wyly Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 Three and a half years house arrest. But given that Vietnam was a democrfatic party war, the other part of your post is just a lame slur. wow that's some serious hard time, Khadr must be guilty of murdering millions to get 7 yrs of torture and isolation and no trial...and no it's not a slur...americans demanded his freedom and got it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 Uh Oh! I just heard on CTV news that Harper may have met the accused murderer Williams personally. What do you think Oleg? How far does Harper's guilt go in this caper? What's your insight? Imagine the number of handshakes and photo ops that a typical politician has during a career. I imagine Harper has met far more criminals than you or I.What's the point of asking the question until it's been proven he raped and killed anyone? Regardless, rapists and murderers usually don't go around telling their colleagues that they rape and kill. It's considered gauche.Trust gambino to make the key point. This man has yet to have his day in court. Until he does, he is assumed innocent.Security clearences, anyone have one done....It's a series of questions into your back ground history, and then those same questions are asked of the references you've named, and other sources are checked as they come up...if this guy could keep this from his wife, who he lives with 24 and 7 then odds are he'd be able to keep it from everyone else...i'm just guessing....In all that follows, it is wise to remember this comment. A security clearance only detects an existing record. This man, if guilty, managed apparently to keep this behaviour hidden from his wife - and she apparently is no fool.This is an exceptional and rare case. But not as inexplicable. You can be a jerk, a creep, a bastard, and still be a construction worker, or doctor or lawyer. None of these people are suppoedly constantly evaluated by others as to their personality traits of leadership, honor, fairness and intelligence. A colonel in the air force IS.Argus, consider AG's comment above.With that said, consider the case of Major Malik Nadal Hasan who gave every indication of his problem and no one said anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 Trust gambino to make the key point. This man has yet to have his day in court. Until he does, he is assumed innocent. Absolutely. I'm intrigued that as yet he has not retained counsel. In all that follows, it is wise to remember this comment. A security clearance only detects an existing record. This man, if guilty, managed apparently to keep this behaviour hidden from his wife - and she apparently is no fool. Sadly for the wife, I think she will figure in the trial where all aspects of their relationship will be prodded. Imagine. Your spouse accused of being a serial offender, rapist and double murderer. Just thinking about it is bone chilling. I'm kind of relieved they have no children. There are enough people in pain as is. This is an exceptional and rare case. Criminal profilers I have heard interviewed said so as well. Everything about this case is mind boggling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 there are a lot of missing women in this country, this could have been going on for a long time. Was this guy ever stationed at shilo? Many aboriginal women have gone missing from the winnipeg area. Will we ever really know how many victims he could be responsible for? I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 This creature ,if guilty,was masquerading as an officer and a gentleman. Because a politician or neighbour was in this guys company should not reflect on politicians,or friends in passing who were in some cases required to associate with this Colonel. The cretin ,if guilty, was probably good at his job to rise to Colonel. His sins should not reflect on the rest of our military as the vast majority are honourable,devoted and great Canadians. If he was a burger flipper would we look with jaundice eyes at all burger flippers? I hope we have discovered the perp who committed these horrible acts so that our streets are safer and justice will be served as best it can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 Maybe he didn't do it? There is that possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 But not as inexplicable. You can be a jerk, a creep, a bastard, and still be a construction worker, or doctor or lawyer. None of these people are suppoedly constantly evaluated by others as to their personality traits of leadership, honor, fairness and intelligence. A colonel in the air force IS. He worked closely with many people, and it's hard to believe that somewhere along the lines he didn't give a sign as to what he was. Did those who worked with him like him, admire him, or think he was a miserable, control freak with a fierce temper? What was his record towards women under his command? He murdered a flight steward. How did he treat other female flight stewards when he was flying a plane? Did they try to avoid flying with him? Was something overlooked, ignored because he was an officer? We'll have to wait and see. Maybe, somehow or other, he never gave any sign of the violence and hate inside him, but that's hard to believe. Argus i actually had to sit down and regroup my thoughts before i posted the first time, I like you was pissed,that within our military system we missed everything...Then i was pised at the Col for tarnishing a great organization, which people have bled for, just to be a part of it.... It is true that all miliatary pers are evaluated, for leadership skills ,supervision abilities, job knowledge,intiative,and many more all designed to give a brief outlook on how that person performed that year, concentrating on performance...not detecting any mental problems...His superiors have said many times he was a rising star....and while he may have been good at his job, he was better at hiding his problem "what ever that may be" he kept it from his wife, his family, his co workers, his neibours everyone.... I once had a crusty old SGT Major, a left over from the Korean war....ya it's going back to the day....had a personality of a bulldog, rarely smiled, always barking at someone...and yet when the shit hit the fan, like the opening days of Bosina he was the one we wanted in charge...He knew his shit and saved many lives that tour...I know there is not much of a comparison here but rather to show you it's preformance driven. And no, this is not like a construction worker. This is the frigging base commander. As someone said on one of the newscasts, it's like the police wind up arresting the mayor as a serial killer. And where does that ever happen outside bad television? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 Maybe he didn't do it? Colonel Russell Williams has given police a lengthy and wide-ranging statement about four dozen so-called "lingerie break-ins," two home invasions that turned into bizarre sexual assaults last September, and the murders of two young women, one a military steward with whom he may have flown.Several sources have also told The Globe and Mail that the 46-year-old commander of Canadian Forces Base Trenton took detectives to the body of Jessica Lloyd, a 27-year-old who suddenly disappeared on Jan. 29 after texting a friend she had safely arrived home. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-case-against-the-colonel-lingerie-break-ins-and-a-treasure-trove-of-photo-evidence/article1462386/ If this story is proven true there is no doubt that many observers will think he is guilty, at least of Lloyd's murder. Of course, Williams remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 He took police to her body, he is guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 He took police to her body, he is guilty. There are other possible explanations (perhaps not credible explanations, but that's for a jury to decide). He's innocent until proven guilty. Maybe he'll openly admit to it, and everyone will be saved a great deal of trouble, but until conviction, he's innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 I'm not going to waste any moments concerning his state of innocence before being found guilty. More important at the moment is that all the crimes are uncovered, that the families of the victims can get a sense of closure and that his trial hands out justice. Then we can moan about the lack of capital punishment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 Usually I hate these kinds of threads, just talking about a crime that has no impact on policies, or any need for any of us to opine. But this is one of those unusually shocking news events for me. I appreciate all of your comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 ....until conviction, he's innocent. He's "presumed" innocent, which is different from saying he's innocent. If he did it, he sure isn't "innocent" just because he hasn't been convicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 (edited) He's "presumed" innocent, which is different from saying he's innocent. If he did it, he sure isn't "innocent" just because he hasn't been convicted. there are more than enough examples in Canada and the US where people were innocent even after they were convicted...fortuntely Canada doesn't have the death penalty to compound our mistakes...so at the very least we can wait till he's convicted... Edited February 10, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 there are more than enough examples in Canada and the US where people were innocent even after they were convicted... All the more reason why your statement is incorrect. It's not the conviction that makes one innocent or guilty; it's whether or not one did the deed. So if he did, he is not innocent, even without a conviction. He is "presumed innocent," which, as I said, is a very different thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 All the more reason why your statement is incorrect. It's not the conviction that makes one innocent or guilty; it's whether or not one did the deed. So if he did, he is not innocent, even without a conviction. He is "presumed innocent," which, as I said, is a very different thing. This seems an odd bit of quibbling. Until the accused is convicted, they are, before the eyes of the law, innocent. This makes "we know he's guilty" a bit paradoxical. One can "know" a man is guilty of a crime, for instance, if one sees the man doing it, but until he is convicted, in the eyes of judiciary, he is not guilty, and if for some reason your testimony is deemed unreliably, it's even possible that, despite your "knowing" his guilt, he will still be innocent in the legal sense, which, so far as society is concerned, is the only meaningful sense there is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 how can you compare morality? who is right and who is wrong, some think our culture is debased and immoral because our women run around half naked, have sex on video, not long ago homosexuals were imprisoned for their sexuality...american troops have been found guilty of rapes, tortures and murders how are we more moral? You made the comment , it was you that made the comparison, you explain how we can comapre the 2...this is your quote below is it not....It clearly indicates that you do not have a firm grasp on the defination of freedom fighter or terrorist. Suggesting that a terrorist has a moral code and is guided by it is what i'm interested in hearing about. everyone is innocent until convicted...an adult that had free will and a child with none.. a terrorist is the the opponents freedom fighter... a terrorist/freedom fighter has morals/ethics, a murderer/rapist does not... DO you think our culture is debased and immoral because our women run around half naked, have sex on video, let homosexuals run free ? Are you also stating that all the muslim countries that these people or accusers are from, are free of all the above accusations... How American troops got into this topic is beyond me, But we know the conversation is going well when "someone yells" the Americans do it...But i think the key words in your post are "Found guilty" meaning they broke a law, you know the laws that are somewhat based on the morals and values of the country putting them in place...Suggesting that we uphold our morals and values though our laws, and do not tolerate those actions within our communities....Are we perfect ...far from it...are we evolving to become better i think so.... morality like history is written by the dominant power... Another reason why we must ensure we remain the dominant power then...I don't think our women folk would take to kindly to wearing burkas in public, being whipped for showing some ankle, becoming pocessions with no rights, no education , the list goes on ....are these the morals and values you subscribe to....that are really better than ours...Sorry i'll take thongs , porn, and gay rights any day before i'll excuse grown men cutting the hands off a small girl for going to school, throwing acid in young girls faces....because they want to read and write ....thats some group you route for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 (edited) This seems an odd bit of quibbling. Until the accused is convicted, they are, before the eyes of the law, innocent. This makes "we know he's guilty" a bit paradoxical. One can "know" a man is guilty of a crime, for instance, if one sees the man doing it, but until he is convicted, in the eyes of judiciary, he is not guilty "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove." - Denzel Washington I don't see this case as an indictment of the military. Obviously its an extremely rare circumstance. Any organization with thousands of people will have some who are sociopathic, and criminal. But it is certainly the kind of material that makes for big headlines. Edited February 11, 2010 by Sir Bandelot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 start down that road and then we would have to charge the majority of the population for brainwashing their kids in any religious indoctrination...brainwashed drones all of them... He's is correct. Start down that slippery slope and the lawyers would have a field day. You can however charge people for indoctrinating children into a life of crime.Hating the west (jews, christians, beer, dancing...) is not a crime. and that was for alleged abuse right? What do you think the impact would be to Khadr's defense if his mother was found guilty of child abuse - abuse of a specific type designed to indoctrinate her child into waging war against us? You still figure Omar should be punished instead of being treated? So basically we are saying that we have an inter-national law, that Canada has agreed to and signed on to but has no teeth, nor do we have the will to enforce it. but rather it's total purpose is to allow the accused an out, to claim "they are child soldiers" and should be treated with kid gloves...given light sentences and set free with some guidence from his family.....I can't wait until this is made into a movie...how does it end...Does arnold get a part, maybe sly stone, can play the final Rambo.. When the author of this law states it's intentions are NOT so much as to punish the child, but rather he gets all the help they need, but does preclude holding that child responsiable for his crimes....he also states the main intention of the law is to go after and punish those involved in recruiting , brain washing and forcing these children into that life....or is this last statement just a bunch of BS.... Reading that in which is being thrown around here like a bad joke, means that YES we can hold the child responsiable for his own actions...And YES we can go after dear mother, for bringing up her son, for her part in his brain washing...which at one piont she tried to convince serveral of her sons to become suicide bombers....leaves me shaking my head...Is there an historical precedence i'm not aware of...can mothers indoc thier children into this terrorist life , then asked them to take there own lives and murder others, thats acceptable today ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 (edited) It's possible. It's just no likely. Gacy was a construction company owner. Nothing says you can't be a mean, nasty boss and not still be a construction company owner The thing is, though, serial killers aren't necessarily "mean and nasty." They are good at blending into society. As I pointed out, they can be viewed as kind and generous, and to some, they are. More importantly, no one, who supposedly is able to judge people, was watching and evaluating him during his entire career to judge what kind of a man he was. Being an Air Force officer is not like being a construction worker or owner. You get much closer to far more people and I find it hard to believe a guy as undisciplined as this, as arrogant as this, didn't leave signs. He didn't just "snap". You don't snap over the course of many months. Serial killers don't just snap, that's true. That's why it's difficult to see the signs; this is a controlled person, someone who knows how to act; what to say and do. Maybe he was just a very, very clever psychotic who fooled everyone, who knew how to act and obey the rules when he could be caught. But I wouldn't be surprised to find that, as with the Muslim Major in the US, signs were there but ignored. Serial killers generally do fool everyone, knowing how to act, etc., so it's a different situation entirely from the Muslim Major in the US, who was a 'multiple murderer,' someone who snapped, which is different entirely from a serial killer's actions. Furthermore, people were vocal about their concerns regarding the Muslim Major, but there was a PC issue. I don't see that same thing here at all. My point is that serial killers aren't limited to specific vocations. By their very nature, they generally fool everyone around them, which is why they are able to kill more than one victim. I just don't see Air Force Officers being put under a microscope in their 'evaluation,' so it's not surprising to me that no one suspected anything. Edited February 11, 2010 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 .... I just don't see Air Force Officers being put under a microscope in their 'evaluation,' so it's not surprising to me that no one suspected anything. It's not that simple....his "evaluations" would include fitness reports, flight physicals (including a shrink), type qualification(s), background investigations for security clearances, and perhaps a personnel reliability assessment for certain billets. There is also scrutiny of lifestyle, credit reports, debt, etc. Selection for field/flag rank also involves extra scrutiny. But in general I would agree that the accused's occupation may be irrelevant in such cases, but not for lack of opportunity to detect aberrant behaviour or profiles, which is possible. One of my wardroom colleagues would subsequently go on to murder his entire family after a military career....he had quirks that we dismissed as strange but harmeless...we were wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 One of my wardroom colleagues would subsequently go on to murder his entire family after a military career....he had quirks that we dismissed as strange but harmeless...we were wrong. Evidently Williams would have been put under a microscope to a greater extent than I realized, but I'm assuming the colleague you are referring to murdered his family all at once, which most likely means he snapped. From what I understand, a serial killer is different from a mass murderer in that he doesn't kill his victims all at once, but has time in between; his actions are deliberate, pre-meditated, and not due to his snapping. In other words, they are very controlled, which means there aren't "quirks," and I'm assuming you mean quirks that would be interpreted as violent, that are generally visible to others. Unlike someone who snaps, and isn't in control of their emotions, a serial killer is totally in control. On a personal level, it must have been a real shock to you to hear that your colleague had murdered his entire family. Was it a murder-suicide? It seems it so often is in such cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 In other words, they are very controlled, which means there aren't "quirks," and I'm assuming you mean quirks that would be interpreted as violent, that are generally visible to others. Unlike someone who snaps, and isn't in control of their emotions, a serial killer is totally in control. No, by quirks I mean behaviors not typically exhibited by others under the same stress or circumstances, or even the inability to relieve stress in socially acceptable ways. Violent behaviour would be one of the easiest to follow up on....too easy. On a personal level, it must have been a real shock to you to hear that your colleague had murdered his entire family. Was it a murder-suicide? It seems it so often is in such cases. Nope...just a garden variety triple murder (wife & kids)...planned in advance. In his case it was loss of control (finances, pending divorce, etc.). The only shock was that it could have been one of us instead...so always sleep with one eye open! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Evidently Williams would have been put under a microscope to a greater extent than I realized, but I'm assuming the colleague you are referring to murdered his family all at once, which most likely means he snapped. From what I understand, a serial killer is different from a mass murderer in that he doesn't kill his victims all at once, but has time in between; his actions are deliberate, pre-meditated, and not due to his snapping. In other words, they are very controlled, which means there aren't "quirks," and I'm assuming you mean quirks that would be interpreted as violent, that are generally visible to others. Unlike someone who snaps, and isn't in control of their emotions, a serial killer is totally in control. On a personal level, it must have been a real shock to you to hear that your colleague had murdered his entire family. Was it a murder-suicide? It seems it so often is in such cases. Did he ever get kills in combat??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) Did he ever get kills in combat??? He wasn't a fighter pilot. He flew challenger jets and airbuses. Save his stint as CO of Camp Mirage, he spent most of the past ten yrs as a student (Masters degree, French second language training) and a bureaucrat. Edited February 12, 2010 by dizzy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.