of that sentence that you must 
    serve before becoming eligible for parole.  This is usually determined
    by the sentencing judge, and then later, by the National Parole Board.
    
    With 1st degree, you must serve the entire 25 years.  With 2nd degree,
    I was under the impression that you had to serve a minimum of 10 years
    before becoming eligible for parole, but it may have recently been 
    raised to 17 years.
    
    No matter.  Once this trial is over, he goes on trial for the 
    `Scarborough Rapist' charges, and after that, you can bet the crown
    will seek to have him officially declared a "dangerous offender", which
    will mean that he can be held in prison indefinitely.
    
    He will never walk as a free man again, and heaven help him if he does.
    

    
    <------
    
    
    > He will never walk as a free man again, and heaven help him if does.
    
    
    Why? 
    
    Will someone take a  {GASP!!} ***GUN*** to the side of his head????
    

    I hope not. Such an end would be far too quick and painless. One would
    hope he'd be afforded treatment similar to that which he inflicted upon
    his victims...

    
    
    Then an assault chain-saw perhaps???
    

    I was thinking more along the lines of copious application of fire
    ants...

    How about a Garden Weasel?  Removing the outer tine for the hard to
    reach areas.

    
    >>Removing the outer tine for the hard to reach areas.
    
    
    is there an inner 'tine???
    
    :>
    

    
    > ...you can bet the crown
    > will seek to have him officially declared a "dangerous offender", which
    > will mean that he can be held in prison indefinitely.
    
    Something about this statement bothers me.
    

After just over 7 hours of deliberation, the jury has returned with
their verdict.....

	GUILTY of FIRST DEGREE MURDER 

Bernardo has been found guilty of all 9 charges.  The media is still
waiting for the reporters who are inside the courtroom to come out.
Hints are that Rosen will appeal the 1st degree charge and also that
Bernardo has a statement to make, but we won't hear about that until
the courtroom clears.

Sad to say, but I think from reading the papers today that our police
have a lot to answer for - seems they could have had this guy on the
rape charges a long time ago. sigh :-(

    
    WHAT a relief!!
    

    I wonder if he will serve the sentences concurrently or all at the same
    time.

The first degree charge carries an automatic life sentence with
no eligibility for parole for 25 years (why do they call it a "life"
sentence??).  He will return to court on September 15th to be 
sentenced on the other charges and I think to be charged with the
Scarbourough rapist charges (people keep interrupting me when I'm
listening to the radio... the nerve!  :*)  )  I haven't heard whether
or not he serves the charges concurrently or not.  Karla is, isn't
she?

    
    It's rare in Canada to mete out consecutive sentences of such lengths.
    
    But then, this *is* a rare case...
    

    
    
    Yes, but it would insure that you, as Canadian taxpayers, would be
    supporting him for a very, very long time...
    

    We like paying taxes.

    
    
    <--------
    
    See what happens when it's too cold for too long???
    
    :)
    

    Ya, the beer improves.

    Andy,
    
    I've got the feeling that our northern neighbors would much rather
    pay the cost of incarcerating this sociopath rather than having
    him walking about the countryside.
    
    

        From what I've read of this guy, they should take the 'enry II
        approach: Shove a red-hot poker up his fundamental orifice,
        handle first so that he burns his hands trying to pull it out.
        
        Then they should punish him.
        
        

    re: .163
    
     Nowadays, I don't admire too much about China's government, but one
    thing I do approve of is there cheap and easy solution to problems such
    as this Paul Bernadino...
    
      I realize it's not much suffering on his part, nowhere near what he
    did to those poor girls, but it's quick... and it's over.... People can
    go on with their lives...
    

Now that Bernardo's been convicted, can we just save some disk space and
point to the Susan Smith topic for people's opinions on suitable punishment?

    No, we can't.

    
    I know, I know... !! Let's hire Susan Smith as Paul Bernado's
    driver... :-) :-) :-)
    
    -b

Well, can we at least preempt the "how they should punish Richard Rosenthal"
string?

 .166 a fine idea.  

      and just think of all the space we'd have left over for
      that most clever of pastimes - snarfing.

    Bernardo got concurrent sentences. Crazy. Eligible for parole in 25
    years.

    
    They should give Bernardo a suspended sentence.....
    
    and HIGHLY publicize his date and location of release.  That should
    solve the problem completely.   ;-)

               <<< Note 432.172 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "Danimal" >>>

    
>    They should give Bernardo a suspended sentence.....

>    and HIGHLY publicize his date and location of release.  That should
>    solve the problem completely.   ;-)

	Gee Dan, you dissapointed me. I was hoping for a play on "suspended"
	(involving a rope and a tall tree) after the form feed.

Jim

The prosecution is going to ask that he be classified as a "dangerous
offender" which means that he could be kept in prison for the rest
of his life.

    By then they'll be freezing all the prisoners.

    doesn't the silly sentence fly in the face of him as a "dangerous"
    scum bag? i see Canada's legal system is stand-up comedy too...

    
    > 	Gee Dan, you dissapointed me. I was hoping for a play on "suspended"
    > 	(involving a rope and a tall tree) after the form feed.
    
    DAM !   Didn't think of it..... Good one Jim.
    

    
    > DAM !   Didn't think of it..... Good one Jim.
    
    I would like to try and give you credit for possibly playing on certain
    words (ie dam<>hoover..etc.) but I may be a bit premature in doing
    so...
    
     Am I?
    

    
    No Andy, I used "DAM" for two reasons.  One is that not even the most
    high goderator will delete the note because of <ro>, and two because of
    the dam - hoover thingie.... :-)   In other words, it was intentional. 
    I just missed the suspended sentence one is all.

    
    Paul has been declared a "dangerous offender", a designation under
    Canadian law that allows violent criminals to be jailed indefinitely.
    
    Pending the outcome of the appeal of his first-degree murder convictions
    (which will carry a minimum 25-year sentence), he will still be able to 
    apply for parole every 2-3 years.
    

    	I read today that he admitted to doing a bunch of rapes.

Last Friday, Paul Bernardo admitted that he was a dangerous offender
and also, that he was the Scarborough Rapist.  This means that he can
be kept in prison for the rest of his life.  Apparently, he is the first
to ever agree to the dangerous offender status and one of the conditions
of his doing so was that he wouldn't have to face each of the rape
victims while they gave their victim impact statements.  The Judge didn't 
let him off completely though - he read aloud the statements and 12 out
of 14 of the victims were sitting in the courtroom.  There were also 
statements from Donna French - she said that Kristen kept Doug young and 
that when her death was confirmed, she saw her husband age right before her 
eyes.  She physically aches to be able to hold her daughter in her arms 
again.  Ryan Mahaffey (11 year old brother of Leslie) made a statement 
where he wondered on what part of Darwins evolutionary scale Bernardo 
could possibly fit in.  Debbie Mahaffey put together an hour long video tape 
showing Leslie from the time she was a baby up until just before her
death - she said she chose the video on purpose to counteract all the
obscenities shown on the Bernardo/Homolka video - it was titled "Worlds
Apart". Some of the rape victims shouted at Bernardo as he was taken
out of the courtroom - "We won, you B*****d"  I hope it gives them some
measure of comfort to know that the man who raped them has been caught
and put away - all of their stories are tragic. One of the girls did comment 
that Bernardo should have been made to stand before each one and look them 
in the eyes while he said "I'm guilty".

    
    re: .180
    
    "Bad....bad boy Paul!!! Hold out those hands now!! Slap! Slap! There! I
    hope you learned your lesson! We'll let you alone for 2-3 years now,
    and see how you're doing then... Maybe if you're smart enough, and
    learn how to manipulate the system, we *might* thing about letting you
    out so you can become a 'model" to reflect that system..."
    

I doubt he'll ever get out.  I think I read something in the weekend 
papers that confirmed that *none* of the prisoners labelled "dangerous
offender" have ever been paroled.  Every 2-3 years seems like a bit much 
to me - I wonder if the victim impact statements have to be given again
each time?

       Charley Manson has been up for parole every few years; I wouldn't
       say that his freedom is at hand.

    
    <-------
    If that looney-tune would just play at faking it, he woulda been outa
    there a long time ago...
    
     Problem is, he spouts his loco-weed babble everytime he gets called
    in front of those "impartial" parole people, and they have no choice
    but to stick him back in the bubble-gum factory...
    

    The Bernardo/Homolka house in Port Dalhousie is due to be demolished
    tomorrow.  The government paid the owner an undisclosed amount - he gets
    to keep the land but says he has no plans to redevelop it.  Also, the
    materials are to be buried in a secret place so that souvenir hunters
    (aka sickos) won't be able to take anything.

    http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/july12_blatchford.html
    
    July 12, 1996 
    
    Let's not judge cops too harshly
    
                               By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD 
                                   Toronto Sun
                  
    The massive volume that is the "Bernardo Investigation Review" is, I 
    imagine, an accurate reflection of its author, Mr. Justice Archie
    Campbell -- frank, hard and  fair.
     
    Matching His Honor in the first two categories will be no problem for 
    most people, especially those of us in the press, where we like
    our villains clearly marked, preferably wearing black, and the good 
    guys in white. Even approaching Campbell's degree of fairness is where 
    I suspect it will all get a little tricky. 
    
    Campbell pulled no punches. 
    
    Had everything worked as we would all have hoped, and in particular
    had Paul Bernardo's blood-saliva-hair samples been subjected to DNA 
    testing at the Centre of Forensic Sciences in December of 1990, as 
    Metro Police had requested in writing, he would likely have been arrested
    in early 1991. The significance, of course, is that he would not then
    have gone on to rape four more young women and would not have, his 
    then good wife Karla Homolka at his side at most material times, 
    abducted, raped, tortured and killed two beautiful girls, Leslie Mahaffy 
    and Kristen French. 
     
    In fact, the DNA tests weren't done for 25 1/2 months, and when they
    were, they revealed Bernardo as the infamous Scarboro Rapist, fingered 
    him as the prime suspect in the Mahaffy and French murders, "prevented 
    him from raping or killing again" as Campbell notes, and led, with
    fairly shocking speed, to his arrest and eventual conviction. 
     
    But in laying bare the details of this cock-up, as well as in the
    others found throughout the Bernardo case, Campbell tempers his ruthless 
    honesty with a real understanding of the various institutions involved, 
    and with kindness. 
    
    Did the police screw up? 
    
    Oh my yes, here and there, and sometimes alarmingly, individual police
    officers, both on Metro and the Niagara Regional force, made mistakes. 
    Campbell names them; he also does what reporters are often unable, and 
    occasionally unwilling, to do -- he hears the individuals out, and
    finds that there were reasons for what they did or didn't do. Best of
    all, Campbell also takes the mistakes a step higher. 
     
    Where, for instance, he clearly tears a strip off Metro Det. Steve
    Irwin (and here I feel I have something of a conflict; Irwin is one of 
    the few police officers I know reasonably well, I like him,
    and tried unsuccessfully for months to persuade him to help me do a
    book on this case) for his handling of the interview that followed 
    Bernardo's arrest. 
     
    But Campbell pointedly notes that Irwin's then-boss, Staff-Insp. Steve
    Marrier, had "ensured that Irwin took advice about the interview from 
    officers in the Metro force" and thus went into the interview with a 
    secret Metro agenda, that he gave Irwin and his interviewing partner, 
    Det.-Sgt. Gary Beaulieu of the Green Ribbon Task Force, "grossly 
    incorrect legal advice" that rendered the whole of the eight-hour 
    interview completely useless in court, and that then, when the whole kit
    and caboodle was over, Marrier accepted "no responsibility and no
    accountability" for what had happened -- though he was the ranking 
    officer in authority on site the night of the interview. 
     
    Campbell is clearly aware of the old cop's adage that in any police
    force, "sh-- flows downhill"; he took pains to make sure that in his 
    report at least, it does not. 
     
    Did the Centre of Forensic Sciences miss the boat? 
     
    Guilty, says Campbell, but with an explanation. It is that the DNA lab
    was just being set up, and that though there were only three staffers 
    in the unit, they were lousy communicators, and the one
    scientist who knew about the Metro request for DNA testing, Kim
    Johnston, didn't tell the other two, and no one in either institution, 
    the force or the Centre, was in charge of riding herd on the
    high-priority cases. 
     
    Did rivalries between Metro and Green Ribbon exist? 
     
    Is a pig's butt pork? Campbell points them out, regrets them, but
    notes they didn't cause real damage to the investigation. And, as he 
    said yesterday, "You want those egos (in police officers).
    You want the police to have a sense of ownership ... but you don't want
    the egos getting in the way." 
     
    Did Green Ribbon, to use Campbell's phrase, put too "many eggs into
    the Camaro basket" -- the tip that the abductor of Kristen French was 
    driving a gold or cream Camaro? 
     
    Yes, replies Campbell, then adds the kicker -- "in hindsight." 
     
    But at the time, the description of the car was all the investigators
    had, and out of 35 witnesses, 17 had described the vehicle that way. 
    And, of course, there is the fact that when the police made
    the decision to focus on the Camaro, they hoped Kristen was still
    alive; they felt they had to do something. 
     
    Did the joint Metro-Green Ribbon team which searched the Bernardo-Homolka 
    home mess up?
    
    Yes, is Campbell's answer, because they didn't find the videotapes
    which would have rendered unnecessary the subsequent distasteful plea 
    bargain with Homolka. 
    
    But, but, but, says Campbell. The searchers had been led to believe
    the tapes likely weren't in the house, but hidden elsewhere, and though 
    it appears they were found (later, by Bernardo's first
    lawyer, Ken Murray, but that's a story for another day) in a bathroom
    pot light, the light had been searched by Const. Michael Kershaw, who 
    may not have reached in far enough -- or who, perhaps, had the bad 
    luck to have shorter arms than Ken Murray. 
    
    In reply to a question about the various failures of the police
    yesterday, Campbell said, "Their biggest mistake was the failure to 
    use systems that weren't available to them." 
     
    The Bernardo investigation, at bottom, was a story of individual human
    frailty certainly, but it was the systemic failure -- the lack of a 
    decent case management computer system, the inability of
    police forces to compare notes on sexual predators, notorious for
    moving from one jurisdiction to another -- that allowed Bernardo to run 
    free for as long as he did. 
    
    It's easy, says Archie Campbell, to judge the principals in this case
    by the standards of 1996; it's easy, but wrong. He never doubts, even 
    in those he criticizes, their skill, their commitment, their
    work ethic and their drive to catch the man who was inflicting so much
    damage. We should all be so generous. 
    

       I have but only one consolation about Bernardo not getting the death
    penalty.  Anyone remember a chap named Jeffery Dahlmer?  They still got
    to him.  If I was the Prison Warden, I would personally go to
    Bernardo's cell and tell him I have wonderfull news: 
    
    "You've been moved from Protective Custody, into the General
    Population!  Here's a bar of soap, it's shower time...you can introduce
    yourself to the other inmates there..." 

	How is that a punishment? If he doesn't drop it, he doesn't have to
worry.....

-1 um, er Glen... i don't think being clumsy with a bar of soap
   would make all that difference.

	Is there a Bubba in the shower at the time? Them guys are huge and
mean! (well, Clinton's not mean, and neither is Jerry)



Glen