Bernardo wants to talk ...... [Archive] - Crime Library Message Boards

2L8 4A D8

06-25-2005, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Spangley
I don't find anything he might have to say as relevant. Who is "they" and wasn't Bernardo raping women violently before he met Karla? Whether he hooked up with Karla or not, he most likely would have escalated the violence to the girls and women he was assaulting.

Hi! I fear that the one link that goes into detail regarding your question of who "they" are was either deleted or archived when they created the new Karla Homolka Board in the Crime Library Message Boards.

However, here is one link that happens to mention it. You will find it referenced in "Aftermath", 3rd paragraph.

http://www.kamero.net/articles/Karla_Homolka

It is also referenced by Hockeymomof5 in her post dated 6-21-05 at 3:37 a.m. on Page 1 of the "Questions for DV Survivors".

IMO, it was either LE or the Prosecutors that came to this conclusion re: Paul.

2L8 4A D8

06-25-2005, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Spangley
Thanks. A lot of good info was lost from the other thread!

You are welcome. I contacted Coldwater and she said that it would be very difficult to get back all of original Threads from the previous KH/PB Board since she didn't include it in her original request. Apparently there is someone else who does all of the transferring to new Boards, etc.

Oh well. I guess we'll just have to start fresh!

goatgirl

06-25-2005, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by goatgirl
Looks like Evil Paul Bernardo has a few things on his mind he would like to share.....

I personally would like to know what he has to say......

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050624-004/page.asp

goatgirl

News link:

Paul Bernardo on Karla's pending release

http://www.canada.com/national/features/homolka/story.html?id=6359e9bc-c59a-4f87-b337-2bf472e50285

thanks-

2L8 4A D8

06-25-2005, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by goatgirl

News link:

Paul Bernardo on Karla's pending release

http://www.canada.com/national/features/homolka/story.html?id=6359e9bc-c59a-4f87-b337-2bf472e50285

thanks-

GR8 link! Thanks again GG!

:seeya:

northernrflxn

06-26-2005, 05:34 PM

I don't see Karla as an incarnation of pure evil or a serial killer. She is not no much cold blooded as incredibly self absorbed. She truly sees herself as a victim of Paul, which she is to a degree - but she certainly shares in the culpability for the killings, particularly Kristen French.

I agree that she earned a longer sentence than she got, but all these restrictions and backpedalling by the justice system is politically motivated and as a result I think inappropriate. She has served her time, period.

MrToadsWildRide

06-28-2005, 03:39 PM

She's a psychopath who has NOT served her time.She should never walk the streets!:flamemad:

hockeymomof5

06-29-2005, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by northernrflxn
I don't see Karla as an incarnation of pure evil or a serial killer. She is not no much cold blooded as incredibly self absorbed. She truly sees herself as a victim of Paul, which she is to a degree - but she certainly shares in the culpability for the killings, particularly Kristen French.

I agree that she earned a longer sentence than she got, but all these restrictions and backpedalling by the justice system is politically motivated and as a result I think inappropriate. She has served her time, period.

EXCUSE ME?!? She is a "victim"? Oh please, explain how she is a victim? Please don't tell me that you actually bought into the "battered woman" bit?

Maybe Paul was a "victim" of Karla's. After all, he was happy just raping women until him and Karla hooked up. It wasn't until they were together that the murders began. Maybe Paul was satisfied with raping them but Karla was jealous of the girls so SHE may have been the one who started them on the path of murder. Kristen's hair was chopped short which typically points to a female killer who wants to make the victim "ugly". I don't know about Leslie's hair because she was decapitated and her head was found encased in cement.

As for her serving her time..BS!!! She may have served the time that was given to her in a horrible plea deal, but she certainly hasn't served the time she deserved. This "back peddaling" as you call it may very well be politically motivated, but it is done in an effort to undo an injustice that was done in the court system 12 years ago. I don't think it's "inappropriate" at all to want to protect the public from a killer who is reported is a threat to all. PERIOD!

lorjac

06-29-2005, 10:23 AM

I will never buy her 'I'm a victim' crap. She is a vile individual... she took her own sisters virginity and life to make her man happy... and didn't really seem to mind all that much.

What does that tell you about someone?? What does it tell you when she is pissed her parents are mourning their daughter and therefore her wedding isn't their spotlight? Had she been a decent person, her wedding would have been postponed or at minimum scaled back. NOBODY celebrates the death of their siblings... especially when you know YOU are responsible.

There are women who are truly battered and this is an insult to those women!!!!

2L8 4A D8

06-29-2005, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

EXCUSE ME?!? She is a "victim"? Oh please, explain how she is a victim? Please don't tell me that you actually bought into the "battered woman" bit?

Maybe Paul was a "victim" of Karla's. After all, he was happy just raping women until him and Karla hooked up. It wasn't until they were together that the murders began. Maybe Paul was satisfied with raping them but Karla was jealous of the girls so SHE may have been the one who started them on the path of murder. Kristen's hair was chopped short which typically points to a female killer who wants to make the victim "ugly". I don't know about Leslie's hair because she was decapitated and her head was found encased in cement.

As for her serving her time..BS!!! She may have served the time that was given to her in a horrible plea deal, but she certainly hasn't served the time she deserved. This "back peddaling" as you call it may very well be politically motivated, but it is done in an effort to undo an injustice that was done in the court system 12 years ago. I don't think it's "inappropriate" at all to want to protect the public from a killer who is reported is a threat to all. PERIOD!

I completely agree with your post. I think that Karla has always lacked self-esteem and self-confidence and when she hooked up with Paul, she considered him the best thing that ever happened to her. She was then determined to do anything to keep him happy and satisfied. That's all Paul needed to push him over the edge.

I also believe that Karla was jealous of the girls. She could see that Paul was really enjoying himself and that pushed her over the edge. Thus, I am sure she demanded that they be tortured and killed. Heck, I even believe that she killed them herself, not Paul.

Another thing that really upsets me. It is my understanding that Karla knew of the infamous tapes and where they were hid and she wanted them so that she could "hold them over Paul's head." She also knew that they were incriminating to herself so she wanted to make sure that she made her "sweetheart deal" before LE found out about them. However, Paul beat her to it. He told his attorney where they were hidden and the attorney went and retrieved them.

Then, for whatever assinine reason, the attorney kept them and didn't bring them to the attention of LE until AFTER Karla signed her "sweetheart deal." But it was too late; LE couldn't back out on the "deal." If they could have, this Board wouldn't exist because Karla would have been put away for life just like Paul.

These are JMO and MOO!!

lorjac

06-29-2005, 03:47 PM

See, I disagree... I think since she swore that she had given accurate accounts BEFORE her deal, when they found out she lied... the deal should have been sh*t canned.

She LIED to get her deal...... she should have NEVER gotten that deal.

I think she was a sociopath prior to him finding her, I think he just helped bring those traits to the surface.

northernrflxn

06-29-2005, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

EXCUSE ME?!? She is a "victim"? Oh please, explain how she is a victim? Please don't tell me that you actually bought into the "battered woman" bit?

Maybe Paul was a "victim" of Karla's. After all, he was happy just raping women until him and Karla hooked up. It wasn't until they were together that the murders began. Maybe Paul was satisfied with raping them but Karla was jealous of the girls so SHE may have been the one who started them on the path of murder. Kristen's hair was chopped short which typically points to a female killer who wants to make the victim "ugly". I don't know about Leslie's hair because she was decapitated and her head was found encased in cement.

As for her serving her time..BS!!! She may have served the time that was given to her in a horrible plea deal, but she certainly hasn't served the time she deserved. This "back peddaling" as you call it may very well be politically motivated, but it is done in an effort to undo an injustice that was done in the court system 12 years ago. I don't think it's "inappropriate" at all to want to protect the public from a killer who is reported is a threat to all. PERIOD!

I'm not saying that Paul created the moral vacuum that is Karla, but she WAS a battered woman who was both mentally and physically abused. Those are facts. I simply don't believe she took as much personal pleasure from her horrible crimes as people think and I think that if she hooked up with a different man who wasn't a psychopath she would be a vacuous housewife somewhere in southern Ontario right now.

I think she fell into a nightmare when her sister died and couldn't confront her complicity in that and couldn't go back. From there she protected number one and her future was ultimately bound by her past. I'm not saying in any way that she is an innocent - Tammy, Leslie and Kristen are the innocents - but I do think that she was mentally abused and manipulated and that this combined with her own self centredness and moral vacuity found her at the point of no return.

I realize that this is not a poplular view, or one that is shared by very many people. But I honestly think it is one that is more consistent with the facts and everything we know about human nature.

lorjac

06-29-2005, 04:25 PM

Sorry..... I don't buy it. I believe she was battered... but I think she knew EXACTLY what she was getting into before her sister fell victim to her hands!

northernrflxn

06-29-2005, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by lorjac
Sorry..... I don't buy it. I believe she was battered... but I think she knew EXACTLY what she was getting into before her sister fell victim to her hands!

I know...lots of people don't buy it! LOL I have read just tons and tons about this case, and realize that others have as well. There was lots of coverage locally because I happen to live in the city where Kristen French's sister lives.

When I read some of the crime library summaries on the web or in articles, they sometimes have small errors or leave out a lot of the unvarnished facts that tend to support a different, more complicated story.

We know that Karla agreed to drug her sister so her boyfriend could sexually abuse her. Unbelievable. However, that rape was taped and presented as evidence, and it is very clear from the transcript and reporting on it that Karla was very angry, unhappy and disgusted with what Paul was asking her to do. She was not aroused or excited in any way. She did it because he convinced her that she had to offer him Tammy's virginity because she wasn't a virgin when they met. He also had Karla submit to anal rapes for the same reason.

She may have justified letting Paul do it in revenge for the for the fact that Tammy did flirt with Paul and dissapeared with him for several hours one time from a family party. Paul bragged that they had some sexual contact then.

So I don't at all think that she intended the kind of harm that came to her sister.

northernrflxn

06-29-2005, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Spangley
If she didn't intend her sister "harm" then why "give" her to her freaky fiance?

If she didn't intend "harm" then why involve her sister at any point. If she didn't intend to "harm" her sister, then why give her drugs that are meant for animals, not humans.

Because KARLA involved her sister, and gave her sister the drug, it matters not whether she intended harm, she did HARM. She did these things intentionally.

Intent is a legal concept. Not just results. That's why there is a legal difference between murder and manslaughter. What she did or did not intend is relevant. She was criminally indifferent to the results of her actions, but that does not mean she set out to kill her sister.

northernrflxn

06-29-2005, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Spangley
http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/media062805.htm

" Homolka, who testified against Bernardo at his trial, has already spoken in public while Bernardo has yet to comment on the horrific crimes that he and Homolka committed."

Bernardo is the only person, at least the only living, who can comment upon Karla’s role in the murders "

"If Bernardo is not allowed to speak publicly, Canadians will be deprived of another first hand account of what actually transpired during the couple’s crime spree."

"There is no justification for not allowing Paul Bernardo, is some form, to communicate his views on his ex-wife who continues to see herself, not as an evil criminal but as just another one of Paul Bernardo’s victims. This factor alone should be enough to require that we hear from Bernardo."

How could we trust him? It would be voyeuristic fun and that's it. One interesting thing though- when Karla was first given her sweetheart deal in a spontaneous and unguarded moment he exploded in anger - kicked something too I think - and said "***** is sicker than me and all she gets is 12 years". That always creeped me out a bit.

2L8 4A D8

06-29-2005, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by lorjac
See, I disagree... I think since she swore that she had given accurate accounts BEFORE her deal, when they found out she lied... the deal should have been sh*t canned.

She LIED to get her deal...... she should have NEVER gotten that deal.

I think she was a sociopath prior to him finding her, I think he just helped bring those traits to the surface.

Very good post!

Yes, she did lie. She didn't tell LE about the tapes because she knew if she did, her butt was cooked for good.

Yes, she should have never gotten that deal once LE found out about the tapes and that she had lied. It should have automatically become null and void, but it didn't. I haven't heard of any "deals" with LE that have ever been written in concrete.

I completely, completely agree with your last paragraph.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

06-29-2005, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

I'm not saying that Paul created the moral vacuum that is Karla, but she WAS a battered woman who was both mentally and physically abused. Those are facts. I simply don't believe she took as much personal pleasure from her horrible crimes as people think and I think that if she hooked up with a different man who wasn't a psychopath she would be a vacuous housewife somewhere in southern Ontario right now.

I think she fell into a nightmare when her sister died and couldn't confront her complicity in that and couldn't go back. From there she protected number one and her future was ultimately bound by her past. I'm not saying in any way that she is an innocent - Tammy, Leslie and Kristen are the innocents - but I do think that she was mentally abused and manipulated and that this combined with her own self centredness and moral vacuity found her at the point of no return.

I realize that this is not a poplular view, or one that is shared by very many people. But I honestly think it is one that is more consistent with the facts and everything we know about human nature.

You obviously have not heard or read about the "tapes". They definitely show Karla as a willing participant in the crimes. Paul was not holding a gun to Karla's head or forcing her to do anything!

As far as being "battered" and your statement "Those are facts", do you have any links or proof of Karla calling the police and filing domestic violence reports against Paul? If so, I would like to see them. Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

06-29-2005, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

<snipped>

We know that Karla agreed to drug her sister so her boyfriend could sexually abuse her. Unbelievable. However, that rape was taped and presented as evidence, and it is very clear from the transcript and reporting on it that Karla was very angry, unhappy and disgusted with what Paul was asking her to do. She was not aroused or excited in any way. She did it because he convinced her that she had to offer him Tammy's virginity because she wasn't a virgin when they met. He also had Karla submit to anal rapes for the same reason.

She may have justified letting Paul do it in revenge for the for the fact that Tammy did flirt with Paul and dissapeared with him for several hours one time from a family party. Paul bragged that they had some sexual contact then.

So I don't at all think that she intended the kind of harm that came to her sister.

Please. There is absolutely nothing and I mean nothing ~ not love, not money, not fame, not nothing ~ that could ever make me offer up my little baby sister's virginity to my boyfriend, my fiance, my husband or anyone for their sexual pleasure. I would die first. I would kill him first.

I don't care how Karla justified or rationalized it to herself. What she did to her little baby sister and the other 2 girls was vile, despicable and disgusting. If Karla didn't like what was going on, she could have left Paul. She could have turned him in to the police, but she didn't ~ because she was enjoying herself too much!

JMO and MOO!!

northernrflxn

06-29-2005, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

You obviously have not heard or read about the "tapes". They definitely show Karla as a willing participant in the crimes. Paul was not holding a gun to Karla's head or forcing her to do anything!

As far as being "battered" and your statement "Those are facts", do you have any links or proof of Karla calling the police and filing domestic violence reports against Paul? If so, I would like to see them. Thanks!

JMO and MOO!!

I have heard and read everything. Trust me. I don't contend that she was forced or that she was an innocent victim. But she was a victim of Paul nonetheless. She was manipulated, and terribly and insidiously mentally and sexually abused and physically beaten on many occasions. Those are the facts of this case, and whether or not you think they have any bearing on her behavior or her crimes, they remain facts.

On her wedding night, the consumation of her marriage involved Paul putting Karla on her knees to perform fellatio on him. That's it. As a special treat he allowed her to sleep on the bed. At home, she was made to sleep on the floor beside the bed. This and so much more is all documented in the book "Lethal Marriage" by Toronto Star reporter Nick Pron. He continues to work for The Star, and contines to report on this case.

northernrflxn

06-29-2005, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Please. There is absolutely nothing and I mean nothing ~ not love, not money, not fame, not nothing ~ that could ever make me offer up my little baby sister's virginity to my boyfriend, my fiance, my husband or anyone for their sexual pleasure. I would die first. I would kill him first.

I don't care how Karla justified or rationalized it to herself. What she did to her little baby sister and the other 2 girls was vile, despicable and disgusting. If Karla didn't like what was going on, she could have left Paul. She could have turned him in to the police, but she didn't ~ because she was enjoying herself too much!

JMO and MOO!!

Of course not! There is nothing that could make me do that either! Nothing! Same goes for most of us. But Karla was and is flawed - flawed in a way that made her lethal in combination with Bernardo. I don't believe for a moment she was happy in her life or enjoying herself anywhere near as much as people believe.

2L8 4A D8

06-29-2005, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

I have heard and read everything. Trust me. I don't contend that she was forced or that she was an innocent victim. But she was a victim of Paul nonetheless. She was manipulated, and terribly and insidiously mentally and sexually abused and physically beaten on many occasions. Those are the facts of this case, and whether or not you think they have any bearing on her behavior or her crimes, they remain facts.

As I stated in a previous post: As far as being "battered" and your statement "Those are facts", do you have any links or proof of Karla calling the police and filing domestic violence reports against Paul? If so, I would like to see them. Thanks!

On her wedding night, the consumation of her marriage involved Paul putting Karla on her knees to perform fellatio on him. That's it. As a special treat he allowed her to sleep on the bed. At home, she was made to sleep on the floor beside the bed. This and so much more is all documented in the book "Lethal Marriage" by Toronto Star reporter Nick Pron. He continues to work for The Star, and contines to report on this case.

Where did this Nick Pron get his information? Did he interview Karla? Or Paul? Or was he there on their wedding night? Again, Karla could have left Paul if she didn't like how she was being treated. Sorry, I'll never believe that she was "battered" and I don't have any sympathy for her whatsoever!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

06-29-2005, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

Of course not! There is nothing that could make me do that either! Nothing! Same goes for most of us. But Karla was and is flawed - flawed in a way that made her lethal in combination with Bernardo. I don't believe for a moment she was happy in her life or enjoying herself anywhere near as much as people believe.

Jeez, this is torture! As I stated in a previous post: You obviously have not heard or read about the "tapes". They definitely show Karla as a willing participant in the crimes. Paul was not holding a gun to Karla's head or forcing her to do anything!

northernrflxn

06-29-2005, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Jeez, this is torture! As I stated in a previous post: You obviously have not heard or read about the "tapes". They definitely show Karla as a willing participant in the crimes. Paul was not holding a gun to Karla's head or forcing her to do anything!

I have read about a dozen different descriptions of those tapes and studied the transcripts many, many times over the years. She was usually the person behind the camera, and that is horrifying. They justify her imprisonment, and then some.

But they are part of a larger body of evidence that includes her own extreme physical, mental and sexual abuse at the hands of Bernardo that began when she was just 17 and he was 23. I think that abuse is the link between what she was and what she became. However, it absolves her of nothing.

northernrflxn

06-29-2005, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

As I stated in a previous post: As far as being "battered" and your statement "Those are facts", do you have any links or proof of Karla calling the police and filing domestic violence reports against Paul? If so, I would like to see them. Thanks!

Where did this Nick Pron get his information? Did he interview Karla? Or Paul? Or was he there on their wedding night? Again, Karla could have left Paul if she didn't like how she was being treated. Sorry, I'll never believe that she was "battered" and I don't have any sympathy for her whatsoever!

JMO and MOO!!

Nick Pron is a highly respected crime reporter who has worked for the Toronto Star for 30 years. His book 'Lethal Marriage' is one of the definitive and most immaculately researched works on this case, and I don't mean any disrespect - but if you have to ask who Nick Pron is you probably don't have all the information you need to make a judgement.

There are battered women all over the world who can tell you why they don't/didn't leave. It's not that simple. That really is my only argument - this case is not as simple as some are trying to make it. I am not trying to minimize her role or her culpability.

goatgirl

06-29-2005, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

So I don't at all think that she intended the kind of harm that came to her sister.

snip for space********************

I believe she intended to harm Tammy

Karla- researched what type of drugs she could use to "knock" Tammy out- she was completely aware of the side affects of mixing alcohol with the drugs she used,but did so anyways?

not to mention that she was also aware not to place the drug soaked cloth directly on the face, but yet Tammy's face shows it was burned- & not from her vomit as previously suspected at the time of her death.

Karla also admitted to police she was jealous of Tammy and the attention Paul gave her, she is twisted not abused imo

it is well reported that Paul didn't kill..... Until he hooked up w-Karla !!!

jmo-goatgirl
:seeya:

2L8 4A D8

06-29-2005, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

Nick Pron is a highly respected crime reporter who has worked for the Toronto Star for 30 years. His book 'Lethal Marriage' is one of the definitive and most immaculately researched works on this case, and I don't mean any disrespect - but if you have to ask who Nick Pron is you probably don't have all the information you need to make a judgement.

There are battered women all over the world who can tell you why they don't/didn't leave. It's not that simple. That really is my only argument - this case is not as simple as some are trying to make it. I am not trying to minimize her role or her culpability.

I understand where you are coming from now, somewhat.

I also understand that there are a lot of battered women all over the world and I can sympathize with them and their reasons for not leaving, etc. But, with Karla claiming that she was battered by Paul and that's why she did what she did is a slap in the face to every decent woman around ~ battered or not!

IMO, Karla would have used any excuse whatsoever to justify her despicable behavior and ease her guilty conscious. Until I see some real evidence of previous domestic violence reports to the Police, I will never believe that she was a battered woman/wife ~ never! It was just that one instance that has been documented as far as I know. GMAFB!

We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

06-29-2005, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by goatgirl

snip for space********************

I believe she intended to harm Tammy

Karla- researched what type of drugs she could use to "knock" Tammy out- she was completely aware of the side affects of mixing alcohol with the drugs she used,but did so anyways?

not to mention that she was also aware not to place the drug soaked cloth directly on the face, but yet Tammy's face shows it was burned- & not from her vomit as previously suspected at the time of her death.

Karla also admitted to police she was jealous of Tammy and the attention Paul gave her, she is twisted not abused imo

it is well reported that Paul didn't kill..... Until he hooked up w-Karla !!!

jmo-goatgirl
:seeya:

GR8 post GG! Also, thanks for all of your links!

:seeya:

lorjac

06-29-2005, 10:23 PM

Of course she was unhappy watching Paul 'enjoy' other women... but it didn't stop her from helping him out.... and I'm sure that's part of why she ensured they died.

As for her sister..... if she didn't intend to do her harm... this would have NEVER taken place. She didn't care what happened to anyone else as long as Karla got what Karla wanted.

As for the book..... there are only TWO people who know 100% what went on in that house and/or relationship. He got the 'facts' from one of those two places.... hmmmm

Also, I bet she was down on those knees w/enthusiasm!!!

northernrflxn

06-29-2005, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I understand where you are coming from now, somewhat.

I also understand that there are a lot of battered women all over the world and I can sympathize with them and their reasons for not leaving, etc. But, with Karla claiming that she was battered by Paul and that's why she did what she did is a slap in the face to every decent woman around ~ battered or not!

IMO, Karla would have used any excuse whatsoever to justify her despicable behavior and ease her guilty conscious. Until I see some real evidence of previous domestic violence reports to the Police, I will never believe that she was a battered woman/wife ~ never! It was just that one instance that has been documented as far as I know. GMAFB!

We will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

JMO and MOO!!

I totally agree - she is in denial about her culpability. But something you said really jumped out at me ... "any excuse whatsoever to justify her despicable behavior and ease her guilty conscience."

I think you are dead right about this. But one of the important parts of your statement for me is "guilty conscience". I believe that she did feel and supress that guilt - and continues to do so today partly through her lack of connection to what she truly did - but the very fact that guilt was/is something she had/has to supress is an indicator that she is not a phychopathic person who did this for pure pychological or sexual pleasure.

The belief that being a "battered wife" as the term is commonly used is no excuse for her actions is one shared my most. But to say that you don't believe she was battered mentally, emotionaly, physically and sexually is to not believe the objective, provable facts of this case.

I can see how passionate you are in your feelings and how much interest you have in the case. Given that, I honestly recommend you read Pron's book. It doesn't seek to make Karla a victim and it won't do anything to diminish your rage at these crimes or her role in it. But you won't be able to honestly asses the evidence in that book and not conclude she was abused by Bernardo, whatever role you think that abuse did or did not play in her crimes. If you like True Crime, it is a great read just based on that.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/077042936X/qid=1120100747/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-4848756-1944939?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

You'll see in the reviews that some are outraged by the fact that they feel she is portrayed as a victim. I don't think that is a fair statement - I didn't come away feeling that she was a victim. Just felt I had a fascinating look at how a monster was created. I do recommend this book to anyone who wants a complete understanding of these crimes.

northernrflxn

06-29-2005, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by lorjac
Of course she was unhappy watching Paul 'enjoy' other women... but it didn't stop her from helping him out.... and I'm sure that's part of why she ensured they died.

As for her sister..... if she didn't intend to do her harm... this would have NEVER taken place. She didn't care what happened to anyone else as long as Karla got what Karla wanted.

As for the book..... there are only TWO people who know 100% what went on in that house and/or relationship. He got the 'facts' from one of those two places.... hmmmm

Also, I bet she was down on those knees w/enthusiasm!!!

The book was heavily based on objective evidence. It doesn't make any sense to dismiss the book without knowing anything about it. It was not a fringe work by some greedy opportunist, but by a respected crime writer and journalist. It is part of the story, as are the views of others who see Karla differently.

As for you "knees" remark, I ask you to think about your own wedding night if you've had one. Would that be what you'd dream of? Do you think that's what she envisioned when she dreamed of her wedding? You can feel as most do, and as I do, that she traded in the right to those snapshot happy moments and milestones of our lives, but you can't say that any woman wants to spend her wedding night on her knees, and on her knees only. That is not an accurate reflection of human nature.

hockeymomof5

06-30-2005, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

The book was heavily based on objective evidence. It doesn't make any sense to dismiss the book without knowing anything about it. It was not a fringe work by some greedy opportunist, but by a respected crime writer and journalist. It is part of the story, as are the views of others who see Karla differently.

Objective? Depends on who's reading it I guess. I read it and I got the feeling that Pron got sucked into the Karla=victim theory so the book landed in the garbage.

The families of the TRUE VICTIMS didn't support Nick Pron OR his book feeling it was too slanted towards Karla being a victim. These families were well informed and they didn't have a book they wanted to sell. He may be a "respected crime writer", but he is also an opportunist and he had a book he needed to sell. I prefer to support the families of the TRUE VICTIMS and not Karla nor Mr. Pron.

Originally posted by northernrflxn
As for you "knees" remark, I ask you to think about your own wedding night if you've had one. Would that be what you'd dream of? Do you think that's what she envisioned when she dreamed of her wedding? You can feel as most do, and as I do, that she traded in the right to those snapshot happy moments and milestones of our lives, but you can't say that any woman wants to spend her wedding night on her knees, and on her knees only. That is not an accurate reflection of human nature.

GMAB - She was right where she wanted to be. On the videotape played in court, she was also performing oral sex on him and enjoyed it and even presented him with a "present" of Tammy's panties that she wanted to "rub all over his body". She claims that it was all scripted by Paul, but if she was acting, she deserves an Academy Award for it. There are just some things that you can't fake and enjoyment while performing oral sex, I believe, is one of them. There would be SOME physical sign (trying not to get too graphic here) that she didn't enjoy it - there was NONE.

BTW, where did Nick Pron get his information regarding the honeymoon? Karla? Hmmm.......she wouldn't be lying now, would she?

She's a self-serving witch (with a "B") who played the "victim" and got away with it. People tend to lump female accomplices to men as victims and it's about time that people realize that women CAN be evil on their own. IMO, Karla Homolka is evil. Also, IMO, it's a shame Paul didn't hit her harder with the flashlight. Perhaps if he did, she would have been more pi$$ed off and would have coughed up the tapes. Then they BOTH would be where they belong....in prison for the rest of their disgusting lives until they die and go to hell.

lorjac

06-30-2005, 10:37 AM

Yes, I'm married, yes I had a wedding night.... doesn't change the fact that I believe she was on her knees w/enthusiasm and was EXACTLY where she wanted to be.

I also don't believe that book is completely objective... no book could be. Unless her & Paul both were interviewed and there were cameras to cover EVERYTHING.

northernrflxn

06-30-2005, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

Objective? Depends on who's reading it I guess. I read it and I got the feeling that Pron got sucked into the Karla=victim theory so the book landed in the garbage.

The families of the TRUE VICTIMS didn't support Nick Pron OR his book feeling it was too slanted towards Karla being a victim. These families were well informed and they didn't have a book they wanted to sell. He may be a "respected crime writer", but he is also an opportunist and he had a book he needed to sell. I prefer to support the families of the TRUE VICTIMS and not Karla nor Mr. Pron.

GMAB - She was right where she wanted to be. On the videotape played in court, she was also performing oral sex on him and enjoyed it and even presented him with a "present" of Tammy's panties that she wanted to "rub all over his body". She claims that it was all scripted by Paul, but if she was acting, she deserves an Academy Award for it. There are just some things that you can't fake and enjoyment while performing oral sex, I believe, is one of them. There would be SOME physical sign (trying not to get too graphic here) that she didn't enjoy it - there was NONE.

BTW, where did Nick Pron get his information regarding the honeymoon? Karla? Hmmm.......she wouldn't be lying now, would she?

She's a self-serving witch (with a "B") who played the "victim" and got away with it. People tend to lump female accomplices to men as victims and it's about time that people realize that women CAN be evil on their own. IMO, Karla Homolka is evil. Also, IMO, it's a shame Paul didn't hit her harder with the flashlight. Perhaps if he did, she would have been more pi$$ed off and would have coughed up the tapes. Then they BOTH would be where they belong....in prison for the rest of their disgusting lives until they die and go to hell.

I have read all the "big" works on this case, and I completely disagree that Pron's work is 'soft' on Karla. To me, it is the work that best bridges the gap between what Karla was - just another teenager bopping through highschool - and what we all know she became. He doesn't attempt to excuse her, and never once have I said that her abuse excused her crimes, or even directly explained them. Nonetheless, that abuse is part of the story.

Yes, women can be evil all on their own and in the sense of complete self absorbtion and mind blowing cowardice and selfishness I agree that Karla was. With the utmost empathy and respect for the victims families, one would not expect them to support Pron's work. They cannot be expected to be objective with the anguish they will have to live with forever.

I actually think the Williams books were much more opportunistic than Pron's. The writing style was much less journalistic and far more editorial. The king of the dangling innuendo. I think that those who think Karla led Paul from rape to murder are wrong. Everything we know about the progression of psychopathic violent rapists says that he was heading there on his own. The key difference to me is that once he lived with Karla he actually had a physical place to hold them in captivity for his torture and murder. It's true of course though that he needed her cooperation and I don't dismiss the ugly significance of that.

Lord knows that women can enjoy giving oral sex - but I don't know one that would say she'd like that to be the beginning and end of her honeymoon. As you say, there can be no proof of this honeymoon stuff but it fits in perfectly with what we can prove through the cards and letters, the pillow notes, the recollections of friends and mostly just plain common sense. If you don't find that episode compelling or telling, there are many more to pick from. I realize everyone is beyond outraged at Karla, but she is not a two dimensional cutout that can be explained by saying she's 'evil' and leaving it at that.

Please understand I am not an aplolgist for her - I just really believe she was smart, manipulative and incredibly self absorbed, but that had she met someone else she'd be just another smart, manipulative, self absorbed wife and mother somewhere in southern Onatario.

northernrflxn

06-30-2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by lorjac
Yes, I'm married, yes I had a wedding night.... doesn't change the fact that I believe she was on her knees w/enthusiasm and was EXACTLY where she wanted to be.

I also don't believe that book is completely objective... no book could be. Unless her & Paul both were interviewed and there were cameras to cover EVERYTHING.

You are right, no book can be completely objective and that is why one shoud read different ones on any given subject to get a more complete picture. And to be fair, you can't be objective about a book you haven't read. I have read four books on this subject- Pron's, the two William's books that were very tough on Karla and "Deadly Innocence" which was heavily sourced through Paul's friends and aquaintances. I have also read dozens if not hundreds of articles in Canadian print media.

I really do encourage you to read a couple of these books if you are interested in this case. They are all available in paperback so are not expensive. If you want two from different perspectives I'd suggest "Lethal Marriage" and "Invisible Darkness".

2L8 4A D8

06-30-2005, 01:50 PM

2L8 4A D8

06-30-2005, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

I totally agree - she is in denial about her culpability. But something you said really jumped out at me ... "any excuse whatsoever to justify her despicable behavior and ease her guilty conscience."

I think you are dead right about this. But one of the important parts of your statement for me is "guilty conscience". I believe that she did feel and supress that guilt - and continues to do so today partly through her lack of connection to what she truly did - but the very fact that guilt was/is something she had/has to supress is an indicator that she is not a phychopathic person who did this for pure pychological or sexual pleasure.

The belief that being a "battered wife" as the term is commonly used is no excuse for her actions is one shared my most. But to say that you don't believe she was battered mentally, emotionaly, physically and sexually is to not believe the objective, provable facts of this case.

I can see how passionate you are in your feelings and how much interest you have in the case. Given that, I honestly recommend you read Pron's book. It doesn't seek to make Karla a victim and it won't do anything to diminish your rage at these crimes or her role in it. But you won't be able to honestly asses the evidence in that book and not conclude she was abused by Bernardo, whatever role you think that abuse did or did not play in her crimes. If you like True Crime, it is a great read just based on that.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/077042936X/qid=1120100747/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-4848756-1944939?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

You'll see in the reviews that some are outraged by the fact that they feel she is portrayed as a victim. I don't think that is a fair statement - I didn't come away feeling that she was a victim. Just felt I had a fascinating look at how a monster was created. I do recommend this book to anyone who wants a complete understanding of these crimes.

Yes, I will agree that I need to read some books on this tragedy. Thank you for the link!

IMO, if the Canadian Prosecutors would have done a better job of making sure that Karla got her just desserts, I don't think that I would have the any "rage".

I know that none of us are perfect, but what the Canadian Prosecutors did was just absolutely INSANE. How they could possibly give Karla an ironclad "deal" with no way to rescind it if further evidence against Karla came to light is just absolutely so mind boggling that it defies logic. What were they thinking? Are they really complete idiots? I don't know how any of them can sleep at night knowing what they did. All of them should have been disbarred on the spot!

I can only hope now that the Canadian Judicial System will rectify their big mistake and keep Karla under their thumb, make her life miserable and fight tooth and nail against this media injunction that she desires!

JMO and MOO!!

northernrflxn

06-30-2005, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Yes, I will agree that I need to read some books on this tragedy. Thank you for the link!

IMO, if the Canadian Prosecutors would have done a better job of making sure that Karla got her just desserts, I don't think that I would have the any "rage".

I know that none of us are perfect, but what the Canadian Prosecutors did was just absolutely INSANE. How they could possibly give Karla an ironclad "deal" with no way to rescind it if further evidence against Karla came to light is just absolutely so mind boggling that it defies logic. What were they thinking? Are they really complete idiots? I don't know how any of them can sleep at night knowing what they did. All of them should have been disbarred on the spot!

I can only hope now that the Canadian Judicial System will rectify their big mistake and keep Karla under their thumb, make her life miserable and fight tooth and nail against this media injunction that she desires!

JMO and MOO!!

I'm really glad you hear you will consider reading the book. If you enjoy it, you could also consider reading Stephen Williams' "Invisible Darkness" which takes a harsher view of Karla. I think you need both of these perspectives at a miniumn to understand this case.

To understand the prosectors, you have to understand the intense scrutiny and pressure they were under at the time. The Scarborough rape cases and the murders riveted the province and the fear was palpable in some commuinites. Bernardo should have and could have been caught long before he killed and the public was screaming for justice. They didn't have the tapes when they made the deal as you know, and Karla's account made fundamental sense. It still does in many ways. They needed her testimony so they made the deal, which at the time with the evidence they had was a reasonable one. For obvious reason, a justice system can't back out of a deal if it want to deal in the future.

If Karla had been given a life sentence on each of her crimes that would have meant a maxium of 25 years in prison - Canadian prison sentences are served consecutively and max out at 25 years. In four years from now she would have served 2/3 and been eligible for early release, and by all accounts of her prison behavior she would have qualified. That is worth considering by those who can't temper their outrage at the 'deal with the devil'.

northernrflxn

06-30-2005, 03:02 PM

Sorry, I mean Canadian sentences are served concurrently, not consecutively. No one can be imprisoned for more than 25 years without rigourous proceceedings justifying further incarcernation. IMO, Karla would never have qualified.

BJames

06-30-2005, 06:52 PM

Holy Cow...Karla Homolka and the word victim beside it. Read her letters, she herself doesn't consider herself a 'victim' until after she was found out. She believes she's a victim of society not of doing any wrong, she still has dreams of living in the castle and dancing fairies for entertainment. I wonder how far she'll take that?

Just my opinion of course.

goatgirl

06-30-2005, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

GR8 post GG! Also, thanks for all of your links!

:seeya:

You are very welcome 2L8-

I am truly thrilled that we are both on the same page ;)

goatgirl

2L8 4A D8

06-30-2005, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by goatgirl

You are very welcome 2L8-

I am truly thrilled that we are both on the same page ;)

goatgirl

Me too. I didn't think that it would ever be possible. LOL!

:seeya:

northernrflxn

06-30-2005, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by BJames
Holy Cow...Karla Homolka and the word victim beside it. Read her letters, she herself doesn't consider herself a 'victim' until after she was found out. She believes she's a victim of society not of doing any wrong, she still has dreams of living in the castle and dancing fairies for entertainment. I wonder how far she'll take that?

Just my opinion of course.

She is a victim of Paul Bernardo's mental, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, and I consider that to be extremely evident from the body of evidence. The fact that almost everybody takes a leap to think that anybody who believes this is excusing her crimes or implying that what she did was not voluntary is beyond my control.

goatgirl

06-30-2005, 09:43 PM

Hi all

I completely understand where Northernrflxn is going with the whole abuse thing w/ Karla, I once felt that way about Karla as well. it used to drive my sisters insane (lol) but that changed after I read the book "pact w/ the devil" & countless news updates over the last few years.

I am sure there are many different types of abuse & Karla is somewhat of a victim (to an extent) of one them. but Paul did have a very sick controlling & manipulative mind & did many horrific things before, But during his time with Karla things got worse.

I found that Karla seemed to be programmed like a robot. this case is very very complex & deep-but regardless she could have stopped, she had family & friends and she knew how to draw the line & fight back by refusing to have sex with her beloved dog- or any type of abuse that Paul would do to her pet !

So in my mind she was strong enough to refuse a young teenager, especially her sister !

I read in the book a pact w/ the devil- when Karla was first questioned by police they noticed she was wearing a Mickey mouse watch & was asked about it -she made up some lame story that it was a gift, when in fact it the watch belonged to Kristen French.

When police arrested her she wasn't wearing the watch & it couldn't be found. Police suspected that it was a trophy to Karla-

that is a typical type of behaviour of a serial killer !

Some thing else that made me question her abuse theory was her legal name change : Karla Teale On May 15, 1992, Paul and Karla apply to have their names changed from Bernardo to Teale,

one month after Kristen French was abducted and murdered. The name Teale was the name of a fictional serial killer in the 1988 movie, Criminal Law. Why would she keep this name ?

On Feb 13, 1993, the name change is approved - 4 days before Bernardo is arrested for the Scarborough rapes and murders of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French.

Bernardo used his original name, during the trial and in prison.
But for some reason Karla kept the name Teale - as was discovered by the media when she tried to sue the government

whew sorry so long, that was a mouthful !

but like I said there are many deep aspects of the case & it is very complex. But I no longer feel she was just a victim.

I see her as a selfish woman, if Paul was going to kill her, she should have let him, instead she helped him kill 3 women

that we know of, I am sure there are more !

imo- :)

goatgirl

northernrflxn

06-30-2005, 10:00 PM

Wow goatgirl, what a great and thoughtful reply. I do have some different information on a couple of things. I realize that the media has repeated the story that the watch was Kristen's, but books on the case say that the watch that Karla was wearing when she was arrested belonged to her sister Lori, and that the glass to Kristen's watch was smashed and the strap burned in the fireplace by Paul when he was destroying evidence. I believe that was part of Bernardo's trial testimony, thought I am not certain.

Also, I recently read (and I'm sorry, but I don't remember where!) in response to similar comments about her name that Teale was her legal name when she entered the justice system and that is why she must use it in all proceedings.

Still hard to imagine she could wear a watch that had to have those associations for her. She's impossible to understand.

2L8 4A D8

06-30-2005, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

<snipped>

...She's impossible to understand.

That sentence above is one of the reasons that I feel the way that I do about Karla. Karla has only herself to blame for my attitude!

JMO and MOO!!

BJames

07-01-2005, 01:26 PM

I do think I would feel a tad bit better about Karla if she had at least received some treatment while in prison, she studied quite a bit of psychology but refused any psychological treatment available. To me that fits with denial and dereliction almost breathing of smugness, I have read so much but I never never caught a whiff of humblness in the woman's words or (in)actions.
If she intends to change her outlook or overall view of life and humanity, she certainly has kept it to herself.

Just my opinion of course.

northernrflxn

07-01-2005, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by BJames
I do think I would feel a tad bit better about Karla if she had at least received some treatment while in prison, she studied quite a bit of psychology but refused any psychological treatment available. To me that fits with denial and dereliction almost breathing of smugness, I have read so much but I never never caught a whiff of humblness in the woman's words or (in)actions.
If she intends to change her outlook or overall view of life and humanity, she certainly has kept it to herself.

Just my opinion of course.

That's just flat wrong. She has seen several phychiatrists over the years for evaluation and treatment. She obtained her degree in psychology when her first two options were unavailable to her.

I don't see smugness, I see in her a complete and utter (and erroneous) conviction that she was a victim who was forced into the majority of her actions. She knows everybody wants remorse and contrition from her - she is smart and manipulative and could have presented the illusion of this over all these years for her own benefit. She hasn't, and I think that is evidence of her own belief in her relative innocence.

goatgirl

07-01-2005, 04:06 PM

I read this news link today :

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050630/ca_pr_on_me/craft_bernardo_media_1

looks like Paul is still fighting to lift the media ban so that he can talk !

there might be some type of interview in the works as Paul is anxious to talk about Karla to the public ?

I hate the man, but I must admit I really want to hear what he has to say, I hope he is able to say piece & then he can go back to his cell & rot away ....

however I realize its such a sensitive story with the victims families & Canadian people that it may never happen.....

But I often thought that Paul has a card up his sleeve just waiting to play it on Karla....

who knows maybe Paul has more tapes hidden away of other murders that they may have committed ...

there are many Murders that they are suspected of being connected too (I will post another thread for that)

so knows maybe Paul has been waiting to have the last laugh on Karla- jmo !!!

goatgirl

:seeya:

Athena

07-05-2005, 09:51 AM

I wanted to read about this case and found that several books have been written on this case:

Lethal Marriage : The Unspeakable Crimes of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka
by Nick Pron

Invisible Darkness - The Horrifying Case of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka
by Stephen Williams

Karla's Web
by Frank Davey

Silence of the press: Canada's horrific unreported trial. (the press ban at the murder trial of accused killer Karla Homolka) : An article from: Columbia Journalism Review [HTML]
by Warren Bass

Paul's Case
by Lynn Crobsie

Karla by Stephen Williams (Paperback)

Deadly Innocence
by Alan Cairns, Scott Burnside

Source: http://www.amazon.com

glzimm2

04-20-2007, 06:52 PM

She is a victim of Paul Bernardo's mental, physical, sexual and emotional abuse....

This may be true but I would insert the word 'willing' before 'victim'.

Unfortunately, Betty Broderick and Karla Homolka will always be held 'not responsible' by apologists who go to the extreme to will them innocent.

To 'cleanse' Karla Homolka's actions by calling her a victim is defiling the spiritual remains of her dead sister.

Paul and Karla both should have been passed into hands capable of removing their flaws of arrogance, inhumanity and, perhaps worst of all, avoidance of the common sense that nature gives to the dumbest of animals.

Would you put your favorite female relative in a cell with Paul....would you put Karla Homolka in a cell with Paul....?

Yes to the latter? Then you believe that she deserves to die....and you believe in poetic justice.....

It seems that God believes in capital punishment....ultimately, time runs out for all of us...even the seemingly innocent.

dallasvic

04-29-2007, 03:30 AM

04-29-2007, 11:00 AM

I'm still floored by the fact that she was released.:eek:

cami

04-30-2007, 02:47 PM

Very good post!

Yes, she did lie. She didn't tell LE about the tapes because she knew if she did, her butt was cooked for good.

Yes, she should have never gotten that deal once LE found out about the tapes and that she had lied. It should have automatically become null and void, but it didn't. I haven't heard of any "deals" with LE that have ever been written in concrete.

I completely, completely agree with your last paragraph.

JMO and MOO!!

Karla did tell LE about the existance of the tapes, 2L8, prior to her deal. She didn't know where Paul had hidden them. They couldn't find them when they searched the home.

mandy1

05-09-2007, 01:32 PM

I'm not sure what to believe with the way things are written nowadays. A lot of the books and now movies are from Karla's point of view. I think both Karla & Paul are to blame equally. Karla should be in jail still if not for the two murders but for definitly for the murder of her sister. The murder of her sister just points out how far she's willing to go to cover her tracks. I understand her wanting to please Paul but going to that extent is just out of this world. I think Paul and Karla's personalities were dependant on each other. I'm sad to say this but I feel that if they never met this would not have happened. Paul thought murder was easy after Tammy, which I understand was an accident. What I mean by that is they never intended to kill Tammy but it happened. They should of owned up to it but obviously that didn't happen. They both had very explosive personalities.
On a side note: In the movie the writer clearly points out in the end that Karla has never made any attempt to apologize to the families. However, in that restrictions that were placed on her it clearly states that she can't. Even when the restrictions were lifted who here believes that Karla apologizing would make any difference. I don't think Karla killed the girls but I do feel she played her part.

freekee99

06-03-2007, 04:26 PM

I would love to hear what he has to say also, but it will not make any difference, because Karla can not be tried for the same crime twice. That is double jeopardy. JMO, but I think she is as guility as him.If she was so afraid of him , then when the first killing happened she should have headed to the police. She would have know they would arrest him and put him in jail for murder. She had a chose and she chose to stay with him. The tapes show her smiling and loving on him. Something is wrong with that pic!!!:no:

no unfortunately she can't be tried again for the deaths of Leslie Mahaffey or Kristen French however if as many suspect, she was involved in the deaths or rapes of others and did not mention them during her regular deal, that deal would be null and void as there was a provision put into it that stated she must be truthful and own up to all her crimes....

The deal was almost **** canned a few times when the "Jane Doe" videos became known as originally the attacks on "Jane Doe" were not included into the bargain.

If PB were able to offer up some proof as to her guilt with other crimes, her entire deal would be based on fraud and she could be re-tried for all of her crimes.

PB is already in for life so more time for him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference but I'm sure if he had info that would lead to KH being re-incarcerated he would gladly tell and I for one would love to hear what he has to say, since in my opinion he doesn't really have much reason to lie now does he???