Talk:Karla Homolka

old comments

The article doesn't mention homosexuality so I've removed the category

Justice in Canada is crazy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.38.79 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that might have been included at some point because it (incorrectly) stated that she is now married to Luka Magnotta, who is a gay porn star. She is not married to him and there is no link to sources on here that even cite that hence deleting name of LM from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shh071 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Serious Problems with Murder timeline

I came here for info on the dates of the murders; and specifically which order the murders took place [if her sister was first, or whatever]. I took a look at this timeline, and was lost immediatly. the dates aren't in chronological order, they jump around, and some of the dates of events contradict each other! this needs to be fixed.

Neutrality

It seems from a comment below that a reference to a murder conviction was removed, since Homolka was only convicted of manslaughter. Unfortunately that has resulted in the suggestion that Paul Bernardo was also convicted of manslaughter, which is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.200.218 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I figured I'd add this tag due to the inclusion of the parenthetical sentence at the end of the current version of this article. I have to agree -- there is quite a bit of inference and assumption, which isn't quite the same as fact.

Solutions, anyone? -- Miwasatoshi, 19 February 2005, 0417hrs

I removed some blatantly POV language and "shock writing" from the "Murders" section. Don't know if it yet justifies removing the "neutrality tag" or not tho. Ignus, 24 March 2005

I'm not sure how to best edit this. Neutrality is definitely not achieved by loaded language such as "helpless teenager" "Indifferent at killing her own sister" "once again tired of their victim" etc. While these descriptors may be appropriate for a (slightly pulpy) book about the murders, are they appropriate for Wikipedia? If a neutral accounting of the known facts is desired, I think this needs to be heavily edited. See for example the entry on Homolka's husband, Paul Bernardo. Addition and editing of the "Myths" section hasn't seemed to help the NPOV balance of this article, just confused the issue. I won't edit without community support, however. -JG 29 April 2005

Technically, I believe it's improper to refer to Homolka as a "convicted murderer", since (under the plea bargain) she was found guilty of manslaughter, not murder. -- Richwales, 04:06, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. Also, the first paragraph says ... she was tried and convicted of helping... . She did not get a trial, so I will remove that now. Cafe Nervosa | talk 17:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IN FACT, Homolka was tried before Judge Thomas Kovacs; the trial lasted a few minutes which is why many people might have missed it.Freiherrin (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

Fixed a few factual errors, added a section debunking common myths. Tried to add some balance, but may have tipped it too far in the OTHER direction. I tried to stick with "just the facts," and removed *SOME* of the "this author" type commentary.

Myths

The whole myths section, in its present incarnation, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most of the information is useful, but the "myth number five" format is inappropriate and smacks of POV, particularly since all the myths it seeks to explode are critical of Homolka. It should be rewritten in a neutral fashion. Saforrest 20:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

All it shows is her activities, if other people outside wikipediahave a neutrality problem, why NPOV dispute?

Suggestion on fixing this train-wreck

This article starts very neutraly, my whole impression of the Myths section was that the author was taking a stance in her defence.

Best way to deal with this is to rename "Myths" to "Prison" and neutraly describe her activities in prison ex. "While some people refer to Karla Homolka as a psychopath, all the evidence collected by the psychologists observing her point to battered wife syndrom"

Please state the facts from unbiased point of view.

NOTE: Please DO NOT try to "fix" anything until after I have completed the total rewriting of this article. That includes changing locations etc. I will add all the references when I am done. (I know that is unusual but it works better for me.)Freiherrin (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: you're an idiot, Freiherrin. How's this: Please don't close the supermarket until I am off work at midnight (I know this is egotistical and selfish, but I deserve to complete control of everything.) Freiherrin (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.225.125 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

CAUTION: RUN - Definitely a run-away train-wreck

This article is a symptom of people who "know everything", love stories, but cannot put together a proper sentence if their life depended on it. Obviously an article like this will be an ongoing mess, because everyone knows the whole story and full trail of events. There is already conflicting information by the 2nd paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.189.64 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Print and website sources imagined demonic duos, vampirism, Barbie and Ken perfect-couple perfect murderers [sic], sexy "Killer Karla", the comic "Karla's Web" featuring Homolka's psychological confessions. The gaze centres, always, on Homolka (italics added).... That [Bernardo] would be incarcerated for his mortal lifespan seemed a foregone conclusion. Homolka, in the popular view, should have taken her seat beside him in the prisoner's box and seat of ultimate evil.... Homolka promised full disclosure and testimony against Bernardo in return for reduced charges... and a joint sentencing recommendation. In so doing, she escaped central blame for the deaths."

This paragraph is like reading on a 16 year-olds forum. "[sic]", "(italics added)", "....", wth???

Cleaning up the myths

Okay, let's see.

1. Diagnosed as a psychopath - it says that she's never been diagnosed as such by a doctor who actually treated her. That's three clauses: diagnosed as a psychopath, by a doctor, who actually treated her. The parole board said she was a psychopath, but they weren't doctors. The doctors who said she was a psychopath based that on interview transcripts and case reports and articles, instead of treating her directly. The doctors who treated her directly said she wasn't a psychopath. Tidied up.
2. Didn't get any treatment in prison - it says that she took every treatment course that was recommended except for the one for convicted sex offenders, because a) everyone else in the course was male, and b) she hadn't been convicted as a sex offender. Fixed to remove the disingenuousness.
3. Didn't do anything to better herself - it says that yes she did, she got her bachelor's in psychology. That's true.
4. Had a birthday party in prison - it says that there's nothing unusual about that because she was in medium-security, that she got transferred to solitary afterwards, that she wasn't the first or last to have one. Cleaned up.
5. Made snuff movies. That's true, if only by definition. I've added that last clause.
6. Never showed any remorse - it says she expressed remorse lots of times. I changed "showed" to "expressed", because that's more objective, and added a point about how we can't truly know whether this is real (but then, we can't know that about anyone, can we), and how the letter to her doctors mentions how she feels guilty about those two deaths that she was involved in even though she was involved in THREE deaths.
7. Her prison girlfriend was also a child-rapist-and-torturer - it explains where that idea came from (a published photo of her and a c-r-&-t together), and says that her prison girlfriend was actually a bank robber. I'll give the monster the benefit of the doubt on this one - after all, people do get lonely in prison. Made the language a bit more objective here too - perhaps it's also more brutal, but this is a brutal topic.

Oh, and I think it's a bit more objective to refer to her as "Homolka" instead of "Karla", as that's how most entries refer to their subjects. Plus I switched "Myths" to "Misconceptions".

I think I've pretty much cleaned it up for NPOV, so if there're no more complaints within the next week, I'll remove the notice. Sound good? DS 14:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied that the tag should be removed quite yet. I think the recent changes are for the better. However, I question the need for a 'misconceptions' section specifically addressing disparaging rumours about Homolka.

Some of the rumours are sourced (e.g. the lesbian relationship one) but many are simply cited as rumours that are "running rampant". I'm not convinced they are important enough to deserve answering in this article, and if they are to be answered, it looks bad and POV to rebut only disparaging rumours.

I don't think there's all that much factual information that needs to be changed here, I think it simply ought to be reworded and organized differently.

--Saforrest 20:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Myths and misconceptions

I think the myths and misconceptions are absolutely crucial to this article. If for no other reason than the fact that this woman is to be released back into the world on July 5th, 2005.

As someone who runs a website related to Homolka, I'm inundated with requests for the Bernardo/Homolka Snuff videos, nude pictures of Karla, and people telling me all of the things in this list -- that she has no remorse, that she had a lesbian lover who was guilty of the same things! These do a disservice to the story. Search the web -- look for yourself.

A myths section helps debunk common nonsense that floats around the net. The Article *is* about Homolka, so the it's appropriate that the myth section should be as well. :)

Having said that -- the article should avoid either trying to exonorrate Karla or convict her. It should be NPOV and "just the facts". If there were common non-disparaging rumors about Karla -- I'd be the first to debunk them here. I just don't know of any. Her personality and fame is such that the only rumors likely to be floating around are the disparaging ones.

I had been a bit too lazy to register until now -- so I'm editing this to update the fact that I've registered and am now a Real Person(tm) --Rrandolph

Other Victims

Added the Other victims section and I'm working on a bit about Deadly (the movie). As always, I need an editor. I'm not the best writer in the world.

After thinking about things a bit more, I think the NPOV alert needs to stay until this case settles down. Karla gets out in 70-some-odd-days.... and a LOT of information is coming out on a day-by-day basis. Keep NPOV until the end of 2005 when "Deadly" comes out.

Rrandolph

neutrality

thie entire article to me seems very poorly written, especially the Common misconceptions.

Dates

It is entirely likely that Homolka will be released before July 5th (which is, indeed, the birthday of Leslie Mahaffy). It appears that the Canadian prison system has the authority to release her as early as June 24th, 2005 but she may be released no later than July 5th, 2005.

Leslie Mahaffy gives July 1, can someone investigate further? Circeus 18:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

-

Why does the wiki entry on Leslie Mahaffy say her birthday is on July 1st? Wouldn't that mean Karla Homolka is not going to be released on Leslie's birthday (unless she's released earlier than the latest possible time)? This needs attention. --RishiBoy

NPOV

I see no further debate on NPOV issues; I assume they have been resolved. Are there any objections to removing the neutrality notice? --Golbez 17:44, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Even after reading the discussions, I don't see how this is NOT neutral.

I understand that some "speculations" might have needed be included in this neutral discussion, but I found all of the material presented here currently to be factual, as much as can be determined. (And where it could not be, the author has made note of that.) The woman was convicted of drugging, raping, and killing victims. What is neutral about this subject? According to the law, she's guilty. In reference to the writing itself, again, I found it factual, relevant, and insightful. It did not sway my mind one way or the other as to what should happen to Karla (or other guilty parties) from here. It only filled me in on what is currently the evidence that has been presented, in summary format.

I am an editor with almost 20 years of experience. I find nothing wrong with this article as it currently stands. Obviously numerous corrections have been made before I arrived to read it, and perhaps those were needed. But now? I think you can remove the "non-neutral" rating, in my humble opinion.

J. O'Donnell USA

June 2, 2005

Good enough for me. :) --Golbez 00:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions?

That is not "excessively legalistic." It is correct. If the films do not show the actual death of the victim they are *not* snuff films. Horrifying, but still outside the definition.24.131.12.228 17:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Emily

I'm still uncomfortable with the wording of the Common misconceptions section. I'm not sure if I feel strongly enough about this to counter those suggesting the POV tag be removed.

I find it difficult to explain my specific objections or suggest any revisions which would make this neutral short of a major rewrite of the section. An example of an issue with which I'm uncomfortable is the following:

1. Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo created snuff films.
   • By definition, the movies created by Homolka and Bernardo are not snuff films, because they do not show the murders of their victims.

As a reader the impression I receive from this is that the writer is trying to exonerate Homolka by applying an excessively legalistic interpretation. Yes, she did not create 'snuff films', but she certainly created sadistic torture films, and that is not explored in the Common misconceptions section.

Opinions? Does anyone agree with me here, and if so do you have any suggestions for revisions? --Saforrest 06:29, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

More updates to good feedback

The feedback on this difficult article has been exceptional.

I've gone through and added some references and additional detail, but like all wiki articles, this one is a work in a progress.

I've also removed two items from the misconceptions section as recent events have more or less rendered them moot -- and the Birthday issue could NOT be resolved. Best to leave it alone since that particular "misconception" seems to have faded anyway.

I also removed the "After prison, Karla is going to...." section, because news on this issue is coming out so fast that it would be impossible to keep up. After she's released, there may be an "after-prison" section added.

As for the value of the misconception section? It's crucial. The publication ban imposed by the Canadian government has created an information vacuum where as much rumor is passed around as fact. Many, many people believe these things, and as they fall out of favor or are debunked, they should be removed. Ultimately, there should not be a misconception section -- but alas....

I have TRIED to stick to "just the facts" and see that many others who have worked on the article have done the same. We have a very, very good summary of the whole ordeal here. However, as of July 4th, this story is going to grow significantly.

I'm a bit surprised at the Magic Moderators objections to this article, and I wish they would be more specific in regards to their objections. More references will be added -- because that was really the only specific issue that was raised, other than POV issues (which myself and others don't see... help us! Don't be general).

This article would get a LOT of attention as a featured article, and might fall right back into disputed category, but et ipsi scientia potestas, and because of the Canadian publication ban, information requires serious, serious digging.

New Section: The Tapes

Feel free to make me look like a decent writer. :)

Continuing to shave away misconceptions

I'm slowly removing this section and incorporating the content into the actual article.

Question about Jane Doe

The article has the following line: "She cannot contact Paul Bernardo, the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French or Jane Doe. She also may not contact any violent criminals."

Jane Doe? Is that supposed to be there?

Jane Doe was a fourth victim that was raped by Homolka and Bernardo, but survived and still lives to this day. We do not know who this "Jane Doe" is simply because she is still alive.

---

Yes. "Jane Doe" is the official name of one of the victims. Her real name is covered by the Canadian Publication Ban -- but she was an underaged (at the time) "friend" of Karla's.

Could someone please explain how this is NPOV?

After reading this article I had a pretty strong POV feel, particularly about the garbage "misconceptions" section. Why is this here at all? It feels very POV and, moreover, doesn't add anything useful to this topic. After reading this talk page I still don't see any legitimate justification for keeping the section.

There is a very well-known rumor that Richard Gere had to have a rodent removed from his bottom. Does this mean we need to edit the wikipedia Richard Gere entry to include a "misconceptions" section?

Can we agree to get rid of this garbage? I think it's clear from this talk page that many who have read the entry felt the section was POV. Otherwise I think this article should be tagged NPOV dispute.

--evilgreg3000

I have completed the merging of the section into the rest of the article.—Theo (Talk) 06:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I think you've improved the article significantly. Getting rid of the tightly grouped, apparently all "pro-Homolka" misconceptions section by spreading out the points works for me. There is still a link to the misconceptions section in the publication ban section, though. Greg (Talk) 14:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if the controversy surrounding Karla Homolka were explained in more detail. While the article touches upon this with:

"After the plea bargain had been confirmed, and Homolka had begun her sentence, the videotapes were discovered and the full extent of her involvement and participation was revealed." ...I feel this should be expanded for readers unfamiliar with the controversy and how public perception came to be as it is now.

Does this: "An absolute deal-breaker was lying during her interviews with prosecutors." sound neutral to anyone? Aside from sounding chatty, it is also inaccurate, as the deal wasn't broken. For whatever reason, I am having trouble re-wording it, though. Can someone please help? Emily

Actually, she is still a "criminal" so that part is true

Yamla just reverted saying that Homolka is no longer a criminal. A criminal is "one that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime". Since she was convicted of a crime she remains a criminal. She is only no longer a prisoner. - Tεxτurε 16:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored my edits. My statement about why the case attracted media attention is accurate.

I agree that all you added is true. Yamla, what is your objection to the changes? It seems appropriate to introduce the individual for the reason she is notable. Without the effect on Canadian citizens she would merely be a released criminal and not worthy of an encylopedic entry. - Tεxτurε 16:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This was a mistake on my behalf. I haven't had my morning tea and I'm always somewhat less than fully functional until then. I will make one minor edit to the new addition but I believe this is just a clarifying update. Sorry, everyone. --Yamla 16:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Political angle

Yamla just reverted saying that something I added about the provincial NDP in charge needs citations. Which parts are controversial? The NDP was in charge. The provincial Attorney-General had to approve the plea deal. She has been a big-time feminist (look at her bio).

It seemed to me that you were coming to conclusions. Remember, you are not to perform original research for Wikipedia articles. So, can you please WP:CITE your claim that the plea bargin was influenced by the NDP? And that this was particularly controversial at the time? A newspaper article in a respected paper would probably suffice. --Yamla 19:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am removing a similar quote now again. Without a GOOD citation (considering how close this comes to slander without a GOOD citation) it is CLEARLY original research. If this was Usenet, I'd call it flamebait. CraigWyllie (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"The ideology of feminism pervaded this party and its female Attorney-General Marion Boyd." This statement is little more than speculative drivel about Feminism and its apparent influence on policy. Unless the contributor who added this sentence is prepared to provide a framework for their assertion that Feminism "pervaded" the party and the Attorney-General Marion Boyd it has no place here. "The strongly feminist..." Just because Marion Boyd identifies as a "feminist" does not make her decision a "feminist" one and the use of the tag unfairly suggests the decision is representative of Feminism. The obvious intention of inclusion is some bizarre desire to link Feminism with the deal that Karla Homolka was dealt. Wikipedia is not the place for people with personal agendas against Feminism to vent their anger. If someone wants to perpetuate erroneous myths about Feminism regarding female rapists and murderers with unacademic drivel do it where it belongs on blogs that reinforce the ignorance and prejudices of anti-feminist imbeciles and not on Wikipedia. Feminist meditations on the crime might explore the misogyny of Paul Bernardo, the indulgence of misogyny by Homolka, or the abhorent eroticisations of schoolgirls in media in society in general. I doubt the contributor would appreciate Feminists littering the entry with personal Feminist critiques which address these angles so could they please keep their personal views about Feminism to themselves as well. The contributor has obviously never taken the time to engage with gender theory in regard to this case or cases like it, or even at all for that matter if they draw such absurd conclusions. Their speculations are, in fact, insulting to Feminists and they do absolutely no justice to victims of sexual violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.172.136 (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

American reference

I'm curious why the following book is listed as a reference:

• Flowers, Barri R. (October 15, 1996). The Sex Slave Murders : The Horrifying True Story of America's First Husband-and-Wife Serial Killers (New York: St Martin's, 1996) ISBN 0312959893.

From the title and a descrip at Amazon, it seems to be about U.S. serial killers only. But I don't have the book. Does anybody know if it was used as a reference in this aticle. It seemed to be added here first, in a resorting of the references (the only one added in the sort). --Rob 03:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, it shouldn't be there unless we are referencing the book elsewhere. In fact, ALL amazon URLs should go, to be replaced with ISBN numbers. --Yamla 03:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it. I think, maybe, what happened, was somebody added the link to the Amazon page, for the purpose of adertising. Then, later, somebody else converted it into the proper ISBN format, assuming the book was relevant. --Rob 03:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought: WHY would a US publication of 1996 contain references to Bernardo and Homolka??? when the Bernardo trial only took place in 95?????Freiherrin (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not an issue. A book published in 1996 could reasonably describe events that took place in 1995. (I don't know anything about this particular book, though, so I am not commenting on what, if anything, it says about Homolka and Bernardo.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article? Hmm...

I have absolutely no problem with this article being in the encyclopedia. It serves a valuable purpose. (I am one of those rare souls who never knew who she was nor heard of the case until today; I remember the a.f.k-h newsgroup but never knew it was a real person or what it was about.) However, it's hard to imagine ever having this be the first thing viewers of the main page see, no matter how much it is perfected. It's not that I think featured articles should only be about butterflies or famous peninsulas or charming child actors, but ... there's something so horrifying about the idea of people coming here and having Homolka's story be the first thing they see. Has there been discussion of this aspect of FAs?Lawikitejana 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The disturbing nature of the article is not the only reason this shouldn't be an FA. Just as the above writer, this is my first time reading about these events, but the article is so choppy and incoherant that I actually thought the article had been vandalized. Even the issues pointed out in the very first section of this discussion appearantly have never been addressed. This article needs some serious work.--208.51.73.51 00:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Czech vs. Ukranian origin

See edit summary; someone has sourced the fact that her family was of Czech not Ukranian extraction. This source should actually be added to the article with a <ref name="czech1">[source goes here]</ref> citation, but anyway, please stop changing the article to say Ukranian. If someone can cite a reliable external source saying the family was Ukranian, then the article should be changed to read "Czech or Ukranian" with ref citations to each. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about Ukrainians, get the spelling right. U K R A I N I A N SFreiherrin (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference because it is irrelevant to the story. Who cares what her national origin is? Premmell (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Premmell

abuse or consensual??

"Homolka would later say that in the spring of 1990, Bernardo began calling her his sex slave and abusing her severely. Homolka claims that she would never deny him anything; she was his property and was well trained."

The first sentence suggests it was non-consensual abuse. The second one suggests she did consent and they were simply into some form of BDSM. I think it makes a difference which one it is. Do we have any more information to clarify?--Sonjaaa 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with determining the truth here, Sonjaaa, is that Homolka is an inveterate liar. Freiherrin (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed; POV

It is remarkable that this article does not have a warning concerning the number of statements unsupported by references. Moreover, the article does nothing to disabuse the reader of the false notion that Homolka was a battered spouse. To top it off, the article retains the pro-Homolka undertone that has disturbed a number of readers.Freiherrin (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Note I have begun rewriting this article in sections; you may come across it while it is being edited. Note that there are zillions of references available, many of them factually incorrect. I am near ground zero, as it were, I was there while it happened and during the subsequent contortions and trial; I am privy to much information that does not have a published source so that won't find its way into this article. After this is done I will tackle Bernardo.Freiherrin (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: moving paragraph order

While some of the paragraphs may at this moment seem a bit out of whack please note that I am rewriting this entire entry and will be adding information that will make sense of several seeming incongruities. It takes time..Freiherrin (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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 "Aftermath - The Publication Ban". References will be added on completion.Freiherrin (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally nearing the end

Writing this item has been emotionally and physically draining.

REFERENCES will be added to the rest of the article. It may take a few days. Please do not add any notes concerning these; I am aware of what still needs doing.

Thank you Freiherrin (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference for "Homolka had not committed a fraud upon the Crown"..

The reference for this sentence is currently as follows:

http://semainedesvictimes.gc.ca/en/ps/inter/plea6.html#92, " footnote 88: Section 610(2) of the Criminal Code states that a conviction for the offence of manslaughter bars a subsequent indictment for the same homicide charging it as murder."

This reference does not directly support the statement made. I'm not going to change anything, because I presume that this is simply a mixup.

Also, you may wish to actually quote some full sentences from the "Report to the Attorney General". Even after seeing the number of quality references used, and seeing just how much effort has gone into constructing this paragraph, I'm still left with the belief that she simply MUST have left out details in what she told prosecutors to get the deal. IE: She didn't lie, she didn't technically "break the deal", but she must have lied by omission. (How else can one explain the change in opinion and aftershocks of people seeing in the videos how willingly she participated?)

Note that this may be different from justifying why they didn't break the plea and re-charge her. Clearly (and all the references used support this) the way and timing of how things went were simply unfortunate, and there were no other alternatives.

CraigWyllie (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Will deal first of all with your last sentence - that is definitely not so; the GReen Ribbon Task Force, when it finally was established, was a poorly organized shambling thing that went after all the wrong clues when there were plenty of substantial ones in front of their noses and in gratitude the lead was kicked upstairs as chief of the police force in the nation's capital. Metro was no better. There were far too many rapes before they decided they had better do something. GRTF assumed that because they looked like Ken and Barbie, lived in a nice house, had lots of pictures of themselves andgave glib answers they could not possibly have anything to do with so revolting a crime. Between the two of them, the task forces wasted much time, with the possibly preventable consequence of further rapes and deaths. This is treated extensively by any number of commentators whom a search can uncover.

Re the plea bargain:

The plea bargain was made; Homolka pled guilty to manslaughter; from that moment, under the Criminal Code she could not be charged with murder for the same offence. OF COURSE she left out things to get the deal. Moreover if you look at the timing you will see that the warrants expired, Homolka did not know that Murray had found the tapes (and Murray had not even seen what was on them) and when she led police through the house you can be sure she was calculating the odds of their having been discovered. When there was no suggestion that they had been found she assumed she was safe and instructed Walker to proceed.

As for the plea bargain being rescinded, no matter how fervently the entire country might have wished it in this instance, virtually never is a plea bargain rescinded. The Crown has to look strong and resolute; revoking it puts the entire case in doubt; if the Crown revokes the pb. it implicitly says that it no longer believes the testimony of their own witness so how can that person's word then be believed as sworn testimony in court?

As for public shock and revulsion once the videotapes were aired, even if she had admitted that she had taken part in the assaults -"Paul made me do it he said he would kill me otherwise, blah blah"- she would never have been recognized for the vile creature she is. The videotapes are 20th Century technologically based proof of her sick psyche; the shock would have been nearly as great.

Two more things: early on there was an unconscious recognition by the local public that a truly warped female hand was at work alongside the rapist/killer. This expressed itself in the nature of the rumours that were circulating in the Niagara area. (Sorry, I am not going to put them to paper.) And secondly, the majority of articles, interest and speculation concerns itself with Homolka, not Bernardo. Bernardo is a sick person who is essentially - one can't really say it without sounding crass - a dime-a-dozen sexual predator.

Homolka is different. Women by their nature, by their essential role, are the givers and nurturers of life, not the killers; they are the victims, usually, of the male sexual criminal, they should not be the ones hurting their own. Finally, they should definitely not be deriving pleasure from these acts and the thought - as has been suggested by a number of observers, with good reason - that they derive sexual pleasure from these acts is too much for most people to accept.

In the Antilles, Homolka must be laughing. She got rid of her rivals (Tammy - fortunately sister Lori is relatively plain - Leslie and Kristen); she was the centre of attention for well over a decade; she appears to have taken prison life in stride; she received an education and a degree while in jail; she certainly wasn't lacking for sex while there; she hived off Bernardo when he became a liability, and did it in such a way that he is gone for good; she pulled the wool over almost everyone's eyes when it mattered; she now has a husband, a child, a life in a pleasant climate. With the net she has the possibility of making a living hiding behind anonymous identities. She is one of the most dangerous people I can think of.76.67.125.84 (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC) AGAIN wikipedia logged me out of the page while I was writing these comments.Freiherrin (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish it to be noted that I find Freiherrin's penultimate paragraph extremely offensive. Women are victims, are we? So basically, he/she is saying that if a woman commits some kind of ugly crime -- any kind of ugly crime -- she is inherently more "evil" than a man in the same circumstances... That Homolka was a complete monster and deserves some dreadful karma-induced fate (preferably involving brown recluses), I quite agree. That her release was stupid and unjust, I agree. But that is independent of whether she is male or female. ·Arianwen· (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Limited Warrants

I'm SHOCKED and amazed that the warrants did not allow a proper examination of the house!!! All my life I'd been regaled with stories of how if you were stopped in your car by the police and they had sufficient reason to suspect something, they could basically dismantle your car and there was absolutely no recourse, they weren't liable for a dime of damage. You're telling me that an individual with such strong evidence of being a rapist and suspected of multiple-murder have warrants that say "you may not open the walls"?? And that such warrants can't be upgraded even after Homolka gave more reason to suspect him of such crimes? I'd be very very interested to know if there were any subsequent repercussions and changes to statute law regarding such warrants. I could swear I remember reading articles in the late 90's that simply implied that the police search of the house was ... not very good. Any references for that? CraigWyllie (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The warrants were quite specific re walls not being opened; I am not certain what difference it would have made if they had owned rather than rented the house. For warrants to be amended someone has to apply to court to have them amended - seems obvious, but if nobody asks -Freiherrin (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is for 99.242.219.33

Don't demean other people's work with your stupid comments or I will report you to Rogers.Freiherrin (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not yet finished

If you have concerns please post them on this page.Freiherrin (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations Using experiencefestival.com

I've removed the citations referencing http://wwwexperiencefestival.com as it is a Wikipedia mirror/fork, as listed here and is therefore not a reliable source. -- 156.34.75.43 (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixing of confusion after vandalism

There have been some removals of her current husbands name due to vandalism and someone changing it to a different person, her current husband's name is: Thierry Bordelais and they have 1 son [1] [2] [3][4] --65.96.67.105 (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessment

I'm rating the article "C" class today, although it's B in other wikiproject banners. While the article is in quite good shape, it should have an evaluation against B class standards (perhaps I overlooked it?) Anyway, other editors may update my rating at their discretion. PKT 17:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would give it a "C" also. In the future, I would suggest one writes the article first in the word processing program of one's choice (MSWord, Notepad, OpenOffice ...), add proper citations, check to make sure your facts are correct and THEN publish it in Wikipedia. This article has taken a year to write?? Unacceptable in any sense of authorship, especially when Wikipedia is under such close public scrutiny for having questionable "expert" opinions. Premmell (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Premmell

can sections be added

some the existing sections are too long

for example 'Prison'. there are many aspects to this, without making the whole bit long winded and difficult to follow due to the complicate issue involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.122.73 (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure they can, feel free to do it. Risker (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Can someone explain the addition of the NPOV tag? I would think that the person applying this tag should be forced to point out specific areas that they consider NPOV. Not that it isn't NPOV, but I think this tag should be better explained. Ccrashh (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Copyrighted text seems to have been introduced into this article in this series of edits, although close paraphrasing may have also been introduced by the same contributor a bit earlier. These sections need some attention. While one section was previously blanked, I am relisting this for another week at WP:CP in case contributors to the article would like the opportunity to revise the material themselves. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/icg-gci/pb4-rpc4.html http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2003/rr03_vic1/p7_1.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not necessarily correct. WP:F (as transcluded from WP:FUC) has alot to say on the subject. Int21h (talk)

Casual Writing Style

For an encyclopedia article parts of this are written quite casually. "after Homolka landed in a hospital wing because of Bernardo's brutal beating." This implies that a beating was previously discussed in the article but it is a new topic. Is "landed in a hospital wing" supposed to simply mean "went to hospital"? If so why does it say "landed" and what does the wing have to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.46.223 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only does that sentence make perfect sense to me, Hospital Wing is another way of saying Hospital. Wing of the hospital, or in some places that serve multiple purposes it would be the section that is meant for medical aid. Hospital Wing is a common term for Hospital. Yes saying Hospital, would be more concise, and saying ended up in instead of landed would be equally clear, but this is for English speaking readers right? 69.204.74.28 (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely deleted and rewritten. It repeats itself several times, is written very incoherently, several sentences do not make sense, contains a lot of useless information. It almost has the feel of being written by an elementary school student. Articles like this only demonstrate further the dangers of public entered encyclopedia-type articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.133.58 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Article needs a photo

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

Current Location

She now works as a primary school teacher in Sainte-Anne,_Guadeloupe, where she lives under the name Emily Bordelais, with her husband Thierry, who is the brother of her lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.61.114 (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)