Announcement

**schmosef** · 3 July 2005, 13:03

It wasn't in Quebec, it was in Ontario. Bernardo was known as the "Scarborough Town Rapist". That's part of Toronto. Homolka's family lived in St. Catherines, that's in Ontario too. Homolka spent much of her prison time in a facility in Quebec, but that's were that connection ends.

The story goes that the case was botched by the RCMP (like your FBI) and OPP (like your State police).

There's much speculation that the media blackout requested by the prosectution was to suppress that truth from coming out; ostensibly it was to protect the families.

They needed Homolka to testify against Bernardo because they needed an alternate source of evidence. Supposedly, infighting between the two agencies stalled the sharing of evidence and delayed identifying Bernardo. I've heard that combined, the two agencies had enough evidence to put the finger on Bernardo before French was kidnapped, but separately, they were clueless.

After they had Bernardo and Homolka they realized how much of their evidence couldn't be used because it would make the two agencies look bad for borking the investigation. They decided to give Homolka a sweatheart deal for her testimony. Thereby filling in the gaps that were left in the absense of their own evidence.

As for your comment:

I can't even believe that Canadian law is so wimpy that Karla could ever get out of jail, plea bargain or not. WTF is going on up there????

Are you actually proposing that the courts override a deal (made for whatever reason) that was previously accepted? Who the heck would ever plea bargain again if there was precedent for the deal to be thrown out.

And as for wimpy legal systems... Do I really have to mention OJ, MJ, RB?

**schmosef** · 3 July 2005, 13:06

I guess that HBO series you mentioned was a little thin on info. Bernardo was linked to over a dozen rapes as the Scarborough Town Rapist. That's not including the three girls that he/they also killed.

**Dr Mordrid** · 3 July 2005, 15:09

In the US before a deal is made the defendant has to totally come clean and present all the info they have or the trial judge can pull the deal.

In her case as soon as tnose tapes came out the prosceutors would have aked the judge to pull the deal. That complete they would have hammered her into the ground.

Dr. Mordrid

**schmosef** · 3 July 2005, 19:24

I'm not sure what the allocution rules are here. But the prosecution didn't negate her deal. You still think the courts have a right to overturn an accepted deal?

I know from TV court shows that in some States the judge has the right to refuse a deal in the interests of justice (not sure what the rules are here). But once a deal has been made, and accepted, there's nothing that another court can do to override it unless the prosecution proves that the allocution was incomplete.

The reasons for the prosecution's reluctance to forfeit the deal go back to the conspiracy theory I mentioned.

It's the poisoned root theory. They couldn't present certain evidence that would have been required to establish an interest in Bernardo and Homolka because the agency bungling would have come to light. Without that evidence the tapes and further collected evidence wouldn't have been admissable because the prosecution wouldn't have had an reason to investigate in the first place.

Getting Homolka to plea bargain guaranteed the admissability of all the evidence that they weren't embarrased to show.

**Dr Mordrid** · 3 July 2005, 22:14

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/plea_bargains.html#Q3

What Happens If I Break My Deal With The Prosecutor?

A plea bargain is a contract between the prosecutor and the defendant, and both parties are required to comply with the terms of their contract. If you have a plea bargain with the prosecutor and you are required to perform particular tasks (such as pleading guilty on a particular date, cooperating in the investigation of another offense, or testifying against a co-defendant), the prosecutor may revoke the plea bargain if you fail to satisfy your duties.

Also: this example from case law (appeal in Wash. State, but very similar to others);

Standing alone, a plea bargain has no constitutional significance. It is a 'mere executory agreement' until it is confirmed by the judgment of the court. Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 507, 104 S. Ct. 2543, 81 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1984).

A plea bargain is no more than a proposal, an offer which the State can revoke until the moment when the defendant enters a plea, or has acted detrimentally in reliance on the offer. State v. Bogart, 57 Wn. App. 353,
356, 788 P.2d 14 (1990).

Which means that when you're required to "come clean" and then don't it's back to square one and the full charges, and you can bet they won't be one bit lenient the second time 'round.

The uppance is that in the US if later statements or evidence showed that she did not fulfill the plea bargain the prosecutor could go back to the presiding judge in the case to have it revoked.

Here in the US the presiding judge can re-open that case even years later if more evidence comes to light etc. At that time plea bargains or even a jury finding can be set aside and new trials ordered etc.

Dr. Mordrid

**schmosef** · 3 July 2005, 23:07

oh forget it, you're not even listening.

**Dr Mordrid** · 3 July 2005, 23:22

Oh I get the conspiracy theory. I just don't buy it. IMO it's incompetance combined with a system that encourages it. Something like our laws re: pedophiles, which need drastic updating.

Dr. Mordrid

**SitFlyer** · 3 July 2005, 23:40

The same thing happens here, especially when the media get involved.

**schmosef** · 3 July 2005, 23:44

Conspiracy theory aside. They had the tapes when they made the deal with her (although I seem to remember that there was some cock up over some additional tapes being mislaid for a while). She had to answer questions about them on cross-examination. I remember reading about her being asked if she liked it when Bernardo forced her to perform oral sex on her sister, as was depicted on one of the tapes. She said â€˜noâ€™.

Her general story was that she was under Bernardoâ€™s spell and didn't know how to escape. His story was that she was his willing accomplice and even maybe the driving force behind their actions.

Even if you don't believe her, there's enough there for the possibility of a finding of reasonable doubt in a case against her. For whatever it's worth, the Crown decided that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush.

You can second guess the Crown all you want but much of the case will never be made public because of the media ban. Sure, the international press was able to report all that they saw but there were a lot of closed door legal proceedings and obviously a lot of wheeling a dealing going on behind the scenes too.

**SitFlyer** · 4 July 2005, 00:41

Interesting read

**schmosef** · 4 July 2005, 00:51

care to quote the most interesting parts?

**Jammrock** · 4 July 2005, 07:43

My wife wants to know what's wrong with your Canadian prison system? If she had gone to jail in the US she would have gotten a little "prison justice" and not lived long enough to get out.

**Tjalfe** · 4 July 2005, 07:52

Is that really a flaw of the system?

**schmosef** · 4 July 2005, 10:17

Originally posted by Jammrock

My wife wants to know what's wrong with your Canadian prison system? If she had gone to jail in the US she would have gotten a little "prison justice" and not lived long enough to get out.

Her deal included the Crown's recommendation that she be interned in a psychiatric facility.

Announcement

Karla Homolka, Canadian serial killer, getting out....

Karla Homolka, Canadian serial killer, getting out....

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment