eyeball Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 The law has to release her - it's the law, however, that's not what i asked. It doesn't matter what you asked, you'll never ever be happy. Are you saying that because she's been released from prison, that she is not a homicidal pedophile rapist? That's what I said, because I haven't seen any evidence that proves otherwise. If you have, please provide it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 It doesn't matter what you asked, you'll never ever be happy. That's what I said, because I haven't seen any evidence that proves otherwise. If you have, please provide it. HAL doesn't provide evidence anymore. He has transcended reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 So is your concern because her potential to have children was not flagged as an issue upon her release. Relevance to everything you're pointing out ceased then.Why do you ignore the fact that three children are being raised by a convicted rapist and murderer? That did not cease when she reproduced, it began. Why do you hate children? It is a fact that she has paid that debt, as evidenced by her release. How pissed off that makes you is utterly irrelevant.I see you are unfamiliar with the actual events of her case. Not surprising. In any event, I am not calling for her retrial on the torture and multiple rapes and murders of children. But since those facts came out after she engineered a deal on false premises, got away with it, and was released about a lift=etime before her accuratey sentenced accomplice.... it is not unreasonable to task the Quebec child welfare authorities about the presence of a psychopath in direct contact with children. Nor is is extreme to want them to act responsibly. It makes no difference that they are her own children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 HAL doesn't provide evidence anymore. He has transcended reason. Here's some reason for ya; If we, as eyeball has demonstrated, can't accept the fact that Karla Homalka is a homocidal pedophile rapist, then is there anything at all that can be accepted as fact - cite or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 (edited) If she's done her time - she should be treated like any ex-cons who'd paid for their crimes. Although I'd be wary about letting my children spend overnight at her place. I don't know what kind of values she teaches her children - so I'd steer my children away from them. Forgiveness. Move on. But then again, that's easy for me to say. I'm not the parents who'd lost their daughters because of her. Edited April 27, 2016 by Charles Anthony deleted re-copied [Opening Post] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Why do you ignore the fact that three children are being raised by a convicted rapist and murderer?Convicted - as in past tense. All I'm ignoring is the implication that she is still a rapist and a murderer and that she be treated as such. That's not how our justice system works.Why do you hate children?/facepalm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Convicted - as in past tense. All I'm ignoring is the implication that she is still a rapist and a murderer and that she be treated as such. That's not how our justice system works. /facepalm Would you consider Paul Bernardo a rapist and a murderer? I mean, the only difference between the two of them is that she lied and turned on him to manipulate the crown into an easy deal - right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 Paul Bernardo is a convict, Karla Holmolka was a convict. Can you spot the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 Paul Bernardo is a convict, Karla Holmolka was a convict. Can you spot the difference? The difference is; one turned on the other. That's all! When it comes to murder, you've either murdered someone and are a murderer - or you've never murdered someone. There is a line that you cross and don't come back from. You're judging her newfound innocence on the back of a FF'd up, unconfident prosecutor who made a tremendous error in judgement. I'll assume that you don't actually know the details of the crimes or trial/settlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 There is a line that you cross and don't come back from. Not in our justice system otherwise she'd still be in custody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 (edited) The difference is; one turned on the other. That's all! No that's not the only difference. He committed a lot of violent crimes before her and he's likely to reoffend if ever released. Nobody can deny she was a sick individual while with Bernardo, but she seems to have lived up to the assessments of the psychiatrists who said that she is sexually aroused by predators, but without one in her life, she is not dangerous on her own. Edited April 28, 2016 by BC_chick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 (edited) WoW, I never knew just how many people have total and unquestionable faith in our legal system. Personally, I don't believe that our legal system decides when a murderer becomes a non-murderer. And, Homalka was never charged with murder anyway, so is the argument that she never was a murderer - at all? I mean really this changes everything. It means that OJ Simpson is not a murderer, Ghomeshi is not abusive and there are no pedophiles or rapists out there, because hey, they're not in jail. This is a woman who lured 15 year old girls, drugged them, bound them, beat them, raped them, sodomized them, strangled them, chopped up their bodies (just one I suppose), and dumped their bodies...but she's better now - right BC chick? And Betsy, when you say that the parents lost their child, it sounds like it was some tragic accident - it wasn't! I can't even begin to imagine how, as a parent you go on with life knowing what you're baby daughter went through at the hands of these monsters. P.S - Any of you people that offer her even the slightest sympathy should be ashamed. She deserves a bullet in the head and an eternity in hell. Edited April 28, 2016 by Michael Hardner removed graphic description Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 28, 2016 Report Share Posted April 28, 2016 Give me a break. Nobody has offered sympathy for her. Most people just understand the difference between a just society and one based on barbarism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/homolka-will-no-longer-volunteer-at-school/ar-BBBNF3x?li=AAggFp5 Â If she was volunteering at my children's school, I'd be like these parents raising holy hell, too. I feel sorry for her children, they will one day find out what their mother really is. Â But that is something SHE should have thought of. Â Of course, she did not because like all sociaopaths, she doesn't give a rat's patootie about anyone but herself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.