Deadly: the Bernardo/Homolka movie [Archive] - Crime Library Message Boards

goatgirl

07-09-2005, 09:47 PM

I had mixed emotions about this movie coming out myself....

on one hand - I didn't want it out cuz its such a unthinkable crime so close to home - everyone here wished this never happened and the poor victims families have to live with all this attention given to the "celebrity killers"....its sad

but on the other hand-

I want Karla to always be reminded of her crimes ..no matter where she lives, or where she goes in life, she should not have the right to have the white picket fence life at all ....

when this movie comes out hopefully it will be with much media hype, then people that don't know who she is & what she did will now know ...

maybe it will benefit some young girl from making the wrong friend one day ?!

imo--goatgirl

:seeya:

amy_gbb

07-14-2005, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn
If it is distributed in Ontario I will probably see it, unless it is reviewed so terribly that I think it will serve no purpose other than sensationalism.
From what I've read, I assumed the movie was a documentation, but after checking out the "Cast & Crew" page, I'm a little disturbed.

It has actresses listed as "Victim #1" and "Victim #2" The page doesn't even list a victim #3, much less the names of Tammy, Kristen or Leslie.

Also, I've read two of the books, and can't quite place the name "Czehowicz".......

http://www.deadlythemovie.com/castncrew.htm

Lenore

07-20-2005, 07:15 AM

Is this movie going to be released in the U.K? I think I would probably go and see the movie although I'm not sure...watched the trailer.
I've read a fair bit about this case various websites and books.

cantstandnuts

07-21-2005, 03:56 PM

I'll see it because it serves as a reminder to everyone exactly what this woman and her husband did and ensures she is kept in the public eye for as long as possible. I know she would like to be able to disappear from view, but she's dangerous, imo, and the only way to ensure she keeps on the up and up is to keep her front and center where she's being watched.

I don't get the comments from the poster Keys who says some people's outrage is less than pure. If you read this, keys, please elaborate. What does anyone have to gain by expressing anger that isn't sincere?

goatgirl

07-25-2005, 10:51 PM

Hi all

here is a link on the "August release" in Montreal of the movie deadly...

if you click on the right, of this link you can access video footage of the movie & Karla....

Goatgirl

:seeya:

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1122309763069_117718963?hub=topstories#

07-26-2005, 02:45 PM

I may watch it, simply to (like cantstandnuts said) keep her in the limelight. Posters should be put out everywhere of her.
IMO, she's nothing more than a serial rapist (along WITH Paul), who preys on children. Pedophiles? Perhaps. Vile, rapist, murderers? Definitely!
So, post her mug everywhere and warn people of her presence. The world needs to be safe from these degenerate, sick pigs.

What I hate about these movies though, it's usually never like the 'real' life actions that took place.

Also, everything that we've all learned about Paul/Karla are only what THEY TOLD US. I'd bet my life on the fact that there are more evil things that they've done, but just never copped to.

Anthea Delano

07-26-2005, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
I'll see it because it serves as a reminder to everyone exactly what this woman and her husband did and ensures she is kept in the public eye for as long as possible. I know she would like to be able to disappear from view, but she's dangerous, imo, and the only way to ensure she keeps on the up and up is to keep her front and center where she's being watched.

I don't get the comments from the poster Keys who says some people's outrage is less than pure. If you read this, keys, please elaborate. What does anyone have to gain by expressing anger that isn't sincere?

What I find so remarkable about this is that Mary Kay Latourneau spent 7 years in prison for having sex with a kid who claimed he was the aggressor. He was her one and only "victim." She had two children with him. He's still alive and they recently wed.

The majority of posters here hate her and basically would like to see her in jail for the rest of her life. I was one of the few posters, who while I did not condone her actions, felt that she and Villi should be free to get on with their lives.

It is bizarre that there isn't a significant level of outrage here for a woman who not only actively participated in rapes, murders, pedophilia, but she documented these horrors! And she spent a mere 12 years in prison for them.

MOO

2L8 4A D8

07-26-2005, 04:24 PM

Anthea Delano

07-26-2005, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

Well, from what I understand, in Canada you can kill 1 or 10 and you will only get 25 years, that's the max. And, they don't even have the death penalty either. How'z about that?

:cuss: :shrug: :cuss:

That's unbelievable.

Belly Button

07-27-2005, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Anthea Delano

What I find so remarkable about this is that Mary Kay Latourneau spent 7 years in prison for having sex with a kid who claimed he was the aggressor. He was her one and only "victim." She had two children with him. He's still alive and they recently wed.

The majority of posters here hate her and basically would like to see her in jail for the rest of her life. I was one of the few posters, who while I did not condone her actions, felt that she and Villi should be free to get on with their lives.

It is bizarre that there isn't a significant level of outrage here for a woman who not only actively participated in rapes, murders, pedophilia, but she documented these horrors! And she spent a mere 12 years in prison for them.

MOO

You bring up a good point here and I'll take it one step further. While it was legally wrong for MKL to have sex with a minor, she was called every name in the book, the public outrage was enormous and people demanded that she be in prison for life for her actions. Karla Homoka, on the other hand, is a pedophile, child molester, murderer, butcherer, preditor and extremely dangerous. Why in the world isn't she required to register as a dangerous sex offender in Canada? Does Canada have any requirements for people like Paul and Karla to register as sex offenders?

Will the Paul/Karla movie be shown in USA? I pray that Paul and Karla will NOT be allowed to make any money off this movie and their gruesome crimes.

I honestly believe it's only a matter of time before Karla reoffends whether it be with more molestations and/or murders.:flamemad:

hockeymomof5

07-27-2005, 08:46 AM

I see they changed the name of the movie to "Karla".

It's really surprising that it is making it's debut at the Montreal World Film Festival.

The movie focuses on HER sessions with the psychiatrist while in prison. It appears that the re-enactment of the crimes in the movie are taken from Karla's perspective of the crimes.

Great! A "Karla as the victim" movie - BS!

Hopefully, the advertiser's associated with the festival will speak up and put an end to the showing of this film. Air Canada, a sponsor of the festival, is already negotiating a deal to further themselves from the film.

northernrflxn

07-27-2005, 09:19 AM

From today's Toronto Star:

In the end, the viewer is left to ponder their sympathy for Karla, to ask how much she too is a victim of Paul," reads the plot synopsis. It further describes Homolka, who is believed to be living in Montreal, as "conflicted by her conscience but still unable to escape" Bernardo's grasp.

The producers, who are still seeking a distributor for the film, based their movie on court transcripts.

Prepon and the actor portraying Bernardo, Misha Collins, where expected to attend the Montreal premiere but details had yet to be confirmed, said Sellers.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1122459834046&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705925735&t=TS_Home

Anthea Delano

07-27-2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5
I see they changed the name of the movie to "Karla".

It's really surprising that it is making it's debut at the Montreal World Film Festival.

The movie focuses on HER sessions with the psychiatrist while in prison. It appears that the re-enactment of the crimes in the movie are taken from Karla's perspective of the crimes.

Great! A "Karla as the victim" movie - BS!

Hopefully, the advertiser's associated with the festival will speak up and put an end to the showing of this film. Air Canada, a sponsor of the festival, is already negotiating a deal to further themselves from the film.

The families of the victims will have to endure this new torture of seeing their childrens' murderer treated reverently in a film. While the film may be about Karla, naming it after HER is a disgrace.
This EVIL woman, no doubt, will love this.

The title shows a total disregard for the families of the victims.

northernrflxn

07-27-2005, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Anthea Delano

The families of the victims will have to endure this new torture of seeing their childrens' murderer treated reverently in a film. While the film may be about Karla, naming it after HER is a disgrace.
This EVIL woman, no doubt, will love this.

The title shows a total disregard for the families of the victims.

I hardly think she'll be treated "reverently". The movie is based on court transcripts, which included independent evidence and the testimony of many people, of whom Karla was only one. A reminder that she went to prison for 12 years as a result of her dealings with the justice system. Depending on how true this movie is to the story, you may however find that the facts get in the way of your image of this particular offender.

I've watched the trailer, and my initial impression is that there will be plenty for anyone who holds any kind of an opinion on this case to ponder.

chilione

07-27-2005, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by goatgirl
Hi all

here is a link on the "August release" in Montreal of the movie deadly...

if you click on the right, of this link you can access video footage of the movie & Karla....

Goatgirl

:seeya:

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1122309763069_117718963?hub=topstories#

One good thing about the movie from the link:

CTV News Toronto's Paul Bliss said one reason why Montrealers didn't strongly object to Homolka settling in their province was because they didn't know much about her case.

"Perhaps with some publicity around this film, they'll find out," he said.

2L8 4A D8

07-27-2005, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by chilione

One good thing about the movie from the link:

CTV News Toronto's Paul Bliss said one reason why Montrealers didn't strongly object to Homolka settling in their province was because they didn't know much about her case.

"Perhaps with some publicity around this film, they'll find out," he said.

I don't live in Canada, but how in the world can the Montrealers not "know much about her case?" What? They all were living with their heads in the sand? That's like saying the people in Arizona did not know much about the Manson murders! OMG!

JMO and MOO!!

Anthea Delano

07-27-2005, 04:49 PM

Anthea Delano

07-27-2005, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

I hardly think she'll be treated "reverently". The movie is based on court transcripts, which included independent evidence and the testimony of many people, of whom Karla was only one. A reminder that she went to prison for 12 years as a result of her dealings with the justice system. Depending on how true this movie is to the story, you may however find that the facts get in the way of your image of this particular offender.

I've watched the trailer, and my initial impression is that there will be plenty for anyone who holds any kind of an opinion on this case to ponder.

She's just getting another deal. She gets to tell her story. She gets a new beginning. It's all about Karla. and always has been about Karla. And it will always be about Karla.

Her victims got no deals. They got no pity, no mercy, no chance to grow up.

MOO

Anthea Delano

07-27-2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

I hardly think she'll be treated "reverently". The movie is based on court transcripts, which included independent evidence and the testimony of many people, of whom Karla was only one. A reminder that she went to prison for 12 years as a result of her dealings with the justice system. Depending on how true this movie is to the story, you may however find that the facts get in the way of your image of this particular offender.

I've watched the trailer, and my initial impression is that there will be plenty for anyone who holds any kind of an opinion on this case to ponder.

She's just getting another deal. She gets to tell her story. She gets a new beginning. It's all about Karla. And always has been about Karla. And it will always be about Karla.

Her victims got no deals. There is no second act for her victims. They got nothing, no mercy, no chance to grow up.

MOO

goatgirl

07-27-2005, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by chilione

One good thing about the movie from the link:

CTV News Toronto's Paul Bliss said one reason why Montrealers didn't strongly object to Homolka settling in their province was because they didn't know much about her case.

"Perhaps with some publicity around this film, they'll find out," he said.

hey chilione

I totally agree, I think after this movie comes out Montreal will certainly know Karla....

even better the whole world will know Karla !

Goatgirl !
:seeya:

2L8 4A D8

07-27-2005, 05:41 PM

Does anybody know why they changed the title to "Karla"? If they wanted to change it, they should have changed it to "Karla and Paul". She wasn't in this alone.

Not that I really care because I will not pay to see this movie. Heck, I wouldn't see it for free. Just curious is all.

JMO and MOO!!

northernrflxn

07-27-2005, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I don't live in Canada, but how in the world can the Montrealers not "know much about her case?" What? They all were living with their heads in the sand? That's like saying the people in Arizona did not know much about the Manson murders! OMG!

JMO and MOO!!

Canadian media is just different 2L8. You just don't typically see the same kind of of endless, feverish, across the board focus on regional or "niche" news. In this sense, I think the Canadian media does a better job at keeping things in a more realistic perspective. However, don't get me wrong, I watch CNN a lot. There's lots to appreciate about US style coverage, its just different.

northernrflxn

07-27-2005, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Anthea Delano

She's just getting another deal. She gets to tell her story. She gets a new beginning. It's all about Karla. And always has been about Karla. And it will always be about Karla.

Her victims got no deals. There is no second act for her victims. They got nothing, no mercy, no chance to grow up.

MOO

Karla Homolka is in no way related to this production. It is an American film - that none of us has seen, based on publicly available court transcripts. Really, WHAT are you talking about?

northernrflxn

07-27-2005, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Does anybody know why they changed the title to "Karla"? If they wanted to change it, they should have changed it to "Karla and Paul". She wasn't in this alone.

Not that I really care because I will not pay to see this movie. Heck, I wouldn't see it for free. Just curious is all.

JMO and MOO!!

From the Toronto Star today:

Danson (the victims' lawyer) said he was also surprised by the renaming of the film from Deadly to Karla.

"My sense is the name Karla Homolka has now been reported widely in the United States," said Danson, who appeared on numerous American news programs following Homolka's July 4 release.

"The change of the name from Deadly to Karla (was done) to tap into that new awareness. (The case) has received some pretty wide publicity and I suspect they're taking advantage of that."

But, the producers say......

Sellers described that argument as "Toronto-centric" and defended the change.

"Anywhere else in the world, Deadly is a title which connotes a kind of more violent, more thriller kind of film and we've always been uncomfortable with that," he said.

"Karla... that name doesn't mean anything. It's only in Toronto and Ontario that the name carries with it such an emotional punch."

Like this case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1122459834046&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705925735&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

2L8 4A D8

07-27-2005, 06:48 PM

Thank you Northernrflxn for your information and the links. I appreciate it!

Anthea Delano

07-27-2005, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

Karla Homolka is in no way related to this production. It is an American film - that none of us has seen, based on publicly available court transcripts. Really, WHAT are you talking about?

I think the producers have decided based on the publically available video transcripts of her proferring her sister as some sort of virgin offerring to her beau, for videotaped rape,sodomy and murder, that Karla was/is the star of the show, ergo, the title.

MOO

chilione

07-28-2005, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I don't live in Canada, but how in the world can the Montrealers not "know much about her case?" What? They all were living with their heads in the sand? That's like saying the people in Arizona did not know much about the Manson murders! OMG!

JMO and MOO!!

I don't understand it either. I know that Canada had a total media ban during the trial, but how could they not know much about her now after getting released. They should send her picture and warning to every home in Montreal.

Anthea Delano

07-28-2005, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by chilione

I don't understand it either. I know that Canada had a total media ban during the trial, but how could they not know much about her now after getting released. They should send her picture and warning to every home in Montreal.

Warnings aren't in the best interests of Karla's kind of criminal. LOL The sad situation is this: There are certain ex-convicts who can, and should be rehabed because the recidivism rate for these folks is low. It has beeen proven that with a good support network and a job they become model citizens.

Who are these people? Well they are not repeat pedophiles or serial murderers.

Unfortunately, the statistics show that the recidivism rate for pedophilia is very high.

I can't write about serial murders because I don't think there are established recidivism rates because their crimes are so heinous, society, with good reason, doesn't give them a second chance.

07-29-2005, 09:27 PM

I will never watch this movie. This case was too close to home for me. Both of my nieces lived in same area as Leslie and went to same school. In other words this could have very easily been either of my nieces. I have not nor will I read any of the books either.

07-29-2005, 10:56 PM

Well said TrueNorth. I guess I am looking at this movie through the victims family's eyes, as I had mentioned about it possibly being my own family members this could have happened to. I think they have been through enough from losing their children, let alone have people making money from people that were innocently murdered.

northernrflxn

07-30-2005, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by TrueNorth
Of course the producers would say that :rolleyes: Are you really that naive?

As is evidenced from this board and the fact that Canadians were fed the horrific trial details of the case via internet from (mostly) Americans because of the publication ban, the producers are sucking you into yet another marketing delusion.

Those of us who lived through it remember it all too well.

If you think you're an expert now just because you've read some books, hey, post away and continue in your dream that your academic knowledge of this case makes you an expert. It only serves to further embarass yourself.

The rest of us who were neighbours would laugh at you if this weren't such a horribly painful experience for the victims' community.

My gut tells me from reading your posts over the past few weeks that your interest lies in the marketing of this film, and I suspect I'm not alone in this suspicion.

Good luck in promoting this film in Canada.

As I said earlier, it's not the Canadian way.

My god.

What. Ever.

PS. I could be living one block over and two houses down for all you know. While I truly can't imagine having this happen so close to home, St. Catharines/Burlington doesn't have exclusive rights to collective community anguish over this case. You shouldn't assume so much.

2L8 4A D8

07-30-2005, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by TrueNorth
Living through the experience of trying to find the persons responsible for these horrific crimes was painful enough.

Now an American wants to make money from it by making a movie.

No Canadian with a soul will watch this movie, let alone pay to see it. It's just not the Canadian way to disrespect the memory of Leslie and Kristen, or any other victim of such a horrific crime, and I would hope that our American bretheren would share the same sentiments.

:(

Rest assured that this American bretheren shares the same sentiments as my Canadian neighbors. I will not go see this movie. Nor could you pay me to see it. Nor would I see it for free. I hope it bombs at the box office. I do love Laura Prepon though!

Anthea Delano

07-30-2005, 08:31 PM

northernrflxn

07-30-2005, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by TrueNorth
I assumed nothing. I don't know where you live, and you assumed by my use of the term "neighbour" that I live in the St. Catharines/Burlington area, which I do not. Paul and Karla's victims were not limited to that area.

It's no wonder your posts don't make sense. Your skills are limited to being able to read; you obviously don't have enough analytical skills to reach a logical and obvious conclusion.

Keep trying, though. Your attempts have provided amusement for the rest of us. :D

You said: "The rest of us who were neighbours would laugh at you if this weren't such a horribly painful experience for the victims' community."

Victims in the plural. Community in the singular. What community do the victims share? What is the common definition of a neighbour? You have a problem stringing a sentence together if don't think 100%,+ or - 0% of the population would not conclude you were talking about the St. Catharines/Burlington area.

Regardless, you implied (assumed) you have some superior position that gave you a depth of understanding of the crimes that I lack in the millions of words I've read on this case. Whatever.

From where I sit, all you have that I don't is an astouding bias that some of you cross infect each other with to the point that the more illogical the leap and the more fallacious the argument (when you bother to put one forth at all) the more :beer: the foolishness gets.

I don't know that my conclusions are correct any more than you know that yours are. However, logic is my bread and butter and a personal strength by temperment, education and experience. You, on the other hand, usually sound like it's time to check with your doctor to see if it's okay to post while you're in a manic phase.

keys

08-01-2005, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

I don't get the comments from the poster Keys who says some people's outrage is less than pure. If you read this, keys, please elaborate. What does anyone have to gain by expressing anger that isn't sincere?

Sure.

For starters, there's a certain element of voyeurism that's almost always present in people that obsessively follow high profile murder cases. What I mean by that, is that while your average Joe is entitled to a certain sense of privacy, when a person is involved in a high profile murder case, EVERYTHING about them is made public and they effectively end up with less privacy than even real celebrities (actors, singers, sports stars etc) are normally entitled to. For example, if one is sufficiently interested, it's probably possible to find out what Scott Peteron's first word was, what he got for his 7th birthday, when he had his first kiss, and all kinds of other trivial personal details about his life that really aren't any of our business. All these things - or things of a similar nature - would have been reported before through some form of media.

The point is that it's not normal or natural to get such an open, honest and unresistricted look at the personal lives of people that are, quite frankly, total strangers to us. That's where the voyeuristic element comes in. These true stories of real pain, suffering and misery are transformed into a perverse form of entertainment for the population. I'm not saying that people don't feel for the victims - because they do - but when this sympathy is laced with an interest in a case that really isn't any of their business to begin with, the sympathy becomes less than pure.

This brings us to this movie. Kristen's and Leslie's families desperately ask the public to consider their pain and to avoid seeing this movie, but still the public will flock to it and see it, for the reasons I outlined. Sure they're angry and they're outraged and they feel for the girls, but they don't care enough to spare their family this pain and to honor their request.

I'll bet Kristen and Leslie's families think that the people who will go see this movie are scum, regarldess of whether or not these moviegoers express sympathy for the girls.

cantstandnuts

08-01-2005, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts I don't get the comments from the poster Keys who says some people's outrage is less than pure. If you read this, keys, please elaborate. What does anyone have to gain by expressing anger that isn't sincere? Sure.
________________________

Hi,

I decided not to copy/paste your answer...for brevity sake.
I guess you have a point. Some of these folks, though, live in the immediate area and therefore, to me, would have a vested interest in staying up to date.

I was horrified by this crime, but I tend to have an interest in crime in general, so I guess my rage would be less than pure because I do follow this stuff? If I understand you correctly, that's what you're referring to since I have no personal involvement with any of the players in this case and live in the USA. I can respect what you say in regards to folks like me, perhaps...meaning if no vested interest, then no reason to have my rage be pure. I never thought of it in such simple terms, but I will admit you may have a point. I have felt very angry reading this stuff, but I'm not sure if it's because I just like crime and reading about criminals or because I have been a victim of crime...curious, being a crime victim, do you think I would have more pure motives for being angry with Karla? Or am I still less than pure in my rage? I would think there would be other reasons that people can have pure rage. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just not so sure it's as simple as you point out.

JMO

keys

08-01-2005, 03:29 PM

Yeah I think you get what I'm saying.

Just to recap, it is natural to feel sympathy and horror at crimes such as these, but the real question is, if we have no legitimate connections to these cases, why do we keep reading about it after we see that it offends us? Few will admit it, but most people show interest because its entertaining, although perhaps a mildly masochistic form of entertainment. It's like a good murder movie, except better, becasue this is real life and the "non fiction" status of the crime allows room for infinite depth and discussion.

You said you were a "crime victim," and asked whether or not I think that your outrage as a victim would be more pure than most. "Crime victim" is pretty vague so I can't say for sure, but if , for example, you are a rape victim or were sexually abused as a child, I could understand that this case would hit a lot closer to home for you than it would for most people, and as such I would agree that your outrage would be more justified than that of most.

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
Originally posted by cantstandnuts I don't get the comments from the poster Keys who says some people's outrage is less than pure. If you read this, keys, please elaborate. What does anyone have to gain by expressing anger that isn't sincere? Sure.
________________________

Hi,

I decided not to copy/paste your answer...for brevity sake.
I guess you have a point. Some of these folks, though, live in the immediate area and therefore, to me, would have a vested interest in staying up to date.

I was horrified by this crime, but I tend to have an interest in crime in general, so I guess my rage would be less than pure because I do follow this stuff? If I understand you correctly, that's what you're referring to since I have no personal involvement with any of the players in this case and live in the USA. I can respect what you say in regards to folks like me, perhaps...meaning if no vested interest, then no reason to have my rage be pure. I never thought of it in such simple terms, but I will admit you may have a point. I have felt very angry reading this stuff, but I'm not sure if it's because I just like crime and reading about criminals or because I have been a victim of crime...curious, being a crime victim, do you think I would have more pure motives for being angry with Karla? Or am I still less than pure in my rage? I would think there would be other reasons that people can have pure rage. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just not so sure it's as simple as you point out.

JMO

cantstandnuts

08-01-2005, 03:40 PM

I am a former battered spouse. My husband engaged in all kinds of horrors including rape. I think that's why I tend to gravitate to these types of stories and by and large, tend to identify with the victim and not the perp. However, there have been times I have thought the "victim" wasn't a victim at all. Karla will characterize herself as a victim of Paul and I don't buy that one bit. Having had a lot of experience as a battered wife, I read her story and just didn't buy it. I know she's been beaten by him, but she isn't exactly your classic battered wife. She could pretty much come and go. I was kept at home, pretty much terrified into remaining there in case he'd call. I was isolated from my family and friends, Karla wasn't. I hated sex with hubby, she seemed to enjoy it. She had ample opportunity to tell on him, but didn't. I wanted out desperately and constantly looked for safe ways to do that, and I eventually got out, but had to hide a good long while. I suppose she was spared hiding since immediately after she was hospitalized, he was arrested...IIRC.
Anyway, based on my firsthand experience, I would have to say her story just doesn't add up. She doesn't seem to fit the profile. While I think he was an absolute sadist, I think she enjoyed a huge part of that and he wasn't exactly the batterer she claims. If I truly believed she was a victim, I suppose I'd be able to identify with her on some level. I've never been able to do that. I don't think she's telling the truth about his level of control and abuse of her.

Anthea Delano

08-01-2005, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
I am a former battered spouse. My husband engaged in all kinds of horrors including rape. I think that's why I tend to gravitate to these types of stories and by and large, tend to identify with the victim and not the perp. However, there have been times I have thought the "victim" wasn't a victim at all. Karla will characterize herself as a victim of Paul and I don't buy that one bit. Having had a lot of experience as a battered wife, I read her story and just didn't buy it. I know she's been beaten by him, but she isn't exactly your classic battered wife. She could pretty much come and go. I was kept at home, pretty much terrified into remaining there in case he'd call. I was isolated from my family and friends, Karla wasn't. I hated sex with hubby, she seemed to enjoy it. She had ample opportunity to tell on him, but didn't. I wanted out desperately and constantly looked for safe ways to do that, and I eventually got out, but had to hide a good long while. I suppose she was spared hiding since immediately after she was hospitalized, he was arrested...IIRC.
Anyway, based on my firsthand experience, I would have to say her story just doesn't add up. She doesn't seem to fit the profile. While I think he was an absolute sadist, I think she enjoyed a huge part of that and he wasn't exactly the batterer she claims. If I truly believed she was a victim, I suppose I'd be able to identify with her on some level. I've never been able to do that. I don't think she's telling the truth about his level of control and abuse of her.

Thank you for posting this. It is very brave of you to share your personal story.

cantstandnuts

08-01-2005, 03:55 PM

You're welcome. It's not easy, but this ended for me almost 15 years ago, so I'm getting better every day and also very thankful I survived it all.

It infuriates me that Karla is using battered woman syndrome as an excuse. I know he was abusive to her, but THAT doesn't at all justify her crimes. Most of us, I believe, regardless of what control a person has over us, would not engage in that behavior. Sincerely, I believe I would die proving that. But, it doesn't turn me on in the least. I think Karla enjoyed rape and torture of others. That makes her guilty as sin.

keys

08-01-2005, 04:24 PM

Yes, that is understandable. You're not alone in that; a lot of battered spouses were angry that Homolka used the battered wife syndrome as an excuse.

No, Homolka is definitely not your "classic" battered wife - I think everyone can agree there. Nevertheless, I think one of the reasons this case has attracted so much attention is because Homolka is a very, very unusual woman in many respects.

cantstandnuts

08-01-2005, 04:35 PM

No, Homolka is definitely not your "classic" battered wife - I think everyone can agree there. Nevertheless, I think one of the reasons this case has attracted so much attention is because Homolka is a very, very unusual woman in many respects.
_____________________

that's putting it mildly, LOL!

I think that may be why our tail feathers get raised so often here. I'm not sure any of us truly understands her because of the complexities. While I still feel she's a psychopath, there are some things that point away from that, so it's hard to have any type of clear cut argument.

Lenore

08-02-2005, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
No, Homolka is definitely not your "classic" battered wife - I think everyone can agree there. Nevertheless, I think one of the reasons this case has attracted so much attention is because Homolka is a very, very unusual woman in many respects.
_____________________

that's putting it mildly, LOL!

I think that may be why our tail feathers get raised so often here. I'm not sure any of us truly understands her because of the complexities. While I still feel she's a psychopath, there are some things that point away from that, so it's hard to have any type of clear cut argument.

Going the other way to work RE this whole 'movie' thing I know it's a bit of lame thought really but I'm sure Hollywood will alter bits or add more victims or something such is the nature of Hollywood, but perhaps (if it even comes out here) that if people go to see it then they'll want to read more about it and learn well the truth as it were. Read about it and read for themselves how 'evil' (for want of a better word) she and Paul were, obviously yes people paying to see this film will indeed line the pockets of people but well such is life. I know it's a crummy thought but well just thought I'd post my two cents.

hockeymomof5

08-02-2005, 08:42 AM

I will not go see it. I have no interest in "seeing" the horrific acts of Paul AND Karla. Reading about them was bad enough!!!

Lenore

08-02-2005, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5
I will not go see it. I have no interest in "seeing" the horrific acts of Paul AND Karla. Reading about them was bad enough!!!

^ my last post was not in anyway trying to condone the movie it was just a thought I had. I highly doubt many people will go to see it over in Canda and the states, but should it come out here I think people may go to see it as it's just not so well known over here and a lot of people are bound to be intrigued or what have you.
Ahwell, me and my big mouth have probably just dug ourselves an even bigger hole *shrug*

Anthea Delano

08-02-2005, 09:25 AM

hockeymomof5

08-02-2005, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Lenore

^ my last post was not in anyway trying to condone the movie it was just a thought I had. I highly doubt many people will go to see it over in Canda and the states, but should it come out here I think people may go to see it as it's just not so well known over here and a lot of people are bound to be intrigued or what have you.
Ahwell, me and my big mouth have probably just dug ourselves an even bigger hole *shrug*

I didn't think you were trying to "condone" it. I wasn't even making my comment directly to you, but to the question about seeing the movie at all. I'm sorry if it appeared that I directed my comment to you.

I believe people in Canada and the US WILL go see it, if for no other reason than curiousity. Though, I hardly think it will be a blockbuster film. Personally, I hope they lose money on it, but who knows in this day and age.

I don't think those whose lives were touched by the story will go see it and that includes those living in the areas of which these girls, Tammy, Kristen, Leslie and Jane Doe lived. It was bad enough hearing the rumours while the trial was going on and then seeing that many of those rumours were true once the information hit the news and the books.

I asked my 20 yr. old if he planned on seeing the movie since he is a HUGE movie buff. He stated that he wouldn't because it was based on a true story that hit close to home and he had no interest in seeing the victims (not KARLA) further exploited. Good for HIM! I was very proud of him for this decision.

Anthea Delano

08-02-2005, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

I didn't think you were trying to "condone" it. I wasn't even making my comment directly to you, but to the question about seeing the movie at all. I'm sorry if it appeared that I directed my comment to you.

I believe people in Canada and the US WILL go see it, if for no other reason than curiousity. Though, I hardly think it will be a blockbuster film. Personally, I hope they lose money on it, but who knows in this day and age.

I don't think those whose lives were touched by the story will go see it and that includes those living in the areas of which these girls, Tammy, Kristen, Leslie and Jane Doe lived. It was bad enough hearing the rumours while the trial was going on and then seeing that many of those rumours were true once the information hit the news and the books.

I asked my 20 yr. old if he planned on seeing the movie since he is a HUGE movie buff. He stated that he wouldn't because it was based on a true story that hit close to home and he had no interest in seeing the victims (not KARLA) further exploited. Good for HIM! I was very proud of him for this decision.

Thank you for sharing yours and your son's personal feelings about this movie. Your son is an insightful young man because criminals often become sort of warped media "stars" while their victims lives are peripheral blips in the "central character's" saga, hence the victims are "exploited" again.

2L8 4A D8

08-02-2005, 08:31 PM

cantstandnuts

08-03-2005, 09:46 AM

I just hope that Hollywood hasn't glorified Karla in this movie as being battered and brainwashed and that's why she did what she did. I think the majority of the people that will go see this movie are those that were just too young at the time to remember what happened.

I also will be really upset if everybody comes out of the theater feeling sorry for Karla because she was just one more victim of Paul's. What a slap in the face that will be for the true victims of this sickening crime saga!

___________________________

Oh, I agree with you there! I'm really afraid this is what may happen. I wonder if changing the name of the movie to Karla is an indication that this may happen. Just a guess, I know the stated reasons for changing it, but who knows what the truth is. In any event, if this is what happens with this movie, what a horrible slap in the face to the victims and their families.

cantstandnuts

08-03-2005, 09:49 AM

Thank you for sharing yours and your son's personal feelings about this movie. Your son is an insightful young man because criminals often become sort of warped media "stars" while their victims lives are peripheral blips in the "central character's" saga, hence the victims are "exploited" again.
_______________

I agree, that's a real decent kid HM's got there.

Also, Anthena, ITA with your statements. It seems to happen in every true crime movie I've ever seen. :seeya:

Star

08-03-2005, 11:04 AM

I will watch this movie and my girls (who are teens) will watch it with me.

I view this movie as a learning tool for kids. Kids today take so many chances out there and are fearless of what could happen to them. This movie will be an awareness tool for teens. they're realize that these things do happen and the people that commit these crimes don't look any different then any other person on the streets.

There are many movies made about serial killers. Ted Bundy for one. There are monsters like this in our world and if a movie will make people more aware of this happening, then it's a good thing.

John Walsh. His little boy was kidnapped, tortured and killed. the killer was never found. There was a movie made in this boy's honor telling the story. I watched it and cried. Look how he turned something so drastic and heartbreaking into something positive. I feel this "Karla" movie will be just like that. An awareness tool for our kids.

Anthea Delano

08-03-2005, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Star
I will watch this movie and my girls (who are teens) will watch it with me.

I view this movie as a learning tool for kids. Kids today take so many chances out there and are fearless of what could happen to them. This movie will be an awareness tool for teens. they're realize that these things do happen and the people that commit these crimes don't look any different then any other person on the streets.

There are many movies made about serial killers. Ted Bundy for one. There are monsters like this in our world and if a movie will make people more aware of this happening, then it's a good thing.

John Walsh. His little boy was kidnapped, tortured and killed. the killer was never found. There was a movie made in this boy's honor telling the story. I watched it and cried. Look how he turned something so drastic and heartbreaking into something positive. I feel this "Karla" movie will be just like that. An awareness tool for our kids.

We can certainly hope that the movie sends a strong message. I have no problem with the movie as long as K isn't portrayed as a victim of Paul Bernardo. I hope they faithfully and accurately show how quickly they were engaged in a three hour rutting session at the Holiday Inn with other people in the room. That intense sexual beginning will speak volumes about K's sense of decency and the relationship which was to follow.

Star

08-03-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Anthea Delano

We can certainly hope that the movie sends a strong message. I have no problem with the movie as long as K isn't portrayed as a victim of Paul Bernardo. I hope they faithfully and accurately show how quickly they were engaged in a three hour rutting session at the Holiday Inn with other people in the room. That intense sexual beginning will speak volumes about K's sense of decency and the relationship which was to follow.

I too hope that they didn't portray her as paul's "victim" because that would be devistating to say the least. I seen the trailor and that isn't the message that I got from that so let's hope.

2L8 4A D8

08-03-2005, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Oh, I agree with you there! I'm really afraid this is what may happen. I wonder if changing the name of the movie to Karla is an indication that this may happen. Just a guess, I know the stated reasons for changing it, but who knows what the truth is. In any event, if this is what happens with this movie, what a horrible slap in the face to the victims and their families.

I think that's exactly what they did now that Karla is out on the streets. They are trying to garner sympathy for Karla and this is definitely a pro-Karla gimmick. And they shouldn't have used Laura Prepon either. Everyone knows her as Donna from "That 70's Show" and they love her. Trust me, they're all going to come out of that theater believing that Karla was battered and brainwashed. Sweet Laura Prepon (Karla) couldn't do anything like that unless Paul forced her to do it! GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

08-03-2005, 11:10 PM

Montreal film festival cancels Homolka premiere
Canadian Press

MONTREAL — The Montreal World Film Festival has cancelled its premiere of a film based on the slayings of two Ontario schoolgirls by Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1123112088260_21

northernrflxn

08-03-2005, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Anthea Delano

We can certainly hope that the movie sends a strong message. I have no problem with the movie as long as K isn't portrayed as a victim of Paul Bernardo. I hope they faithfully and accurately show how quickly they were engaged in a three hour rutting session at the Holiday Inn with other people in the room. That intense sexual beginning will speak volumes about K's sense of decency and the relationship which was to follow.

It was a Ho Jo, Sherlock. Maybe that's why she couldn't help herself.

Your recent prudish and arrogant inanity (and the near irrelevancy the acts that inspire it had to the later crimes) speaks volumes about your serious lack of ability to separate the important from the unimportant in this case.

2L8 4A D8

08-04-2005, 01:10 AM

northernrflxn

08-04-2005, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

What is a Ho Jo?

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who are prudish. It's just the difference between the Generations and which era you were brought up in. I think you need to be a little more understanding of that and not take it against Posters who are not of your Generation and thus don't think the way that you do!

JMO and MOO!!

A Ho Jo is a Howard Johnson. If the poster would refrain from repeatedly linking an isolated, inconsequential incident with crimes that happened many years later under very different circumstances, I would be more understanding.

cantstandnuts

08-04-2005, 12:21 PM

Your recent prudish and arrogant inanity (and the near irrelevancy the acts that inspire it had to the later crimes) speaks volumes about your serious lack of ability to separate the important from the unimportant in this case.

Why is it unimportant? It speaks to her overall moral character or I should say lack thereof. Just because it happened years earlier doesn't make it irrelevant. It's irrelevant to you because you need to compartmentalize all of her behaviors in order to keep her in victim mode. If you look at Karla as a whole, not in pieces, you get a clear picture of a sexual deviant, rapist, murdering sociopath.

2L8 4A D8

08-04-2005, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Why is it unimportant? It speaks to her overall moral character or I should say lack thereof. Just because it happened years earlier doesn't make it irrelevant. It's irrelevant to you because you need to compartmentalize all of her behaviors in order to keep her in victim mode. If you look at Karla as a whole, not in pieces, you get a clear picture of a sexual deviant, rapist, murdering sociopath.

Excellent Post! My sentiments exactly!

:beer:

cantstandnuts

08-04-2005, 01:10 PM

Excellent Post! My sentiments exactly!

Thanks, and I'd like to add that Northern has contended somewhere in another post that it's not so abnormal for young girls to engage in that sort of thing, sex in the same room as others, I mean. I disagree with that assertion. While I know it's happened and still happens, I do think it's actually uncommon and I don't think she gives girls the credit they deserve. I think most girls don't engage in that behavior, especially in that day and time...it wasn't the sexual revolution, that was long over. I think a girl with moral standards intact would refrain from that behavior by and large. But, since we're talking about Karla and those she associated with, I don't think we're talking about girls with intact morality. jmo.

amy_gbb

08-04-2005, 01:35 PM

2L8 4A D8

08-04-2005, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Thanks, and I'd like to add that Northern has contended somewhere in another post that it's not so abnormal for young girls to engage in that sort of thing, sex in the same room as others, I mean. I disagree with that assertion. While I know it's happened and still happens, I do think it's actually uncommon and I don't think she gives girls the credit they deserve. I think most girls don't engage in that behavior, especially in that day and time...it wasn't the sexual revolution, that was long over. I think a girl with moral standards intact would refrain from that behavior by and large. But, since we're talking about Karla and those she associated with, I don't think we're talking about girls with intact morality. jmo.

I went to find N's post to re-read it because I was so dumbfounded by her analogy (I hope that's the right word). I also don't believe that what N says is the "norm" for teenagers or young adults. Maybe it was with the crowd that she hung with, but you certainly can't lump all teenagers in her analogy. I give them more credit than that.

JMO and MOO!!

cantstandnuts

08-04-2005, 02:18 PM

I went to find N's post to re-read it because I was so dumbfounded by her analogy (I hope that's the right word). I also don't believe that what N says is the "norm" for teenagers or young adults. Maybe it was with the crowd that she hung with, but you certainly can't lump all teenagers in her analogy. I give them more credit than that.

Did you find the post I was referring to? IIRC, she basically downplayed Karla's behavior as being a relatively normal thing for a young girl to do when she's out on her own for the night, feeling free and a little wild. I believe it's actually the exception, not the rule. And to be fair to Northern, maybe I misinterpreted her post, but that's what I took from it.

2L8 4A D8

08-04-2005, 02:31 PM

northernrflxn

08-04-2005, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by amy_gbb

Speaking of separating important from unimportant facts, who cares whether it was a Holiday In or Howard Johnson's?

LOL. Good catch. You are of course correct. It doesn't matter.

However, the larger tendency of many on this forum to come to the table too often with incomplete and incorrect facts culled from incomplete, incorrect and biased sources does matter.

northernrflxn

08-04-2005, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Did you find the post I was referring to? IIRC, she basically downplayed Karla's behavior as being a relatively normal thing for a young girl to do when she's out on her own for the night, feeling free and a little wild. I believe it's actually the exception, not the rule. And to be fair to Northern, maybe I misinterpreted her post, but that's what I took from it.

See my previous discussion about the scientific definintion of "normal". I never said Homolka's behaviour that first evening was the "rule" of behaviour of young adults. I simply said in essense that it happened that night under a given set of circumstances, and you can bet it has happened before and since.

My point simply is that you cannot link casual sex with or without somebody else in the room with rape and murder. I am not downplaying the facts of that night, they just really don't have a large place in this story. Being a "****" is not related to being a murderer. It might have been just a second notch in the belt of an adventurous girl on mission to make her first trip to Toronto memorable were it not for the fact that they exchanged numbers the next morning.

If you have to make it mean something, consider this. They sent two other guys they had brought back to the hotel room packing. Why not focus on Homolka's strong and immediate attraction to him, and the fact that Bernardo had sufficient sway over Homolka right from the beginning to make her cast normal social conventions to the wind? Aren't those two factors more relevant than Homolka's "decency"?

cantstandnuts

08-05-2005, 12:36 PM

If you have to make it mean something, consider this. They sent two other guys they had brought back to the hotel room packing. Why not focus on Homolka's strong and immediate attraction to him, and the fact that Bernardo had sufficient sway over Homolka right from the beginning to make her cast normal social conventions to the wind? Aren't those two factors more relevant than Homolka's "decency"?

Why must it be because of his sway? Perhaps Karla had those tendencies inside her all along and he just helped release it. I think it's just as possible that that's the case and not necessarily a result of Paul's influence over Karla.

northernrflxn

08-05-2005, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Why must it be because of his sway? Perhaps Karla had those tendencies inside her all along and he just helped release it. I think it's just as possible that that's the case and not necessarily a result of Paul's influence over Karla.

In the context of that first meeting, it doesn't have to be because of his sway. But when you think about how society conditions males to be the chasers and females to be the chasees with more to lose in these types of encounters, it is worth thinking about. More worth thinking about than her relative "decency" IMO.

Later, when you see how completely submissive she became, and how much the crimes were almost exclusively controlled and directed by Bernardo, and how there was little or no benefit to Homolka beyond keeping him appeased and avoiding the consequences for doing so - it is hard to believe that any of it was ever about Karla's wants, needs, desires - or tendancies.

cantstandnuts

08-08-2005, 12:43 PM

Later, when you see how completely submissive she became, and how much the crimes were almost exclusively controlled and directed by Bernardo, and how there was little or no benefit to Homolka beyond keeping him appeased and avoiding the consequences for doing so - it is hard to believe that any of it was ever about Karla's wants, needs, desires - or tendancies.

Question for you Northern, because this is something I really don't know. How do we know the crimes were exclusively controlled and directed by Paul? Is there evidence to show that or are we actually going on Karla's word on that? I know Paul hasn't had the chance to speak to that and I'm guessing everything we know about this case, except for what's direct evidence, came from Karla's mouth and we just sort of have to believe it...right? If so, then I don't necessarily buy what she says about Paul directing everything and I'm not sure there's any concrete proof to the contrary.

northernrflxn

08-08-2005, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Question for you Northern, because this is something I really don't know. How do we know the crimes were exclusively controlled and directed by Paul? Is there evidence to show that or are we actually going on Karla's word on that? I know Paul hasn't had the chance to speak to that and I'm guessing everything we know about this case, except for what's direct evidence, came from Karla's mouth and we just sort of have to believe it...right? If so, then I don't necessarily buy what she says about Paul directing everything and I'm not sure there's any concrete proof to the contrary.

The transcripts of the videotapes make it crystal clear that Paul was absolutely dominant and in control of the "action". Homolka's role was almost exclusively that of a prop, who along with the victims followed the "director's" commands to act out "consensual" lesbian sex acts. I can't say if she lost herself sometimes in the physical pleasure of the acts themselves as they were not brutal or painful- more the stuff of standard x-rated movies that men find pleasure in watching.

Paul on the other hand was unspeakably cruel. He thrived on the fear and pain and anguish of the victims. The difference between the motivations of the two perpetrators of these crimes couldn't be more stark IMO.

Beyond that, you can't IMO dismiss Homolka's words and accounts out of hand. They just have to be carefully weighed against the full weight of other, often more objective evidence. Sometimes that process doesn't benefit her, but more often than not it does.

hockeymomof5

08-08-2005, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

The transcripts of the videotapes make it crystal clear that Paul was absolutely dominant and in control of the "action". Homolka's role was almost exclusively that of a prop, who along with the victims followed the "director's" commands to act out "consensual" lesbian sex acts. I can't say if she lost herself sometimes in the physical pleasure of the acts themselves as they were not brutal or painful- more the stuff of standard x-rated movies that men find pleasure in watching.

Paul on the other hand was unspeakably cruel. He thrived on the fear and pain and anguish of the victims. The difference between the motivations of the two perpetrators of these crimes couldn't be more stark IMO.

Beyond that, you can't IMO dismiss Homolka's words and accounts out of hand. They just have to be carefully weighed against the full weight of other, often more objective evidence. Sometimes that process doesn't benefit her, but more often than not it does.

Link please stating that the transcripts of the videotapes make it "crystal clear"....?

northernrflxn

08-08-2005, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

Link please stating that the transcripts of the videotapes make it "crystal clear"....?

If you've read them, you know very well what they make "crystal clear". If you haven't read them, you should.

"The transcripts, never before published in their entirety, have a certain value in that they clearly show Bernardo as the perpetrator of these crimes, and Homolka as a follower. And they reveal Bernardo for what he is: a vicious sexual sadist who found nothing more pleasurable than inflicting pain on his terrified teenage victims."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010492

hockeymomof5

08-08-2005, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

If you've read them, you know very well what they make "crystal clear". If you haven't read them, you should.

"The transcripts, never before published in their entirety, have a certain value in that they clearly show Bernardo as the perpetrator of these crimes, and Homolka as a follower. And they reveal Bernardo for what he is: a vicious sexual sadist who found nothing more pleasurable than inflicting pain on his terrified teenage victims."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010492

This was a BOOK REVIEW!!

The following is ALSO from the BOOK REVIEW:

"He has quoted, almost verbatim, the transcripts from 3½ hours of homemade videotapes that depict Bernardo and Homolka raping Leslie Mahaffy, 14, and Kristen French, 15, whom they later murdered. He also used the transcript from a homemade videotape that shows the couple raping Homolka's drugged and unconscious sister Tammy, 15, who choked to death on her vomit shortly after the attack."

Here's some news sources accounts:

TIME MAGAZINE: Using the videos-which show Homolka as a willing, even enthusiastic, participant-Bernardo's defense lawyer John Rosen sought to make her an equal partner in crime. "Driven by desires for young girls, they were matched action for action, minute for minute, perversion for perversion, kinkiness for kinkiness," Rosen said in his summation.

CNEWS: Those tapes, which portray Homolka as an enthusiastic participant in the rapes rather than the battered wife and victim Crown lawyers depicted in court, have long fuelled the argument that the schoolgirl killer deserved a different fate.

CTV: While Homolka portrayed herself as a victim of her time with Bernardo, videotapes surfaced that painted her as a willing participant in Bernardo's sex-slave fantasies.

Those tapes led critics to declare her plea bargain to be a "deal with the devil."

TIME MAGAZINE (http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/950911/law.html)

CNEWS (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2005/06/19/1095607-cp.html)

CTV (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1120412677704_37/?hub=CTVNewsAt11)

northernrflxn

08-09-2005, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

This was a BOOK REVIEW!!

The following is ALSO from the BOOK REVIEW:

"He has quoted, almost verbatim, the transcripts from 3½ hours of homemade videotapes that depict Bernardo and Homolka raping Leslie Mahaffy, 14, and Kristen French, 15, whom they later murdered. He also used the transcript from a homemade videotape that shows the couple raping Homolka's drugged and unconscious sister Tammy, 15, who choked to death on her vomit shortly after the attack."

Here's some news sources accounts:

TIME MAGAZINE: Using the videos-which show Homolka as a willing, even enthusiastic, participant-Bernardo's defense lawyer John Rosen sought to make her an equal partner in crime. "Driven by desires for young girls, they were matched action for action, minute for minute, perversion for perversion, kinkiness for kinkiness," Rosen said in his summation.

CNEWS: Those tapes, which portray Homolka as an enthusiastic participant in the rapes rather than the battered wife and victim Crown lawyers depicted in court, have long fuelled the argument that the schoolgirl killer deserved a different fate.

CTV: While Homolka portrayed herself as a victim of her time with Bernardo, videotapes surfaced that painted her as a willing participant in Bernardo's sex-slave fantasies.

Those tapes led critics to declare her plea bargain to be a "deal with the devil."

TIME MAGAZINE (http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/950911/law.html)

CNEWS (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2005/06/19/1095607-cp.html)

CTV (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1120412677704_37/?hub=CTVNewsAt11)

My original statement was "The transcripts of the videotapes make it crystal clear that Paul was absolutely dominant and in control of the "action". Homolka's role was almost exclusively that of a prop, who along with the victims followed the "director's" commands to act out "consensual" lesbian sex acts."

How is that contradicted? "Willingness" is self evident by the fact that she participated. "Enthusiasm" is more subjective. Enthusiastic to rape and kill, or enthusiastic to appease her vicious psychopath boyfriend and avoid prison?

Why do you need somebody else to parse these transcripts for you anyway? They are objective evidence, and tell their own clear story. Bernado was dominant and sadistic, and Homolka was a submissive follower. There is no other reasonable interpretation, "willingness" and "enthusiasm" notwithstanding.

hockeymomof5

08-09-2005, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

My original statement was "The transcripts of the videotapes make it crystal clear that Paul was absolutely dominant and in control of the "action". Homolka's role was almost exclusively that of a prop, who along with the victims followed the "director's" commands to act out "consensual" lesbian sex acts."

How is that contradicted? "Willingness" is self evident by the fact that she participated. "Enthusiasm" is more subjective. Enthusiastic to rape and kill, or enthusiastic to appease her vicious psychopath boyfriend and avoid prison?

Why do you need somebody else to parse these transcripts for you anyway? They are objective evidence, and tell their own clear story. Bernado was dominant and sadistic, and Homolka was a submissive follower. There is no other reasonable interpretation, "willingness" and "enthusiasm" notwithstanding.

There are no complete transcripts available to the public so it would be interesting to know how YOU have managed to read every word of every transcript of every tape. Care to share where YOU have read them?

2L8 4A D8

08-09-2005, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

My original statement was "The transcripts of the videotapes make it crystal clear that Paul was absolutely dominant and in control of the "action". Homolka's role was almost exclusively that of a prop, who along with the victims followed the "director's" commands to act out "consensual" lesbian sex acts."

<snipped>

This is the second time that you have stated the above paragraph. How can you possibly make the statement "the victims followed the "director's" commands to act out "consensual" lesbian sex acts." IMO, the only one "consenting" was Karla. Poor Leslie and Kristen didn't have any vote in the matter. Karla must have really liked what she was doing to the girls because she had a lesbian relationship (or relationships) in prison!

JMO and MOO!!

2L8 4A D8

08-09-2005, 07:24 AM

hockeymomof5

08-09-2005, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

This is the second time that you have stated the above paragraph. How can you possibly make the statement "the victims followed the "director's" commands to act out "consensual" lesbian sex acts." IMO, the only one "consenting" was Karla. Poor Leslie and Kristen didn't have any vote in the matter. Karla must have really liked what she was doing to the girls because she had a lesbian relationship (or relationships) in prison!

JMO and MOO!!

Once again, Northern lumps Karla the rapist/murderer in with her victims.

IMO, Karla liked EVERY MOMENT she spend with Paul. Whether or not he was the director, she was an active AND a willing participant. Her victims weren't!

2L8 4A D8

08-09-2005, 07:54 AM

northernrflxn

08-09-2005, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

I agree HM. God knows how long it would have gone on if they both weren't caught. It didn't seem like they were thinking of stopping anytime soon that's for sure!

JMO and MOO!!

By January 1993 Homolka had left her husband, finally dragged out of her nightmare by her parents. She was living in hiding from Bernardo. Do you imagine she was going to carry on by herself??!

northernrflxn

08-09-2005, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

This is the second time that you have stated the above paragraph. How can you possibly make the statement "the victims followed the "director's" commands to act out "consensual" lesbian sex acts." IMO, the only one "consenting" was Karla. Poor Leslie and Kristen didn't have any vote in the matter. Karla must have really liked what she was doing to the girls because she had a lesbian relationship (or relationships) in prison!

JMO and MOO!!

"Consensual" was quoted, and meant to illustrate that Paul staged the action between Homolka and the victims as women engaging in consensual, mutually enjoyable sex as opposed to Homolka independantly brutalizing and terrifying the victims as Bernardo did.

Homosexual relationships are not uncommon in jail. Homolka's attraction for women, and the degree and perhaps situational nature of that attraction, is not that relevant IMO.

northernrflxn

08-09-2005, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

There are no complete transcripts available to the public so it would be interesting to know how YOU have managed to read every word of every transcript of every tape. Care to share where YOU have read them?

It is commonly known that detailed accounts of the crimes based on the transcripts appear in books about this case. Pron for one has defended his virtually verbatim use of the transcripts many times both publicly, and in the foreword of his book. The passages in the books based on the transcripts are long, extensive and layed out in excruciating horrible detail. The audio of the videotapes was played in the courtroom for journalists, and author Stephen Williams is widely believed to have actually seen the tapes via the defense.

Jurors in the Bernardo case saw the horrifying videotapes and heard testimony from Homolka, Bernardo and others. Homolka was a witness- there was no defence case presented for her, and she was aggressively cross examined by Bernardo's lawyers who tried to paint her as an equal. Given the full weight of all this evidence with the tapes as an unassailable "star witness", two jurors were later moved to independently write letters expressing support and compassion to Homolka and her family. Out of the blue, and on their own. The prosecutors also offered support, telling Homolka to ignore all those seeking to paint her as Bernardo's equal. Do you feel you know more than those two jurors, or those prosecutors?

northernrflxn

08-09-2005, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

Once again, Northern lumps Karla the rapist/murderer in with her victims.

IMO, Karla liked EVERY MOMENT she spend with Paul. Whether or not he was the director, she was an active AND a willing participant. Her victims weren't!

Given the physical, mental, sexual and emotional abuse Homolka often experienced at the hands of her husband, saying she "liked EVERY MOMENT" she spent with Bernardo is not only patently ridiculous but cruel, arrogant and even inhuman.

Of course Homolka had a different degree of power than the victims- that is self evident, and the reason she went to prison for 12 years. She also had a different degree of power than Bernardo the family psychopath, a crucial fact made no less important by the fact that it seems to contstantly escape you.

someone

08-09-2005, 11:52 AM

i wouldnt be able to resist not seeing hte movie :_

08-09-2005, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

Given the physical, mental, sexual and emotional abuse Homolka often experienced at the hands of her husband, saying she "liked EVERY MOMENT" she spent with Bernardo is not only patently ridiculous but cruel, arrogant and even inhuman.

You've just told a poster that what s/he thinks about KARLA is cruel, arrogant and inhuman.
Not ONCE have I seen you talk about the victims with such fervor.

I'm lost on what you're points are anymore. I already know that it's just sympathy for Karla, the poor abused, controlled innocent puppet. Was this your intention (to defend her) when you started in on these threads?

northernrflxn

08-09-2005, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Maveno

You've just told a poster that what s/he thinks about KARLA is cruel, arrogant and inhuman.
Not ONCE have I seen you talk about the victims with such fervor.

I'm lost on what you're points are anymore. I already know that it's just sympathy for Karla, the poor abused, controlled innocent puppet. Was this your intention (to defend her) when you started in on these threads?

It is cruel, arrogant and inhuman to dismiss the kind of abuse that Homolka experienced at the hands of Bernardo. Her crimes do not cancel that out.

The victims are well represented in the hearts and minds of everyone following this case, and everyone on this forum. Through both nature and experience I am the type of person who can extend empathy and understanding to more than one type of victim, and to those who don't clearly - or don't always - deserve it. I wouldn't change that about myself for the world. That others feel no responsiblity to learn more about a case with as much ambiguity as this one before condemning a fellow human being is a failing of theirs, not mine, and I make no apologies.

Karla as "the poor abused, controlled innocent puppet" is a hackneyed and lazy misconception of the complexities of this case. I never thought I'd have to defend her, or that I'd never get out of the damn mud, when I started on these threads. I suspect I am shortly going to run out of people to discuss this with, and that may come as a relief all the way around.

2L8 4A D8

08-09-2005, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

By January 1993 Homolka had left her husband, finally dragged out of her nightmare by her parents. She was living in hiding from Bernardo. Do you imagine she was going to carry on by herself??!

Get real! Of course I don't imagine that Karla would have carried on by herself! That's a ridiculous thought and an assinine question!

JMO and MOO!!

chilione

08-10-2005, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

Once again, Northern lumps Karla the rapist/murderer in with her victims.

IMO, Karla liked EVERY MOMENT she spend with Paul. Whether or not he was the director, she was an active AND a willing participant. Her victims weren't!

I agree. I can't believe that anyone would continually try and drum up pathetic excuses for that piece of trash.

Karla was the one who offered up her own baby sister for a Christmas present. I wonder who "directed" her to make that offer.

Paul was attracted to Tammy and Karla was jealous of her IMO.

2L8 4A D8

08-10-2005, 03:48 AM

I am only speaking for myself. I could possibly have some sympathy for Karla had she been tied up and unable to leave the house as the other victims or that it was shown on the tapes that Paul was holding a gun to her head or a knife to her throat.

However, ................. None of the tapes show that Paul held a gun to her head nor a knife to her throat. Karla was able to go to work; Karla was able to go see her parents; Karla was able to go to the Police and lastly, Paul left her alone in the house with the victims. Did Karla ever once take advantage of any of these situations to do or say something to anyone? NO, NO, NO and NO!!!!!

Forget about being brainwashed. I would have to be extremely BRAIN DAMAGED to even remotely do 1/4th of what Karla did and she's smart. Her IQ is 160 isn't it? GMAFB on Karla being one of Paul's victims!

JMO and MOO!!

:flamemad: :cuss: :flamemad:

cantstandnuts

08-10-2005, 02:06 PM

Forget about being brainwashed. I would have to be extremely BRAIN DAMAGED to even remotely do 1/4th of what Karla did and she's smart. Her IQ is 160 isn't it? GMAFB on Karla being one of Paul's victims!

Yes, she is very smart. I'm guessing smart enough to know when the jig was up and it was time to play the "I'm a victim" role and turn on Paul. I wouldn't be surprised if she had been thinking of when to call it quits and just how to do it without ending up in jail for the rest of her life for some time before she actually acted upon it. I think that last beating and her having to be "rescued from her nightmare" was a pretty good time, in her mind, to turn on Paul and turn on the tears and get herself the least amount of punishment that she could...and she did...so, yeah, she's smart!

jmo

Anthea Delano

08-11-2005, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

It was a Ho Jo, Sherlock. Maybe that's why she couldn't help herself.

Your recent prudish and arrogant inanity (and the near irrelevancy the acts that inspire it had to the later crimes) speaks volumes about your serious lack of ability to separate the important from the unimportant in this case.

IMO you spend far too much time writing convoluted drivel about a person who committed unspeakable acts and writing personal attacks directed at posters who do not share your niche opinion of KH. Your little shots of venom, such as calling me "Sherlock" is indicative, not of rapier riposting, but of school yard yammering. You may be smarter and better than that, we will have to wait and see. My opinion of you, based on your posts, is not relevant to this discussion board and I am politely asking you to refrain from these unnecessary personal assaults.

I bought up the Howard Johnson's incident because YOU posted that in order to properly assess Karla it was necessary to know more about her past. Per your instruction I took the journey to discover the humanity of Karla Homolka.

I did not find her to be the person you implied she was. In response I wrote about the rutting session to show that Karla had a strong and immediate animalistic attraction to Paul Bernardo. Their initial meeting and what they did together that night is the keystone of their relationship. It can not be dismissed that they had three hours of intense sex in a room with others there. You, of course, may choose to view this any way you like. Nice well brought up girls do not have sex with strange men in hotel rooms with others in attendence. You can not have it both ways, either K was a well brought up young lady or she was not!

I believe KH has this same attraction for Gerbet and would have jumped his bones at their first meeting at the prison library (if I'm wrong about the scene of their initial meeting correct me, but please omit the taunts).

Anthea Delano

08-11-2005, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

In the context of that first meeting, it doesn't have to be because of his sway. But when you think about how society conditions males to be the chasers and females to be the chasees with more to lose in these types of encounters, it is worth thinking about. More worth thinking about than her relative "decency" IMO.

Later, when you see how completely submissive she became, and how much the crimes were almost exclusively controlled and directed by Bernardo, and how there was little or no benefit to Homolka beyond keeping him appeased and avoiding the consequences for doing so - it is hard to believe that any of it was ever about Karla's wants, needs, desires - or tendancies.

What chase?

Did they date?

Did they have courtship dance?

K and PB met as equals and had sex as equals.

Anthea Delano

08-11-2005, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
I am only speaking for myself. I could possibly have some sympathy for Karla had she been tied up and unable to leave the house as the other victims or that it was shown on the tapes that Paul was holding a gun to her head or a knife to her throat.

However, ................. None of the tapes show that Paul held a gun to her head nor a knife to her throat. Karla was able to go to work; Karla was able to go see her parents; Karla was able to go to the Police and lastly, Paul left her alone in the house with the victims. Did Karla ever once take advantage of any of these situations to do or say something to anyone? NO, NO, NO and NO!!!!!

Forget about being brainwashed. I would have to be extremely BRAIN DAMAGED to even remotely do 1/4th of what Karla did and she's smart. Her IQ is 160 isn't it? GMAFB on Karla being one of Paul's victims!

JMO and MOO!!

:flamemad: :cuss: :flamemad:

You can speak for me as well. Great post.

keys

08-11-2005, 10:10 AM

Since the issue of then 17 year old Homolka's sex with Bernardo keeps coming up, I've decided to comment on it. I'm going to side with Northern on this one. Being as it is that I'm probably closer to 17 than any of the other posters on this board, I can vouch for what she says on this topic. While I do not think it is normal or common for teenage girls of that age to have sex on the first night or with others watching, it isn't uncommon or abnormal either. I know plenty of girls (not to mention guys!) that have done such. Perhaps for the rest of you, 17 was either too far away to still have any relevance or perhaps you simply choose not to remember. Or maybe the standards of what was acceptable then was different than it is now, I don't know.

You also have to consider that Homolka was 17 years old at the time, and nearly an adult. If she was having this kind of sex at 13-14, then that may be a greater indication of age innapropriate behaviour. Even so, it would be indicative only of age innapropriate behaviour, nothing more. Even at 13-14, sadly, I would not say that this kind of sex is abnormal or uncommon - though once again it it certainly isn't the norm.

I suspect that some of you may be surprised at what your own kids are doing with their girlfriends/boyfriends behind closed doors...

hockeymomof5

08-11-2005, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by keys
Since the issue of then 17 year old Homolka's sex with Bernardo keeps coming up, I've decided to comment on it. I'm going to side with Northern on this one. Being as it is that I'm probably closer to 17 than any of the other posters on this board, I can vouch for what she says on this topic. While I do not think it is normal or common for teenage girls of that age to have sex on the first night or with others watching, it isn't uncommon or abnormal either. I know plenty of girls (not to mention guys!) that have done such. Perhaps for the rest of you, 17 was either too far away to still have any relevance or perhaps you simply choose not to remember. Or maybe the standards of what was acceptable then was different than it is now, I don't know.

Which is it? Normal or abnormal? Common or uncommon? You contradict yourself here.

Originally posted by keys
You also have to consider that Homolka was 17 years old at the time, and nearly an adult. If she was having this kind of sex at 13-14, then that may be a greater indication of age innapropriate behaviour. Even so, it would be indicative only of age innapropriate behaviour, nothing more. Even at 13-14, sadly, I would not say that this kind of sex is abnormal or uncommon - though once again it it certainly isn't the norm.

I suspect that some of you may be surprised at what your own kids are doing with their girlfriends/boyfriends behind closed doors...

Again, normal or abnormal - you contradict yourself, unless of course, I am not reading it correctly.

I realize times have changed since I was 17, but they have also changed since Karla was 17. Sorry, IMO, sleeping with someone on the 1st night MAY have been the "norm" at the time, however, sleeping with someone while others were in the room and possibly watching was NOT the "norm".

keys

08-11-2005, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

Which is it? Normal or abnormal? Common or uncommon? You contradict yourself here.

Again, normal or abnormal - you contradict yourself, unless of course, I am not reading it correctly.

I realize times have changed since I was 17, but they have also changed since Karla was 17. Sorry, IMO, sleeping with someone on the 1st night MAY have been the "norm" at the time, however, sleeping with someone while others were in the room and possibly watching was NOT the "norm".

There's no contradiction - perhaps I need to make myself more clear.

This kind of sex is not "normal" in the sense that it's not something that most kids are doing. Still, its something that happens enough so that it isn't considered strange when it does happen. In other words, its not really "abnormal" behaviour, either. Hence - it is neither normal or abnormal.

Anthea Delano

08-11-2005, 11:25 AM

My d is 18 and she is neither prude nor a nerd, in fact, she's a babe. She says that anyone who would consider this first meeting of K and P within the realm of "normal" teenage behavior is totally wrong. She says neither she nor none of her friends would do this. She considers this "skanky" and "bizarre."

My 24 old d is also neither a prude nor a nerd, but a high IQ beauty who echoes her sister's response.

keys

08-11-2005, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Anthea Delano
My d is 18 and she is neither prude nor a nerd, in fact, she's a babe. She says that anyone who would consider this first meeting of K and P within the realm of "normal" teenage behavior is totally wrong. She says neither she nor none of her friends would do this. She considers this "skanky" and "bizarre."

My 24 old d is also neither a prude nor a nerd, but a high IQ beauty who echoes her sister's response.

Hah. Does anyone have children that are not beautiful and without high IQs? While I'm somewhat skeptical of your claims, I don't know your children and am in no position to comment otherwise. If you are indeed telling the truth, however, I doubt that those genes are coming from your side of the family.

I think it's "skanky" too, but kinky/promiscuous teen sex DOES happen whether you like it or not.

08-11-2005, 02:26 PM

Yea, I remember those days.. fooling around in front of friends. I certainly DON'T remember a 3 hour bump and grind session though.
Also, we all seem to forget that it's Karla and Paul we're talking about.. nothing about these two from the get-go is or should be considered "normal".

Knowing what we know of these two NOW.. I can't even imagine how sick and gross that whole 3 hours was for the friends to endure. Oy.

2L8 4A D8

08-11-2005, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by hockeymomof5

Which is it? Normal or abnormal? Common or uncommon? You contradict yourself here.

Again, normal or abnormal - you contradict yourself, unless of course, I am not reading it correctly.

I realize times have changed since I was 17, but they have also changed since Karla was 17. Sorry, IMO, sleeping with someone on the 1st night MAY have been the "norm" at the time, however, sleeping with someone while others were in the room and possibly watching was NOT the "norm".

I agree HM. Times have changed. Maybe stuff like that is going on now, which is very sad what with Aids, STD's, and rampant teenage pregnancy. However, I also don't believe that Karla's behavior could even remotely be considered the "norm" in 1987. I don't care how you sugarcoat it, it was abnormal behavior for the times.

Paul and Karla are definitely "abnormal" ~ period! End of story!

JMO and MOO!!

cantstandnuts

08-11-2005, 03:11 PM

[/QUOTE] I realize times have changed since I was 17, but they have also changed since Karla was 17. Sorry, IMO, sleeping with someone on the 1st night MAY have been the "norm" at the time, however, sleeping with someone while others were in the room and possibly watching was NOT the "norm".

I have to agree that while I do think it is/was pretty common to sleep with someone on the first date, it isn't/wasn't common or normal to sleep with someone in a room full of other people.
I know keys says it is, but I would wonder what types of people she hangs out with then, because, to me, there's some pretty loose moral fibers in that group she speaks of. I have to say I find it more than skanky.

Anyone who would engage in that behavior, certainly doesn't consider sex in the normal way...and that would certainly describe Paul and Karla. In fact, I'd say it was an early clue of the things to come.

cantstandnuts

08-11-2005, 05:29 PM

Hah. Does anyone have children that are not beautiful and without high IQs? While I'm somewhat skeptical of your claims, I don't know your children and am in no position to comment otherwise. If you are indeed telling the truth, however, I doubt that those genes are coming from your side of the family.

Was there a reason to stoop so low? This is a message board and people are going to disagree, but I don't see why you'd want to be so vicious. jmo, but you seriously need to get a grip on yourself because you're certainly coming across as though you're without fault and everyone else is a bunch of dummies. Not nice and not fair.

:no:

Anthea Delano

08-11-2005, 05:49 PM

K was not/is not a well bred young lady. She as Keys so aptly put it engaged in "kinky/promiscuous" sex on her first night with P. Thus K, who participated in this teenaged rite, was a kinky and promiscuous teen.

And Keys further elaborates that this happens whether we like it or not. Who cares? What has this to do with K? Nada. But it might have everything to do with Keys, herself, who must strongly identify with K. But again who cares?

K is a walking, talking, lying, raping, murdering, evil piece of m*rde who deserved life imprisonment. JMO

2L8 4A D8

08-11-2005, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by cantstandnuts

Was there a reason to stoop so low? This is a message board and people are going to disagree, but I don't see why you'd want to be so vicious. jmo, but you seriously need to get a grip on yourself because you're certainly coming across as though you're without fault and everyone else is a bunch of dummies. Not nice and not fair.

:no:

Well, CSN, we can either sit here and take all of their insults, which are not going to stop by the way, or we can report them to the Moderator because they are in violation of the TOS's. I think that I will take the latter if it continues!

keys

08-12-2005, 12:52 AM

I am just skeptical to hear about the "highly intelligent" offspring of a woman who can't even be assed to type out the word "daughter" and has to instead resort to abbreviations. My buddies and I used to type in a similar fashion... when we were 13. I expect more from a woman of her age.

Quite frankly I'm annoyed and dissapointed that I have to hear more from this particular poster. I was under the impression that we would no longer be corresponding after she claimed to have set me on ignore, although that was giving her too much credit.

Feel free to report me to the moderator all you want, and if he/she does decide to ban me, then I will respect that decision. However I will be dissapointed if certain posters aren't banned along with me, as they are guilty of much of the same I am.

And to the middle aged woman who isn't supposed to be reading my posts but can't resist anyway: I gave my opinion regarding Homolka's early sex with Bernardo because there was a recent discussion debating whether or not she was behaving normally or deviantly. I thought I'd chip in my 2 cents. It seems like you missed the boat once again. And once again, I really can't say that I'm surprised.

2L8 4A D8

08-12-2005, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by keys

<snipped>

Feel free to report me to the moderator all you want, and if he/she does decide to ban me, then I will respect that decision. However I will be dissapointed if certain posters aren't banned along with me, as they are guilty of much of the same I am.

<snipped>

From the moment you and Northernrflxn came to this Board, you have both been slinging your insults left and right at the rest of us Posters. "If certain posters...are guilty of much of the same as you" it is because the both of you have hurled the insults first. Start naming names so that I can go find these posts to see who started what first. I just find it quite odd that we were all getting along just fine until the two of you showed up.

We all don't have to sit here and take your insults and snotty comments just because we "don't think like you, we don't have the morals of an alley cat like Karla and we absolutely believe in her guilt."

Take your posts where they will be more appreciated. No matter what you say or what you do, YOU will never change my opinions!

JMO and MOO!!

Anthea Delano

08-12-2005, 06:53 AM

I think all the posters here will appreciate this quote on the Scott Peterson Board, Why is this such a big story? thread, dated April 6, 2005.

"Holmolka, his wife, was a willing participant in this whole process. she even offerred her virgin 15 year old sister as a "christmas present" to Bernardo..."
Keys

northernrflxn

08-12-2005, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

From the moment you and Northernrflxn came to this Board, you have both been slinging your insults left and right at the rest of us Posters.

<snip>

Is it opposite day or something?

northernrflxn

08-12-2005, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Anthea Delano
I think all the posters here will appreciate this quote on the Scott Peterson Board, Why is this such a big story? thread, dated April 6, 2005.

"Holmolka, his wife, was a willing participant in this whole process. she even offerred her virgin 15 year old sister as a "christmas present" to Bernardo..."
Keys

I you actually understood the postitions of posters like myself and keys, you wouldn't be so pleased with yourself when you "impeach" us with OUR OWN WORDS. Completely ridiculous.

Anthea Delano

08-12-2005, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by northernrflxn

I you actually understood the postitions of posters like myself and keys, you wouldn't be so pleased with yourself when you "impeach" us with OUR OWN WORDS. Completely ridiculous.

I never said I was "pleased" about anything. And I never used the term "impeached" so I am puzzled by the quotation marks around it. I resent that you have purposefully misquoted me. It is an egregious violation of the rules of this board.

However, I am pleased by your comment "impeach us with OUR OWN WORDS."

This sounds as if you are admitting to being Keys.

It makes perfect sense to quote what anyone has written on another board if it is germane to this discussion and is properly attributed.

IMO your response is "completely ridiculous."

keys

08-12-2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8

From the moment you and Northernrflxn came to this Board, you have both been slinging your insults left and right at the rest of us Posters. "If certain posters...are guilty of much of the same as you" it is because the both of you have hurled the insults first. Start naming names so that I can go find these posts to see who started what first. I just find it quite odd that we were all getting along just fine until the two of you showed up.

We all don't have to sit here and take your insults and snotty comments just because we "don't think like you, we don't have the morals of an alley cat like Karla and we absolutely believe in her guilt."

Take your posts where they will be more appreciated. No matter what you say or what you do, YOU will never change my opinions!

JMO and MOO!!

Nonesense. Northern's first posts were as polite as any here. I do distinctly remember some surprise however when things first turned really sour between Northern and the rest of the board. I would have thought that that her patience and lack of aggression would have been enough to drive calm, rational discussion from both sides. I know for a fact that she did not come here to personally attack posters. At the very beginning, I warned her about the type of people who populate these boards, and she actually defended "you" at the time. It seems that through your own immaturity you have proven me right to her.

As for myself? I have a lot less patience for stupid people than she does. Have I lashed out at people without provocation? Not at this Athena character, but at others, possibly. In short I can see why certain of my posts were opposed with some hostility, but I can't see why Northern's were. It seems that an unpopular opinion around here is a warrant for a flame.

But actually, I think the best example of someone being flamed for a stupid reason is reserved for "Nuts." Nuts fits into this board's extremely narrow definiton of acceptable beliefs and opinions regarding Homolka. Nor is Nuts as much of a fighting type as most others here. Although I've recently seen her lash out a bit, she's probably kept her cool here longer than almost any other regular poster. So to recap, Nuts was as pretty innofensive as well as conformist to this board's standards, and yet even she got flamed here by a couple of you. Her crime? She dared to say that, at the time at least, she enjoyed the alternative perspective brought by Northern's posts. Now that's a sad state of affairs right there.

keys

08-12-2005, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Anthea Delano
I think all the posters here will appreciate this quote on the Scott Peterson Board, Why is this such a big story? thread, dated April 6, 2005.

"Holmolka, his wife, was a willing participant in this whole process. she even offerred her virgin 15 year old sister as a "christmas present" to Bernardo..."
Keys

Hahhaha holy ****. I can't believe you went that far back. Even more incredibly, I can't believe that a woman who can't even be assed to type out an 8 letter word would be willing to take the time to go through the entire back catalogue of my posts. Strange set of priorities.

All in a days