Jump to content

Talk:Paul Bernardo: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by BartBakerTaylorSwift (talk) to last version by Meters
Line 201: Line 201:


Who was the "Kenneth Bernardo [who] fondled a girl ". Was it this man or his father? When did he molest his own daughter? Was this also the father not the son? And what was the revelation about the sons real parentage?[[User:Royalcourtier|Royalcourtier]] ([[User talk:Royalcourtier|talk]]) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Who was the "Kenneth Bernardo [who] fondled a girl ". Was it this man or his father? When did he molest his own daughter? Was this also the father not the son? And what was the revelation about the sons real parentage?[[User:Royalcourtier|Royalcourtier]] ([[User talk:Royalcourtier|talk]]) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

== The chronology of events is not sequential and very difficult to follow ==

The article jumps back and forth through time too much. I had to read the whole article to see that his crimes started in '86-'87 and arrested in '93.

Revision as of 17:19, 4 June 2016

Text references missing information (deleted?)

Currently the early life section mentions "his mother told him of his actual parentage" but it is not mentioned what his parentage is and why it would be unusual.

Also, the sentence "In addition to the confirmed murders of Tammy Lyn Homolka, Leslie Erin Mahaffy and Kristen Dawn French" is the first mention of Mahaffy and French. There is no information about those two murders in the article up to that point, but they are still referenced as if they've been covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.250.70 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest

Perhaps this article should mention how they were arrested?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.64.24 (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just seconding this. The article seems well-written but the absence of any information regarding how Bernardo and Homolka were eventually apprehended is a huge gap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.13.156 (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I think the statement

... was not widely reported. While consistent with his trial testimony, as of July 2005 these claims have not been substantiated. should be removed. I believe the video and Karla's confession substantiates his claim. Cafe Nervosa | talk 21:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the material inserted in Revision as of 06:59, July 6, 2005. The stuff not substantiated is the plan to inject air into the girl's blood stream. I'l revise the article to reflect this. Cafe Nervosa | talk21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the meat of the murders in Karla Homolka and not here?

He was convicted and sentenced for life for the crimes but the murders are detailed in more depth in her article. - Tεxτurε 15:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Probably because he's in a maximum-security prison and will rot there. Karla, on the other hand, has completed her 12-year prison term and is due to be released soon. Since she's begun to show up in the papers and other media again, people are more likely to first search for 'Karla Homolka' rather than 'Paul Bernardo'.


  • Should we mention the fact that his house, in which the murders were committed, was subsequently demolished because no one would buy it? DS 01:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bernardo a Freemason??

I was looking at the list of Famous Freemasons here at Wikipedia. I was surprised to find out that Paul Bernardo, Canada's most infamous school girl killer, was on that list. Can anyone find any proof of this, and how this information became public??

  • He appears to be off the list of famous freemasons. I've never heard of his association with masonry before.

Young Hype - The Rap Career

I was wondering if anyone had anymore information regarding Bernardo's so called rap career under the name of Young Hype. Im not entirely sure its truth or fiction but if so perhaps it's worth mentioning?

Elizabeth Bain

It has never been proven that Paul Bernardo had ever met Elizabeth Bain. This merely speculative as a witnessed saw Ms Bain with a person loosely fitting Paul Bernardo's discription shortly before her disappearance. Paul Bernardo is scum.

People who knew both Bernardo and Elisabeth Bain said they met each other in 1985.--Splashen (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


He was interviewed by provincial police in 2009 about Elizabeth Bain. I will update at some point. CBC and G&M have articles and there is a link to the interview available. LLD-MA (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)LLD-MALLD-MA (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reorganization

This article is a bit of a mess -- facts are presented in a bizarre order. "Crimes," then "events," then trial, with lots overlapping but no clear chronology. The crimes section turns out to be about evidence; most of the rapes show up halfway the article for no clear reason. It is all rather confused. Uucp 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons

Comment:

  • I do not have the expertise in this particular biographical subject to quickly determine the veracity of many of the statements contained therein (there should be a lot more references, at the very least).
  • The neutrality of the article is highly questionable
  • The Early life section is in particular need of attention.
  • Reputable sources need to be used (CourtTV's Crime Library doesn't count. The article on Bernardo there reads like a tabloid rag, and it sounds similar to the content in the Early life section in this wiki page)
  • Personally I think they both should be in jail for the rest of their natural lives, and the crimes they committed were unimaginably heinous. However, I am not aware of any exceptions in the WP:BLP. --- Taroaldo 05:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am going to work on cleanup of this article. I have made some changes and added some sources today, and will continue to work on it when I have time. --- Taroaldo 02:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


MAJOR work needed AND IS BEING DONE

This article is in need of total reorganization, explication and in some areas, condensation. Moreover, this is appalling: "a number of books have been written..." and no books referenced, though fair detail is given for a Hollywood movie!

The house was not demolished because nobody would buy it; it was demolished to prevent anyone's buying it. Most of the information still is only in Homolka's article, which itself needs updating.

There is nothing about how involvement in this case, subsequent to the discovery that there were videotapes, ruined the career and life of a good lawyer (though out of his depth) Kenneth Murray.

There is nothing about the police hounding author Stephen Williams because he described, in exacting detail, what was on the videotapes. (It was not supposed to have been made public)

There is nothing about the handling of certain evidence (the videotapes; they were allowed to be shown only to the jury and certain court officials a limited number of times and subsequently were destroyed, after pressure was brought to bear by the French and Mahaffey families).Freiherrin (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


PLEASE NOTE I have begun basically to rewrite this entire article. It will be done in sections; please leave comments on the talk page rather than changing things as I cannot do this all at once. ALSO NOTE that references will be cleaned up and added AFTER the article has been rewritten. THank youFreiherrin (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT carp about references etc. this article is IN USE and will be finished shortly.Freiherrin (talk)

A question about this site's acuity

I would like to know how it is possible to be logged in, to do more than an hour's work, and have the "bot" delete all changes "due to vandalism". This sort of automated stupidity has happened before. If it happens again I will leave everything as is, whether finished or not, so that the "bot" can take over.Freiherrin (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress to January 21, 2008

Interested readers please note that the article is in use for total revision, which is complete to the end of the section "Other potential or possible victims". References will be added on completion.Freiherrin (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all . . .

who are adding links etc. to this article. It is so sordid a subject that I have to take a break every so often, to come up for air.Freiherrin (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten to end of section 3

Next up, trial and onward.Freiherrin (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to edit this article . . .

kindly ensure that you are contributing something useful in terms of information not previously known, added references, NON POV FACTS etc. Nothing useful is gained by saying "Bernardo got the girls to spread their legs"; that sort of phraseology will be removed pronto.

This article is undergoing MAJOR REVISION; it has been several months of slogging through all sorts of unsavoury information; the references are not all included as yet; if you have reasonable comments or suggestions please email me.Freiherrin (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the re-write; I haven't been following your edits, but the article is substantially expanded from the last time I read it. Having said that... With all due respect, I suggest that editors disregard your request to email you - no individual editor owns an article, and a better method to incorporate good faith contributions is for editors to either make improvements themselves, or leave suggestions on this page. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was not meant to suggest that I "own" the article. Once I am done with this article, as with the accompanying Karla Homolka article, I am leaving it; I am not going to monitor or amend or revert it. The reason for requesting emails is that I have ongoing trouble with staying on Wikipedia, losing information and finding myself logged out for no reason. If people would prefer to post the information here, I have no problem with it.Freiherrin (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is his name?

did he change it from bernardo to teale or vice versa? what date? etc.

we need a section about the interview that was recently released.--Sonjaaa (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about this. Yeah, he changed it to Teale but I think the courts didn't allow it. This was after he was arrested I believe. I dont have any info, so I cant edit the article, but this is a good lead for someone who is interested in this scumbag.72.137.11.38 (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Jason Teale. http://www.fact.on.ca/newpaper/ts991103.htm http://www.fact.on.ca/newpaper/ts991105.htm Israell (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Regional Police

Sorry but the NRP are so stupid and lax. They could have found the pair out many many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.190.62 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The coroner's ruling, that her death was by drowning, probably as a result of drinking beer and taking LSD, was controversial in light of Leslie Mahaffy's and Kristen French's murders." I'd like to see the coroner's ruling. Does anyone know where they can be found? I wonder on what basis the coroner came to such conclusions? Pressure to blame drugs and alcohol for death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.3.57 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case numbers

In the article, there is a reference to two cases:

  • R. v. Bernardo, [1995] O.J. No. 2988 (Ct. J. (Gen. Div.))
  • R. v. Bernardo, [1995] O.J. No. 3866 (Ct. J. (Gen. Div.))

I looked for these on CanLII, and I could only find one case in Ontario in 1995 called "R. v. Bernardo": R. v. Bernardo, 1995 CanLII 7434 (ON S.C.) Maybe I'm not looking in the right way, but for now I've tagged these two references with {{Verify source}}.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 14:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faint Hope Clause

Paul Bernardo is not eligible for faint hope clause because he is multiple murderer. The article lists "Paul Bernardo is eligible for release in 2010 under faint hope clause". It may be incorrect.

Faint hope clause have special exception for multiple murders.

Danielcg (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distasteful Descriptions of Rape

I just wanted to voice my objection to this article's seeming obsession with how long Bernardo took to rape each girl. What is the point of letting the reader know that he took an hour to rape someone? I should think this would only serve to titillate some perv. They need to be removed. Danwaggoner (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The time taken for the rapes is absolutely valid as it shows the increasing severity of the attacks. It's an important fact in showing that Bernardo was becoming increasingly violent and would eventually move from rape to murder. We can only edit based upon relevancy, not upon the possible effect it might have on disturbed individuals. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a photo

It seems strange that an article on such a famous person would not contain a single photograph of him. Surely there is a public domain image out there that could be used?--Srleffler (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


INFAMY DOES NOT MEAN "FAMOUS"

Bernardo is infamous not famous. There is a big difference in the connotation of those terms. Famous flatters a very mentally disturbed serial killer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.58.178 (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information on arrest

Why is there no information on how Bernardo came to be linked to the murders and when he was subsequently arrested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.52.196 (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This piece of info is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.42.57 (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no death penalty in Canada.

This article states that PB was sentenced to lethal injection, but I am going to hasten to guess that an American user made this up, because Canada hasn't had the death penalty since 1976, and the only method ever used was hanging. PB is classified a dangerous offender, like Clifford Olson (which is a term in the British and Canadian criminal code but not the U.S.). To quote cbc news, "Sept. 15, 1995: Bernardo is sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole for 25 years." and "November 1995: Bernardo is declared a dangerous offender, meaning he will likely spend the rest of his life in jail."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/16/f-bernardo-homolka-timeline.html

NewMind (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification?

Currently we have: December 23, 1987, Bernardo committed his fourth rape. During this attack, Bernardo raped the 17-year-old with the knife he used to threaten his victims.

Which means either he was threatening the victim with a knife while raping her, OR he literally used the knife to rape the victim (penetration, etc.). The current wording is ambiguous. The Masked Booby (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Jane Doe's virginity?

It's not cited and I don't believe is relevant to the matter of her rape. Nachturnal (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Few refs I stumbled upon, very interesting reads

[1] and [2]


These two articles are from 1991 when Leslie Mahaffy was found / identified. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the same section (noticed we did that on these two a bit) that was on Karla Homolka's page: I found it odd that while they were both mirrored in the media, it is only referenced on her page. Hackeru (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confused account

Who was the "Kenneth Bernardo [who] fondled a girl ". Was it this man or his father? When did he molest his own daughter? Was this also the father not the son? And what was the revelation about the sons real parentage?Royalcourtier (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The chronology of events is not sequential and very difficult to follow

The article jumps back and forth through time too much. I had to read the whole article to see that his crimes started in '86-'87 and arrested in '93.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Bernardo&oldid=723699177"