Korean Job Discussion Forums

[bucheon bum]

[red dog]

[Bimujang]

[red dog]

I said they didn't. You're reading in things I never said or implied.

[Yu_Bum_suk]

[bucheon bum]

[red dog]

I don't know what her punishment should have been. YBS wrote:

[Yu_Bum_suk]

[Yu_Bum_suk]

[red dog]

YBS, I agree it's impossible to know for certain what happened.

BTW, even if you believe Homolka's account, it seems very likely that she could have been convicted on three counts of murder. In Canada you can be convicted of murder if someone is killed accidentally during the commission of another crime, which is what happened to Tammy Homolka. During the Bernardo trial I remember that she even acknowledged she was guilty of murder but allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter (under the deal that we all know about).

I guess the problem is that until the tapes were found, the evidence against her came only from her -- so if she had refused to testify or cooperate with the police, or if she had recanted her statements, it would have been more difficult for them to prosecute either her or Bernardo.

But the more I think about it the more confused I am about why Homolka's testimony was so important once the tapes were found. Even though they didn't show the killings, certainly they were enough to establish his guilt? Even in the worst-case scenario (if the court had aquitted him of murder), couldn't he have been declared a dangerous offender on the basis of all those rape convictions?

[Yu_Bum_suk]

[red dog]

Well I remember learning the above in a high school law class many ages ago ... but I'm pretty sure they both could have been convicted of murder for killing her sister, that is if there was enough evidence. They only found out about it because Homolka confessed, and not laying charges in that case was part of her deal.

But in the other cases, I imagine Homolka and Bernardo would both have been convicted of murder if the tapes had been found sooner. If two people are involved in a murder, they're both guilty under the law even if only one pulls the trigger (or carries it out by whatever method). Then again, you never know ... maybe they still felt Homolka's testimony was necessary to guarantee a first-degree murder conviction.

I'm not sure what is necessary to get someone declared a dangerous offender ... Maybe that's the real reason Homolka's testimony was necessary? To establish that Bernardo was bad enough to warrant such an extreme measure and make sure it was never reversed.

[Yu_Bum_suk]

As I understand it, repeated sexual offences qualifies one to be declared a 'Dangerous Offender', and it takes a jury. A bleeding-heart judge might make a fuss over them getting this charge on the rape charges alone, but no jury in Ontario would. A dangerous offender can appeal periodically for release, but again, no parole board would ever let them see the light of day, and they'd never get an ounce of sympathy from the public so long as people of our generation are still living.

[canadian_in_korea]

Well, I know this topic is pretty old but the time is drawing near for homolka to be released. I've been keeping up a little on this seeing as how I have a 15 year old daughter and have been educating her on the whole situation. As my daughter and her friends were only 3 years old when this all happened they pretty much don't know anything. From what I understand Homolka is appealing a decision by a judge that allows her picture to be taken and released..? She is also appealing the decision on restrictions on her release. This morning I watched something on TV where the judge said ms. homolka will have to face the canadian public for her crimes eventually.....they also said she has changed her name to ms. teal..? So I'm assuming that there have been threats against her life....do you suppose this is all just talk..? I can't quite imagine a posse being formed....acts of vigilantes aren't that common in canada....are they?

[Manner of Speaking]