Karla Homolka on Catherine Crier

[Angel~Eyes]

Her release being discussed on CC today

[Angel~Eyes]

Nothing we haven't heard before. Just a reminder how evil this woman is:flamemad:

AND she's walking the streets..my God!

The videotapes were destroyed but the transcripts are available. Does anybody know where I can get copies of the court transcripts and the video tapes transcripts?

[Angel~Eyes]

Originally posted by Insomnia


And had an affair with a murderer in prison. She's going to do it again, no matter what that guest TH said.

JMO

I agree. That idiot kept saying he didn't believe she would rape and kill again but then said he can't say for sure that she's not dangerous. WTF??

I loved that guy from Court TV Canada (can't remember his name), mentioning how she and her lawyers fought to have the media banned and then the first thing she does when released from prison is show her evil face on television giving an interview. Attention seeker!!

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by Angel~Eyes
Nothing we haven't heard before. Just a reminder how evil this woman is:flamemad:

AND she's walking the streets..my God!

The videotapes were destroyed but the transcripts are available. Does anybody know where I can get copies of the court transcripts and the video tapes transcripts?

Hi Angel...

I agree, its a very scary thought knowing that savage is walking the streets...that is if she was brave enough to finally leave her apartment (lol)

I am not sure if the transcripts are available, I personally have never came across them...I too would like to read them if they are out there!

I know there was a gag order during the trial but I am not sure if that prevented the transcripts from being released.... I recall reading all the details from court in the newspaper everyday & they were in detail. But I have a feeling they may not be available !

Goat Girl

:seeya:

[Lauriet]

Originally posted by Angel~Eyes
Her release being discussed on CC today

Hiya May,

I don't know where we can get the transcripts of the tapes, I wish I could read them...And do we know where she is living in Quebec? :shrug:

TIA sweetie! :seeya:

[Angel~Eyes]

Originally posted by Lauriet


Hiya May,

I don't know where we can get the transcripts of the tapes, I wish I could read them...And do we know where she is living in Quebec? :shrug:

TIA sweetie! :seeya:

Hi Lauriet,

The last I heard, she was living in Montreal in the Maisonneuve-Rosemont neighbourhood. That's about 15 minutes away from where I live by car. :cuss:

[giddyupalw]

Originally posted by Angel~Eyes


Hi Lauriet,

The last I heard, she was living in Montreal in the Maisonneuve-Rosemont neighbourhood. That's about 15 minutes away from where I live by car. :cuss:

She is a couple of hours away from me... but even that is too close...Has she left her apartment yet???

BTW...How can she afford an apartment when she has been in jail for twelve years???

[Lauriet]

Originally posted by Angel~Eyes


Hi Lauriet,

The last I heard, she was living in Montreal in the Maisonneuve-Rosemont neighbourhood. That's about 15 minutes away from where I live by car. :cuss:

OMG!!! :cuss:

Thanks for the info May...That's sick that she's out there...:mad:

[Angel~Eyes]

Originally posted by giddyupalw


She is a couple of hours away from me... but even that is too close...Has she left her apartment yet???

BTW...How can she afford an apartment when she has been in jail for twelve years???

Hi Giddy,

I believe she's on welfare. AND of course she has mommy and daddy to help her out:flamemad:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Angel~Eyes


Hi Giddy,

I believe she's on welfare. AND of course she has mommy and daddy to help her out:flamemad:

Hi May! Question: So Karla can sit on her ***** for the rest of her life and collect welfare? That's a real slap in the face to every law abiding, hardworking and decent Canadian!

:flamemad:

[cantstandnuts]

I can't believe her family has anything to do with her, let alone help her!

I also cannot believe people believe she will not re-offend!
She was involved with that killer in prison for goodness sake...goes to show she's not only attracted to that sort of thing, but she hasn't even learned that attracted to it or not, she needs to stay away from it! I wouldn't be surprised if in a year or so, we're reading about her and this prison lover of hers doing goodness knows what! :flamemad:

I understand that Elizabeth Fry Society has offered to assist her and I read on an MSN comments board that one poster wants to offer her a place to stay and help with anything she needs! SHE HAS FANS! That's really scary. :shrug:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
I can't believe her family has anything to do with her, let alone help her!

I also cannot believe people believe she will not re-offend!
She was involved with that killer in prison for goodness sake...goes to show she's not only attracted to that sort of thing, but she hasn't even learned that attracted to it or not, she needs to stay away from it! I wouldn't be surprised if in a year or so, we're reading about her and this prison lover of hers doing goodness knows what! :flamemad:

I understand that Elizabeth Fry Society has offered to assist her and I read on an MSN comments board that one poster wants to offer her a place to stay and help with anything she needs! SHE HAS FANS! That's really scary. :shrug:

Karla's family is just as sick as she is. What an absolute slap in the face to Tammy that she obviously meant so little to them that they were able to forgive Karla so quickly and easily for what she and Paul did to poor, unsuspecting Tammy.

Also, as you know, "Birds of A Feather, Flock Together" so it doesn't surprise me that Karla has fans.

JMO and MOO!!

[cantstandnuts]

Just curious, because I've seen it a couple times...What does MOO stand for?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
Just curious, because I've seen it a couple times...What does MOO stand for?

My Opinion Only!

[cantstandnuts]

Just curious, because I've seen it a couple times...What does MOO stand for?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Opinion Only!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

;)

thanks.

[cami]

Originally posted by Angel~Eyes
Nothing we haven't heard before. Just a reminder how evil this woman is:flamemad:

AND she's walking the streets..my God!

The videotapes were destroyed but the transcripts are available. Does anybody know where I can get copies of the court transcripts and the video tapes transcripts?

Doubt it, they are subject to a complete publication ban. You can probably get Paul's trial transcripts at the Ontario court but I doubt if you will ever get the transcripts of the tapes alone. for what it's worth the parents of Leslie and Kristen had the tapes pertaining to their daughters copywrited so they could be destroyed. Because those tapes are part of the public record, they had to fight in court to get them.

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by cami


Doubt it, they are subject to a complete publication ban. You can probably get Paul's trial transcripts at the Ontario court but I doubt if you will ever get the transcripts of the tapes alone. for what it's worth the parents of Leslie and Kristen had the tapes pertaining to their daughters copywrited so they could be destroyed. Because those tapes are part of the public record, they had to fight in court to get them.

The tapes are transcribed virtually verbatim in at least two of the books on the case. They include "Lethal Marriage" by Nick Pron and "Invisible Darkness" by Stephen Williams. Nick Pron defends his use of the full transcripts in the book's foreword. All publication bans were lifted once Bernardo's trial commenced in 1995. Members of the public and the media were not allowed to see the tapes at trial, only hear them.

I believe Stephen Williams faced criminal investigation because some felt he had implied in his writings that he had actually seen the tapes.

[cantstandnuts]

I believe Stephen Williams faced criminal investigation because some felt he had implied in his writings that he had actually seen the tapes.

If I remember correctly, many people thought that he was so spot on with the details of the rapes, that he had to have viewed the tapes. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but oh well, here's my two cents!

[Belly Button]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Hi May! Question: So Karla can sit on her ***** for the rest of her life and collect welfare? That's a real slap in the face to every law abiding, hardworking and decent Canadian!

:flamemad:

Crime sure pays, doesn't it? It seems to have in Karla's case. Gosh, a free apartment, and welfare. Karla has it made at Canadian taxpayers expense.

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by Belly Button


Crime sure pays, doesn't it? It seems to have in Karla's case. Gosh, a free apartment, and welfare. Karla has it made at Canadian taxpayers expense.

You don't think she would prefer to work?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by northernrflxn


You don't think she would prefer to work?

No. She hasn't worked in 12 years. Why should she start now? You seem very educated and motivated. I do not see you sitting on your ***** and not working. However, I can definitely see low life Karla sitting on her ***** and getting paid for it. Poor thing is afraid to go outside, so she is definitely in no hurry to go to work!

JMO and MOO!!

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


No. She hasn't worked in 12 years. Why should she start now? You seem very educated and motivated. I do not see you sitting on your ***** and not working. However, I can definitely see low life Karla sitting on her ***** and getting paid for it. Poor thing is afraid to go outside, so she is definitely in no hurry to go to work!

JMO and MOO!!

I know you have very strong feelings about this case 2L8, but I certainly think she would rather work. She stated as much in her recent interview.

She worked steadily from when she was a teenager to when she was arrested. She had responsibilities in Joliet that were required, and beyond that took optional prison seminars to qualify her for volunteer work. According to author Stephen Williams she literally begged for work- any kind of work- at St-Anne, which had a far less demanding and less structured prisoner environment. She now has a university degree which she worked hard for, and I'm sure she'd like a chance to apply it to something.

Her terrible crimes mean that she will probably never have a chance to reach anything close to her full potential professionally, and perhaps rightly so. But to say she is a low life who would rather sit on her *** and collect welfare is simply gratuitious and not supported by what we know. IMO, it is these kind of baseless pot shots that serve to dilute the credibility of the anger and derision directed her way.

[2L8 4A D8]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by northernrflxn

I know you have very strong feelings about this case 2L8, but I certainly think she would rather work. She stated as much in her recent interview.

<snipped>

I was not able to see Karla's interview because I don't live in Canada. So, was this before or after her interview when she got her gratis apartment and began collecting welfare? Just curious!

...But to say she is a low life who would rather sit on her *** and collect welfare is simply gratuitious and not supported by what we know. IMO, it is these kind of baseless pot shots that serve to dilute the credibility of the anger and derision directed her way.

That's why I always end my posts with JMO and MOO. It's my opinion and I am entitled to that, just like you are. If you want to call them "baseless pot shots" that's your opinion. However, in my opinion, Karla is low life scum. Sorry if you don't like my opinion, but that's life ~ we're all not going to agree all of the time.

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
[QUOTE]Originally posted by northernrflxn

I know you have very strong feelings about this case 2L8, but I certainly think she would rather work. She stated as much in her recent interview.

<snipped>

I was not able to see Karla's interview because I don't live in Canada. So, was this before or after her interview when she got her gratis apartment and began collecting welfare? Just curious!

...But to say she is a low life who would rather sit on her *** and collect welfare is simply gratuitious and not supported by what we know. IMO, it is these kind of baseless pot shots that serve to dilute the credibility of the anger and derision directed her way.

That's why I always end my posts with JMO and MOO. It's my opinion and I am entitled to that, just like you are. If you want to call them "baseless pot shots" that's your opinion. However, in my opinion, Karla is low life scum. Sorry if you don't like my opinion, but that's life ~ we're all not going to agree all of the time.

You can think she's a low life - plenty agree with you. But saying she WANTS to sit on her *** and collect welfare rather than work without any evidence of that is just you making stuff up.

If you are interested in seeing the interview, you can watch part of it here on the web:

http://montreal.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=qc-homolka20050705

It is is French, but there are English subtitles. If your decide to watch it, you may have to make your media window a little bigger to read them. It is about 13 minutes long.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by northernrflxn


You can think she's a low life - plenty agree with you. But saying she WANTS to sit on her *** and collect welfare rather than work without any evidence of that is just you making stuff up.

If you are interested in seeing the interview, you can watch part of it here on the web:

http://montreal.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=qc-homolka20050705

It is is French, but there are English subtitles. If your decide to watch it, you may have to make your media window a little bigger to read them. It is about 13 minutes long.

Thanks, I will try the link.

Regarding your comment, "...without any evidence of that is just you making stuff up". Well I guess that everyone is making stuff up on these Boards because we are all just stating our opinions! We're not making Statements of Fact (which would be evidence IMO) or else we would have to provide a link.

I feel that Karla's chances of finding a job are slim to none. Heck, she probably wouldn't be able to get a job at McDonald's once they realize who she is. Again, it is JMO and MOO of Karla which I am entitled to. And again, I am sorry that you don't like my opinion.

JMO and MOO!!

:shrug:

[chilione]

Originally posted by Belly Button


Crime sure pays, doesn't it? It seems to have in Karla's case. Gosh, a free apartment, and welfare. Karla has it made at Canadian taxpayers expense.

If the Canadian government has to pay her welfare, why don't they just give her an undergroung job like maybe in the sewers cleaning out the street gutters?

[hockeymomof5]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Thanks, I will try the link.

Regarding your comment, "...without any evidence of that is just you making stuff up". Well I guess that everyone is making stuff up on these Boards because we are all just stating our opinions! We're not making Statements of Fact (which would be evidence IMO) or else we would have to provide a link.

I feel that Karla's chances of finding a job are slim to none. Heck, she probably wouldn't be able to get a job at McDonald's once they realize who she is. Again, it is JMO and MOO of Karla which I am entitled to. And again, I am sorry that you don't like my opinion.

JMO and MOO!!

:shrug:

Feel like you're banging your head against the wall, don't you? It might help you understand this poster if you go back over her posts and realize that she believes EVERYTHING Karla has stated and discounts other's statements due to their misunderstanding of the "victim of Paul, or as being made for political reasons. It couldn't possibly be that Karla, having a degree is psychology, could be using her knowledge of the human psyche to say what she believes others want to hear. After all, Karla wouldn't possibly lie to anyone now, would she? <said with utter and complete sarcasm>


For the record, the above was JUST MY OWN OPINION.

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by hockeymomof5


Feel like you're banging your head against the wall, don't you? It might help you understand this poster if you go back over her posts and realize that she believes EVERYTHING Karla has stated and discounts other's statements due to their misunderstanding of the "victim of Paul, or as being made for political reasons. It couldn't possibly be that Karla, having a degree is psychology, could be using her knowledge of the human psyche to say what she believes others want to hear. After all, Karla wouldn't possibly lie to anyone now, would she? <said with utter and complete sarcasm>


For the record, the above was JUST MY OWN OPINION.

Another fine example of your typical approach with me hockeymom - you are a sly and deliberate master of the Straw Man argument. The topic of my post was my belief that Homolka would prefer to work rather than "sit on her *** and collect welfare". To this assertion, and despite your comments:

Regarding Homolka's desire to work, beliefs that she was/was not victimized are irrelevant and raised by nobody but you.

Regarding Homolka's desire to work, politics was raised by nobody but you.

Regarding Homolka's desire to work, my citation of her words was just one part of a an argument that had fully five other points surrounding her education and known work history over almost the last two decades.

Regarding Homolka's desire to work, I can't imagine a weaker or more deliberately mean spirited argument than to imply that one would have to call on a psychology degree to determine that society values productive members more than not, and figure out how to tailor one's remarks accordingly.

I'm sure you would feel much less like you're banging your head against the wall if you'd actually argue the points in my posts, rather than relying on your spiteful and seemingly willfull misunderstanding and mischaracterization of almost everthing I have ever said on this board.

[giddyupalw]

Originally posted by chilione


If the Canadian government has to pay her welfare, why don't they just give her an undergroung job like maybe in the sewers cleaning out the street gutters?

:lol: That is where she belongs......I can't believe someone let her stay in an apartment...sheesh

[giddyupalw]

Originally posted by northernrflxn


Another fine example of your typical approach with me hockeymom - you are a sly and deliberate master of the Straw Man argument. The topic of my post was my belief that Homolka would prefer to work rather than "sit on her *** and collect welfare". To this assertion, and despite your comments:

Regarding Homolka's desire to work, beliefs that she was/was not victimized are irrelevant and raised by nobody but you.

Regarding Homolka's desire to work, politics was raised by nobody but you.

Regarding Homolka's desire to work, my citation of her words was just one part of a an argument that had fully five other points surrounding her education and known work history over almost the last two decades.

Regarding Homolka's desire to work, I can't imagine a weaker or more deliberately mean spirited argument than to imply that one would have to call on a psychology degree to determine that society values productive members more than not, and figure out how to tailor one's remarks accordingly.

I'm sure you would feel much less like you're banging your head against the wall if you'd actually argue the points in my posts, rather than relying on your spiteful and seemingly willfull misunderstanding and mischaracterization of almost everthing I have ever said on this board.

Let's just get to the bottom line ... This women is sick to have participated in this crime...IMO

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by giddyupalw


Let's just get to the bottom line ... This women is sick to have participated in this crime...IMO

Yes, Karla certainly "had issues". (I don't mean in any way to make light of the heartbreaking consequences of her actions). However, your reply is a non-sequiter in a discussion about her willingness to work vs. a preference to collect welfare.

Message boards being what they are, we can certainly change the subject if you like. :)

[Anthea Delano]

Originally posted by hockeymomof5


Feel like you're banging your head against the wall, don't you? It might help you understand this poster if you go back over her posts and realize that she believes EVERYTHING Karla has stated and discounts other's statements due to their misunderstanding of the "victim of Paul, or as being made for political reasons. It couldn't possibly be that Karla, having a degree is psychology, could be using her knowledge of the human psyche to say what she believes others want to hear. After all, Karla wouldn't possibly lie to anyone now, would she? <said with utter and complete sarcasm>


For the record, the above was JUST MY OWN OPINION.

I share your opinion. I watched the video.

[cami]

Originally posted by northernrflxn


The tapes are transcribed virtually verbatim in at least two of the books on the case. They include "Lethal Marriage" by Nick Pron and "Invisible Darkness" by Stephen Williams. Nick Pron defends his use of the full transcripts in the book's foreword. All publication bans were lifted once Bernardo's trial commenced in 1995. Members of the public and the media were not allowed to see the tapes at trial, only hear them.

I believe Stephen Williams faced criminal investigation because some felt he had implied in his writings that he had actually seen the tapes.

Stephen Williams faced CI because of his description of the rapes was so accurate, they believed he had viewed the tapes. The PB on those tapes has not been lifted. Only the news blackout was lifted. Don't forget Karla's trial was first and in order for Paul to receive a fair trial, they blacked hers out completely.

"In January 2005, author Stephen Williams was sentenced for violating the publication ban by including forbidden details in his two books on Bernardo and Homolka, making him only the second person sentenced for violating the publication ban—the first being one of the "Electronic ban breakers". Stephen Williams reached a plea agreement with the Canadian authorities in which he agreed that he would no longer use "any materials belonging to the Crown" as part of his writings. It is, as of this writing, unclear whether or not Stephen Williams will remain active in this case, but he was present at the June 2005 810.2 hearing for Karla Homolka, which would seem to indicate he will."



I think LM was the best book written about this case but I still disagree with Pron and anyone else who believes Karla murdered the two girls. Yes, she helped Paul rape them and everything else and she should have received a life sentence but I will never believe she was the one who murdered them while he was out getting fast food. We start thinking like that and one day before we know it, Paul will be getting out of prison.

[cami]

Originally posted by chilione


If the Canadian government has to pay her welfare, why don't they just give her an undergroung job like maybe in the sewers cleaning out the street gutters?

Because that would be considered slave labour and against the law. You can't force someone on welfare to work. Your can offer them municipal or provincial employment programs however but it's still up to them if they want to accept or not.

[Anthea Delano]

Karla paid a very small price for her enormous crimes. She is one dangerous lady to be walking the streets or to be living near anybody. She should be in prison forever, just like the Manson babes. I watched the video of her interview. She is a cold calculating predator. If she cried all the time it wasn't for her victims, it was for her own stupidity.

She won't be stupid next time.

She handled the question about her relationship with a murderer very adroitly, but not so well that it wasn't noted. It tells me that what she likes. And she gets what she likes.

Scary stuff this.

JMO, MOO.

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by cami


Stephen Williams faced CI because of his description of the rapes was so accurate, they believed he had viewed the tapes. The PB on those tapes has not been lifted. Only the news blackout was lifted. Don't forget Karla's trial was first and in order for Paul to receive a fair trial, they blacked hers out completely.

"In January 2005, author Stephen Williams was sentenced for violating the publication ban by including forbidden details in his two books on Bernardo and Homolka, making him only the second person sentenced for violating the publication ban—the first being one of the "Electronic ban breakers". Stephen Williams reached a plea agreement with the Canadian authorities in which he agreed that he would no longer use "any materials belonging to the Crown" as part of his writings. It is, as of this writing, unclear whether or not Stephen Williams will remain active in this case, but he was present at the June 2005 810.2 hearing for Karla Homolka, which would seem to indicate he will."

I think LM was the best book written about this case but I still disagree with Pron and anyone else who believes Karla murdered the two girls. Yes, she helped Paul rape them and everything else and she should have received a life sentence but I will never believe she was the one who murdered them while he was out getting fast food. We start thinking like that and one day before we know it, Paul will be getting out of prison.

Thanks for the clarificaiton about the publication ban. I am aware that the blackout was motivated by the desire to ensure that Bernardo was given a fair trial, but I considered the terms news blackout and publication ban synonymous. From your post, I see they should be considered distinct issues.

Lethal Marriage is also my pick for best book about this case. It was the first one, and is the one that I think provides the least nuanced and most straightforward retelling of the facts in a way that most fits the entire body of knowledge about the principal players in this case. Pron sometimes slips into a more narrative style that benefits Karla in spots, but those spots are easy to see and weight accordingly.

It is harder for me to analyse the work of Stephen Williams. He is a fine researcher and a good writer, but he often slips completely into heavily veiled innuendo rather than objective facts for chapters on end. After Deadly Innocence was published, the work sourced heavily through friends and aquaintances of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homoka, there seemed little left to say.

It is my opinion that Williams latched on to the idea of Karla as an equal or greater evil partly as a fresh angle to justify the publication of still another book on this case. Through both commission and omision he sometimes seems to fit the facts around this theory somewhat painfully. Fresh off his own experiences with the legal system, his second book is rife with a slings and arrows for law enforcement and the courts and he seems to find a new sympathy for Karla accordingly. He never divorces himself from the foundations of his first book however, leaving the book with the occassional schizophrenic feel.

Williams' work is still an important voice in this case, but I think it must be read along with Lethal Marriage to allow the reader to best judge what happened and who Karla Homolka really is.

[northernrflxn]

Not entirely clear from my post above that Deadly Innocence is the work of authors Alan Cairns and Scott Burnside from the Toronto Sun. Sorry! Poorly worded, but meant to say that Williams needed a fresh approach after the publication of two books by other authors. Williams wrote Invisible Darkness and Karla A Pact With the Devil.

[northernrflxn]

Sorry again! Somebody just reminded me that Pron's and Cairns and Burnside's books were the first books published post trial and conviction, but there were actually two other lesser known books published before that. They were Karla's Web and A Marriage Made for Murder. So Williams' Invisible Darkness was actually the 5th book on the case.

[giddyupalw]

Originally posted by northernrflxn


Yes, Karla certainly "had issues". (I don't mean in any way to make light of the heartbreaking consequences of her actions). However, your reply is a non-sequiter in a discussion about her willingness to work vs. a preference to collect welfare.

Message boards being what they are, we can certainly change the subject if you like. :)

HAD issues :lol: Are you suggesting she doens't have any ISSUES now...

[Anthea Delano]

Originally posted by giddyupalw


HAD issues :lol: Are you suggesting she doens't have any ISSUES now...

Don't they call this gross understatement?

[giddyupalw]

Originally posted by Anthea Delano


Don't they call this gross understatement?

:beer:

[Anthea Delano]

Originally posted by Angel~Eyes


I agree. That idiot kept saying he didn't believe she would rape and kill again but then said he can't say for sure that she's not dangerous. WTF??

I loved that guy from Court TV Canada (can't remember his name), mentioning how she and her lawyers fought to have the media banned and then the first thing she does when released from prison is show her evil face on television giving an interview. Attention seeker!!

This is proof to me that Karla is in control and Karla always gets what she wants.

I wonder what a specialist in facial expressions would say about Karla after watching her interview. I was very disappointed that no media outlet has covered this aspect.
MOO

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by Anthea Delano


This is proof to me that Karla is in control and Karla always gets what she wants.

I wonder what a specialist in facial expressions would say about Karla after watching her interview. I was very disappointed that no media outlet has covered this aspect.
MOO

By appearing in a controlled setting at Radio-Canada, Homolka simply tried to pre-empt an agressive and frenetic scramble by competing media outlets to pursue her for the "exclusive" . She made the decision with the help of her attorney, who no doubt advised that her separate action to prevent media coverage was most likely doomed.

These types of pre-emptive interviews done all the time by people who hold the public's interest for whatever reason, and it is evidence of nothing other than the fact that she elected, under the advice of counsel, to do what has worked for a gazillion other people hoping to avoid the suffocating press of the media.

You pooh pooh an entire book over an author's choice of a verb, but you're hungry for an expert on facial expressions? The Globe and Mail had an analysis of her handwriting in one of the letters that author Stephen Williams conned over. Maybe that would quench your thirst for some top notch tea leaf reading in lieu of facial analysis. You can get a small fix though from Tim Danson, who in his unassailable role as lawyer for the families, said "Homolka's facial expressions during the interview were similar to those on the rape videos she made with Bernardo and their victims". For the love of Pete.

On a happier note, I've had just about all of this foolishness that I can stand. That will be good news for most I suspect.

[cantstandnuts]

On a happier note, I've had just about all of this foolishness that I can stand. That will be good news for most I suspect.


:(

My favorites to post with have always been those with the exact opposite opinion of me...

Take Care, Northern.

[lucielle]

Originally posted by northernrflxn




On a happier note, I've had just about all of this foolishness that I can stand. That will be good news for most I suspect.

Don't leave Northern.

I find psychopathic personalities most interesting. The whole make up of a psychopath is someone who simply mimcs human emotions, is all about themselves & will do whatever to make it stay that way, someone who is the ultimate "chameleon." In many ways they are like a fine tuned machine.

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by lucielle


Don't leave Northern.

I find psychopathic personalities most interesting. The whole make up of a psychopath is someone who simply mimcs human emotions, is all about themselves & will do whatever to make it stay that way, someone who is the ultimate "chameleon." In many ways they are like a fine tuned machine.

It was not my intention to fling some churlish "threat" to leave (like it would matter a great deal to anybody LOL) in hopes that posters would encourage me not too.

Others who felt similar to the way I do have been and gone, finding the environment far to inhospitable. I'm not quite sure why I have outlasted them, but I don't think it's indicitave of anything particularly admirable or productive in my personality.

The less there is in the way of dissenting opinion, the more innuendo and fallacy replace repsonsibility for backing up assertions in the majority opinion. I have never seen a group of people more afraid of information in my life, whether it's a book someone won't read, a movie someone won't see, or relevant and thought provoking passages from a publication I know well that someone could provide, but never would.

I just don't know anymore that I have anything useful to add that fits in with the mood of the board. Maybe this forum is better used as a sound off for a rightfully angry public rather than a place to examine the conclusions that have been made.

I'm not entirely sure how to take "Don't leave Northern." followed immediately by "I find psychopathic personalities most interesting." LOL

I do as well, partly because they are comparitively rare. To me, you don't start with the hypothesis that someone is a psychopath because you think so, and then support it with what you wrote. With that reasoning, I could accuse anyone of being a psychopath. Anyone. Because if you do something that makes you look like maybe you are not a psychopath, I can say that you can trick me just because you are a psychopath. It requires that you must already accept the premise to accept the conclusion that flows from it. It is not an argument, and it is not a proof.


To me, you also should never say anything in the form of "No matter what I ever learn about situation X, I will never change my opinion on situation X". That, needless to say, is a little discouraging.

[Anthea Delano]

Originally posted by northernrflxn


By appearing in a controlled setting at Radio-Canada, Homolka simply tried to pre-empt an agressive and frenetic scramble by competing media outlets to pursue her for the "exclusive" . She made the decision with the help of her attorney, who no doubt advised that her separate action to prevent media coverage was most likely doomed.

These types of pre-emptive interviews done all the time by people who hold the public's interest for whatever reason, and it is evidence of nothing other than the fact that she elected, under the advice of counsel, to do what has worked for a gazillion other people hoping to avoid the suffocating press of the media.

You pooh pooh an entire book over an author's choice of a verb, but you're hungry for an expert on facial expressions? The Globe and Mail had an analysis of her handwriting in one of the letters that author Stephen Williams conned over. Maybe that would quench your thirst for some top notch tea leaf reading in lieu of facial analysis. You can get a small fix though from Tim Danson, who in his unassailable role as lawyer for the families, said "Homolka's facial expressions during the interview were similar to those on the rape videos she made with Bernardo and their victims". For the love of Pete.

On a happier note, I've had just about all of this foolishness that I can stand. That will be good news for most I suspect.

Thank you for the word "foolishness" I feel considerably enlightened.

I am not interested in a small fix or a large fix.

I am not thirsty.

I am not in love with Pete.

If you care to re read my post, IF you really want to read with understanding, I used ONE example of biased wording to make a point. Did I "pooh pooh" (ROTFLMAO over this word choice) the book in "Cold Blood?" No. I was agreeing with cantstandnut's position in regard to biased tomes and I thought to make my thought process clear by using an example. The book isn't bad, IF you realize what the author is up to, because in every case he supplied the details/facts which actually contradict the bias.

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by Anthea Delano


Thank you for the word "foolishness" I feel considerably enlightened.

I am not interested in a small fix or a large fix.

I am not thirsty.

I am not in love with Pete.

If you care to re read my post, IF you really want to read with understanding, I used ONE example of biased wording to make a point. Did I "pooh pooh" (ROTFLMAO over this word choice) the book in "Cold Blood?" No. I was agreeing with cantstandnut's position in regard to biased tomes and I thought to make my thought process clear by using an example. The book isn't bad, IF you realize what the author is up to, because in every case he supplied the details/facts which actually contradict the bias.

"Foolishness" was not directed specifically at you. I don't mean to be rude with you and I apologize, but you're coming to some awfully rigid conclusions for somebody who joined the discussion just 4 days ago referring to "Carla".

I read the post in question with ample understanding, and I was aware that I was using it in a more sweeping way that was intended. I really just couldn't help myself after your call for facial expression analysis.

Glad to see we agree on the need for details and facts to contradict the bias. Now if we could only extend that from Robert Blake to Karla-with-a-K Homolka.

[Anthea Delano]

Karla with Kay, not Carla with a C.

Evidently, this makes me guilty of what?

Have you considered that all the Carla's I know spell their name with a C and that it is reflexive for me to spell the monster's name this way! Once I spotted my error I fixed it. And I am grateful that her name is spelled differently than the nice Carlas of my acquaintance


And what if I just joined the discussion 4 days ago? What does that mean? So only someone who has been posting for awhile is intitled to "rigid " opinions, like you, for instance.

Maybe, you support Karla because like you she can't help herself.

Robert Blake was acquitted by forensic evidence he is no Karla Homolka.

MOO

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by Anthea Delano
Karla with Kay, not Carla with a C.

Evidently, this makes me guilty of what?

Have you considered that all the Carla's I know spell their name with a C and that it is reflexive for me to spell the monster's name this way! Once I spotted my error I fixed it. And I am grateful that her name is spelled differently than the nice Carlas of my acquaintance


And what if I just joined the discussion 4 days ago? What does that mean? So only someone who has been posting for awhile is intitled to "rigid " opinions, like you, for instance.

Maybe, you support Karla because like you she can't help herself.

Robert Blake was acquitted by forensic evidence he is no Karla Homolka.

MOO

Someone sufficiently aquainted with the basic facts of this case would not have made that error IMO. That, and your 4 days, in itself means nothing. I notice you post a lot on the Aruba case. You could probably tell me a million things I don't know about it. Point is, I wouldn't blast in with sound bites convicting the suspects and dismissing the arguments of others based on a quick fly by of the facts and a sense that I'm on the side of the good guys.

I don't know that I'm right in my beliefs. We certainly haven't had many chances to test the ridigity of my opinions in anything approximating a real debate. I back up my beliefs with real arguments, and usually get sound bites and silliness in return. There are exceptions to that, and I appreciate those posters.

Maybe that is why I support her rights to a second chance. I can't help myself. I am genuinely bothered by what I perceive as gang warfare on another human being. Believe me, because of the way this has all played out I have done self checks on more than one occasion. Asked myself if I was sure about the horse that I was backing. Went to sites celebrating the lives of the victims and mourning their heartbreaking loss to be sure I didn't lose sight of the full facts of this case myself. As recently as yesterday I cried reading the words and viewing the pictures at the findagrave links hockeymom posted.


BTW, based on what I know right now I'd fear the potential violence of Robert "You don't know who you're messing with, you *****" Blake before I feared the potential violence of Homolka today.

[Anthea Delano]

Originally posted by northernrflxn


Someone sufficiently aquainted with the basic facts of this case would not have made that error IMO. That, and your 4 days, in itself means nothing. I notice you post a lot on the Aruba case. You could probably tell me a million things I don't know about it. Point is, I wouldn't blast in with sound bites convicting the suspects and dismissing the arguments of others based on a quick fly by of the facts and a sense that I'm on the side of the good guys.

I don't know that I'm right in my beliefs. We certainly haven't had many chances to test the ridigity of my opinions in anything approximating a real debate. I back up my beliefs with real arguments, and usually get sound bites and silliness in return. There are exceptions to that, and I appreciate those posters.

Maybe that is why I support her rights to a second chance. I can't help myself. I am genuinely bothered by what I perceive as gang warfare on another human being. Believe me, because of the way this has all played out I have done self checks on more than one occasion. Asked myself if I was sure about the horse that I was backing. Went to sites celebrating the lives of the victims and mourning their heartbreaking loss to be sure I didn't lose sight of the full facts of this case myself. As recently as yesterday I cried reading the words and viewing the pictures at the findagrave links hockeymom posted.


BTW, based on what I know right now I'd fear the potential violence of Robert "You don't know who you're messing with, you *****" Blake before I feared the potential violence of Homolka today.

"Sound bites and silliness?" LOL

I'm not interested in discussing Natalee Holloway's disappearance on this board.

"Gang warfare?" LOL

And speaking of silliness, your last sentence is a doozie.

Why would you, who is over 15 years of age which I'm assuming based on your 14 years of KH expertise, be afraid of a serial murdering pedophile?

Why would you be more afraid of Robert Blake? As far as I know he never killed anyone, but if you sincerely believe he killed BLB, then I could see why you might have cause for concern if you are scheming, grifter, con artist who uses children as bargaining chips to manipulate celebrities. Do you fit this profile?

[northernrflxn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anthea Delano


"Sound bites and silliness?" LOL

LOL for sure. I'm with you on that. ;)


I'm not interested in discussing Natalee Holloway's disappearance on this board.

Me neither. Kudos on the double "e".


"Gang warfare?" LOL


That's exactly what it end up being. LOL only if that kind of thing amuses you.


And speaking of silliness, your last sentence is a doozie.

Why would you, who is over 15 years of age which I'm assuming based on your 14 years of KH expertise, be afraid of a serial murdering pedophile?

I would. However, I'm afraid of the spectre of a serial murdering Homolka like I'm afraid of my term deposits ending up in an AK-47 case in Patty Hearst's livingroom. Future events may prove me wrong, but I don't think so.


Why would you be more afraid of Robert Blake?

I think there is ample evidence of a potenial for violence through his own words, that's all.


As far as I know he never killed anyone, but if you sincerely believe he killed BLB, then I could see why you might have cause for concern if you are scheming, grifter, con artist who uses children as bargaining chips to manipulate celebrities. Do you fit this profile?

See "Sound bites and silliness"

[Anthea Delano]

It seems to me that one poster on this board is behaving like the "Great and Terrible Oz."

Anyone who does not agree with her is attacked in a variety of undermining ways and when "turn about" is used in a sincere attempt to lighten the discourse, this too, causes a new wave of insults and innuendo against the fellow poster.

Yes, it is true I've just begun to post here, but I hardly think that is of any consequence, yet this poster feels it is important to mention exactly to the day how long I have posted here. Is this some sort of seniority thing? Ergo, if you posted here longer your opinion carries more weight!

I am also concerned that this poster feels it necessary to ridicule and characterize a poster who does not agree with her.

Yes, fourteen years is a long time to be following a case, but the time involvement doesn't necessarily confer greater insight, it could, judging from the posters comments and barbs indicate a perverse obsession with a serial killer and pedophile.

As to the actual subject of this board, Karla with a K Homolka, she is IMO a sociopath who killed her sister. She was in charge of administering the drug. Her job gave her access to the drug and also the knowledge with which to use it. She was an adult and a smart adult as well. Accidental death, I don't think so She planned to give her "virgin" sister to her boyfriend on Christmas as a "present" and then, kill her. This vile act was videotaped and the video tape contradicted her sworn testimony as did the state of her sister's body. I can not rid myself of the image of the enormous burn on her sister's face. To accept that burn as a carpet burn is what is "foolish" and "silly." It defies logic.

Karla Homolka is one of the greatest monsters in history. She was never a victim, but the ultimate victimizer.

JMO, MOO,





:biggrin:

[lucielle]

Originally posted by northernrflxn



I do as well, partly because they are comparitively rare. To me, you don't start with the hypothesis that someone is a psychopath because you think so, and then support it with what you wrote. With that reasoning, I could accuse anyone of being a psychopath. Anyone. Because if you do something that makes you look like maybe you are not a psychopath, I can say that you can trick me just because you are a psychopath. It requires that you must already accept the premise to accept the conclusion that flows from it. It is not an argument, and it is not a proof.


To me, you also should never say anything in the form of "No matter what I ever learn about situation X, I will never change my opinion on situation X". That, needless to say, is a little discouraging.


i never started with the hypotheseis that she was a psychopath, I ended with that. I am open to ideas and opinions, but the more I see of her interviews the more I believe that she is not "all there." I just don't see or hear any remorse. Now I know that does not make her a psychopath, but with her background it makes it more likely that she may be, imo.

Also, it DOES bother me greatly that she is supposedly not a threat & has learned form her crimes, but is dating another killer? Doesn't everyone agree that this is not the path that someone with her past should be taking? How is that proving that she DID learn anything? Seems like she is just moving back into the old patterns that she had before.......

[chilione]

Originally posted by northernrflxn


By appearing in a controlled setting at Radio-Canada, Homolka simply tried to pre-empt an agressive and frenetic scramble by competing media outlets to pursue her for the "exclusive" . She made the decision with the help of her attorney, who no doubt advised that her separate action to prevent media coverage was most likely doomed.

These types of pre-emptive interviews done all the time by people who hold the public's interest for whatever reason, and it is evidence of nothing other than the fact that she elected, under the advice of counsel, to do what has worked for a gazillion other people hoping to avoid the suffocating press of the media.

You pooh pooh an entire book over an author's choice of a verb, but you're hungry for an expert on facial expressions? The Globe and Mail had an analysis of her handwriting in one of the letters that author Stephen Williams conned over. Maybe that would quench your thirst for some top notch tea leaf reading in lieu of facial analysis. You can get a small fix though from Tim Danson, who in his unassailable role as lawyer for the families, said "Homolka's facial expressions during the interview were similar to those on the rape videos she made with Bernardo and their victims". For the love of Pete.

On a happier note, I've had just about all of this foolishness that I can stand. That will be good news for most I suspect.


You sure seem to make a lot of excuses for Karla. How do you know what her motive was for doing the interview? Did she have her attorney present at the interview advising her what to say or what questions to answer?

IMO her motive was to try and garner some sympathy from some and it looks like it worked on some people.

[Anthea Delano]

Originally posted by lucielle



i never started with the hypotheseis that she was a psychopath, I ended with that. I am open to ideas and opinions, but the more I see of her interviews the more I believe that she is not "all there." I just don't see or hear any remorse. Now I know that does not make her a psychopath, but with her background it makes it more likely that she may be, imo.

Also, it DOES bother me greatly that she is supposedly not a threat & has learned form her crimes, but is dating another killer? Doesn't everyone agree that this is not the path that someone with her past should be taking? How is that proving that she DID learn anything? Seems like she is just moving back into the old patterns that she had before.......

I agree that her involvement with another killer is significant. It is also significant that she refused to discuss this relationship after she was asked about it during the interview. And it is particularly significant that she dodged the question not by saying something like, I don't want to discuss my relationship with him, instead she made a global statement about not discussing the people in prison.

This informs me that she is very wily. Remember her sister's words that people are easily conned.

[cantstandnuts]

I do as well, partly because they are comparitively rare. To me, you don't start with the hypothesis that someone is a psychopath because you think so, and then support it with what you wrote. With that reasoning, I could accuse anyone of being a psychopath. Anyone. Because if you do something that makes you look like maybe you are not a psychopath, I can say that you can trick me just because you are a psychopath. It requires that you must already accept the premise to accept the conclusion that flows from it. It is not an argument, and it is not a proof.

Unbelievable how you twist what people say to fit you're beliefs. Setting aside the fact that this message was meant for me, but sent to another, which puzzles me, let's consider this: I didn't start out believing Karla is a psychopath. I never knew her at all, until she became a public figure by engaging in the rape, torture and death of not only her sister, but at least two other young girls. Once she did that, I think it's a pretty LOGICAL conclusion to BEGIN to think she's a psychopathic person. From there, she says and does all kinds of things that FURTHER support that hypothesis. Her extreme selfishness, her apparent lack of remorse, her ability to act as if nothing has happened, her excuses, her lies, her tendency to downplay her actions, her playing the victim, her sexual acting out, manipulations, etc, etc, ETC! IMO, anyone who ignores these things so as to continue to support their own argument is the one who's NOT looking at the facts, but rather drawing their own conclusions and sticking to them no matter what the evidence really is.

To me, you also should never say anything in the form of "No matter what I ever learn about situation X, I will never change my opinion on situation X". That, needless to say, is a little discouraging.

It's not like this is a brand new case that just came into the public eye and there's going to be a ton of new information on it. This case is old, the news is out there and it's not changing. You really need to replace X with Karla and then the statement is valid...I won't change my mind, you're right. I've drawn a conclusion based on what I know and it's not going to change because there's nothing out there to change it...I would probably never make that statement about any active topic, but when the case is as old as this one, there's no reason to think ANYTHING could change it. It would have to be some windfall of information. In this case, though, I don't think there's a thing that could undo my beliefs on what Karla is...not because I hate her, but because she has EARNED her reputation.

I have never seen a group of people more afraid of information in my life, whether it's a book someone won't read, a movie someone won't see,

I never said I wouldn't read a book, I read a lot of books and they don't scare me...on the contrary. In fact, I think it was a post from hockeymom that had me thinking I might pick one up just to read the transcripts. I'm not afraid of information at all. I'm not afraid to change my mind. I just know (because I know myself) in this case, I won't change my mind. And I sense you'd be unlikely to change yours either...you just won't admit it.

:rolleyes:

[Anthea Delano]

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
I do as well, partly because they are comparitively rare. To me, you don't start with the hypothesis that someone is a psychopath because you think so, and then support it with what you wrote. With that reasoning, I could accuse anyone of being a psychopath. Anyone. Because if you do something that makes you look like maybe you are not a psychopath, I can say that you can trick me just because you are a psychopath. It requires that you must already accept the premise to accept the conclusion that flows from it. It is not an argument, and it is not a proof.

Unbelievable how you twist what people say to fit you're beliefs. Setting aside the fact that this message was meant for me, but sent to another, which puzzles me, let's consider this: I didn't start out believing Karla is a psychopath. I never knew her at all, until she became a public figure by engaging in the rape, torture and death of not only her sister, but at least two other young girls. Once she did that, I think it's a pretty LOGICAL conclusion to BEGIN to think she's a psychopathic person. From there, she says and does all kinds of things that FURTHER support that hypothesis. Her extreme selfishness, her apparent lack of remorse, her ability to act as if nothing has happened, her excuses, her lies, her tendency to downplay her actions, her playing the victim, her sexual acting out, manipulations, etc, etc, ETC! IMO, anyone who ignores these things so as to continue to support their own argument is the one who's NOT looking at the facts, but rather drawing their own conclusions and sticking to them no matter what the evidence really is.

To me, you also should never say anything in the form of "No matter what I ever learn about situation X, I will never change my opinion on situation X". That, needless to say, is a little discouraging.

It's not like this is a brand new case that just came into the public eye and there's going to be a ton of new information on it. This case is old, the news is out there and it's not changing. You really need to replace X with Karla and then the statement is valid...I won't change my mind, you're right. I've drawn a conclusion based on what I know and it's not going to change because there's nothing out there to change it...I would probably never make that statement about any active topic, but when the case is as old as this one, there's no reason to think ANYTHING could change it. It would have to be some windfall of information. In this case, though, I don't think there's a thing that could undo my beliefs on what Karla is...not because I hate her, but because she has EARNED her reputation.

I have never seen a group of people more afraid of information in my life, whether it's a book someone won't read, a movie someone won't see,

I never said I wouldn't read a book, I read a lot of books and they don't scare me...on the contrary. In fact, I think it was a post from hockeymom that had me thinking I might pick one up just to read the transcripts. I'm not afraid of information at all. I'm not afraid to change my mind. I just know (because I know myself) in this case, I won't change my mind. And I sense you'd be unlikely to change yours either...you just won't admit it.

:rolleyes:

Great post.

[cantstandnuts]

Great post.

thanks, it just really ticks me off that it got twisted to make it sound like I went out and for no reason came to a conclusion before having any information and then searched for ways to support my theory. Karla, in my opinion, made it very easy, by her behavior, for me to support my beliefs about her. I didn't put her on the chopping block, she put herself out there by being a morally vacuous rapist and killer!

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by Anthea Delano
It seems to me that one poster on this board is behaving like the "Great and Terrible Oz."

Anyone who does not agree with her is attacked in a variety of undermining ways and when "turn about" is used in a sincere attempt to lighten the discourse, this too, causes a new wave of insults and innuendo against the fellow poster.

Yes, it is true I've just begun to post here, but I hardly think that is of any consequence, yet this poster feels it is important to mention exactly to the day how long I have posted here. Is this some sort of seniority thing? Ergo, if you posted here longer your opinion carries more weight!

I am also concerned that this poster feels it necessary to ridicule and characterize a poster who does not agree with her.

Yes, fourteen years is a long time to be following a case, but the time involvement doesn't necessarily confer greater insight, it could, judging from the posters comments and barbs indicate a perverse obsession with a serial killer and pedophile.

As to the actual subject of this board, Karla with a K Homolka, she is IMO a sociopath who killed her sister. She was in charge of administering the drug. Her job gave her access to the drug and also the knowledge with which to use it. She was an adult and a smart adult as well. Accidental death, I don't think so She planned to give her "virgin" sister to her boyfriend on Christmas as a "present" and then, kill her. This vile act was videotaped and the video tape contradicted her sworn testimony as did the state of her sister's body. I can not rid myself of the image of the enormous burn on her sister's face. To accept that burn as a carpet burn is what is "foolish" and "silly." It defies logic.

Karla Homolka is one of the greatest monsters in history. She was never a victim, but the ultimate victimizer.

JMO, MOO,


:biggrin:

I usually get accused of "attacks and ridicule" et al once the accusing poster has temporarily run out of ideas for same against me. Pot. Kettle. Black. That being said, I have been testy with you, sometimes more so that your posts have merited. For that I apologize.

It has nothing to do with whether a poster agrees with me. I don't care whether a poster has been posting on a subject for 5 minutes or 5 years, you should either come to the table with some information to back up your assertions, or tag your posts with WFC for "Wild $#@%^ Conjecture" rather than hiding behind JMO, MOO.

Nobody in law enforcement has ever seriously asserted that Karla intended to kill her sister. She, as you said, was a smart woman. They drugged her with massive doses of Halcion that Karla picked up from a pharmacy claiming they were for the vet clinic, and Halothane stolen from Karla's workplace. She would have had every expectation that those drugs would have turned up in an autoposy on what would clearly have been the mysterious death of an otherwise healthy 15 year old, and traced back to her. As it was, they spent the weeks between her death and the ultimately benign autopsy findings under great stress.

There is no evidence that anybody in law eforcement ever believed the ridiculous rug burn explanation, which was first put forth by Paul at the crime scene. The cause of the burn remains unexplained, with the working theory that a chemical reaction between the halothane and something on the cloth caused it. Karla, who was the one that informed unsuspecting authorites that Tammy's death was not an accident in the first place, admitted procuring the halothane and administering it to Tammy. If for any reason her death was going to be reassessed as death by Halothane, whether she held the rag two inches over her face or directly on her face would likley have been pretty immaterial. It seems to me to be apallingly reckless either way.

Again, there is a well recognized tendancy for criminals to sometimes downplay their roles in crimes. It's not a "gotcha " for psychopathic evil.

What makes you believe that Tammy's death was intentional, and how do you find the evidence to be more consistent with that theory?

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by chilione



You sure seem to make a lot of excuses for Karla. How do you know what her motive was for doing the interview? Did she have her attorney present at the interview advising her what to say or what questions to answer?

IMO her motive was to try and garner some sympathy from some and it looks like it worked on some people.

Yes she did have an attorney present, but the attorney did not interrupt the interview at any time.

Of course it was partly motivated by an interest in having people see her differently. She said as much. Seems prudent in the circumstances. So what? Doesn't any body ever ask themselves, so what? Why does every single twitch need a special motivation and unique set of rules that deviates from those that the rest of us operate under?

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by cantstandnuts
Great post.

thanks, it just really ticks me off that it got twisted to make it sound like I went out and for no reason came to a conclusion before having any information and then searched for ways to support my theory. Karla, in my opinion, made it very easy, by her behavior, for me to support my beliefs about her. I didn't put her on the chopping block, she put herself out there by being a morally vacuous rapist and killer!

Feel free to get un-ticked off, because that is not what I said AT ALL. I simply said, as a general statement to another poster based on the implications of what she had posted, that it is unreasonable to dismiss every single indication that someone is not psychopathic by attributing the contrary information to the fact that she's a psychopath. It's a circular, illogical argument. It may be true, but it cannot be supported that way.

Beyond that, I stand by my statement about "Situation X". You are of course free to feel that way, and free to express those feelings, but it is hard to see it as the kind of statement that encourages debate or invites a fellow poster to put much effort into explaining their position to you.

[northernrflxn]

Originally posted by Anthea Delano


I agree that her involvement with another killer is significant. It is also significant that she refused to discuss this relationship after she was asked about it during the interview. And it is particularly significant that she dodged the question not by saying something like, I don't want to discuss my relationship with him, instead she made a global statement about not discussing the people in prison.

This informs me that she is very wily. Remember her sister's words that people are easily conned.

You know something else I think is significant? That this supposedly smooth, glib and manipulative psychopath who can mimic earnestness and sincerity at will was turned away sucking on her water glass for the first and only time in her interview the minute the interviewer started her question about Gerbet. Her answer was stiff, seemingly canned, and she really looked ill at ease compared with the rest of the interview. Her discomfort was clear.

Remember that issues surrounding her contact with other prisoners are covered by her release conditions. That response had a "lawyer" feel to it. Regardless, it was certainly an obvious dodge and not the earnest protestations and smooth reassurances of an accomplished psychopath.

Her relationship with Gerbet is disturbing and does bear discussion. It probably merits it's own thread. Perhaps if other posters feel that way, someone could start one.

I'v posted this before but I'll post it again.

Her relationship with a killer while she was alledgely being rehabilitated is something she cannot manipulate her way out of.

I agree with the previous poster. I watched her interview and it was going smooth as silk for her until the interviewer brought up her relationship with the convicted murderer.

She immediately reached for her glass of water and was then on the defensive. She also had a steely resolve in her eyes, a coldness I would say. That is the true Karla, the one that flashed for that moment in the interview.

She didn't want to talk about because it is a sure sign that she is NOT rehabilitated.

I ask you. Who in there right mind, after what she has been through would take up with a murderer, placing herself in a position that contributed to her murderous ways previously?

If she were truly rehabilitated she would not enter into an affair with a convicted murderer.

Karla Homolka is still dangerous, still a pyschopath and still has never apologized to the families of those she killed.