Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

I agree. New evidence can clear someone and that is as it should be. So, it makes perfect sense to me when there is unrefutable proof of someone's guilt, they should be able to retry them. I can understand if there was still some reasonable doubt but there is no doubt whatsoever in this case. I am wondering how many times this has happened and I don't like that thought.

in one of canada's most notorious court cases the rial of Paul Bernardo and his wife Karla Homolka, she plea bargained a reduced sentence in exchange for her testimony, however

"In return for a plea bargain (12 years in prison for manslaughter), Homolka testified against Bernardo in his murder trial. This plea bargain received much public criticism from Canadians as Homolka's first defense lawyer Ken Murray had withheld for 17 months videotapes that Bernardo made. This was considered crucial evidence, and prosecutors said that they would have never agreed to the plea bargain if they had seen the tapes. Murry was later charged with obstruction of justice, which he was acquitted, and he also faced a disciplinary hearing from the law society."

the police had searched the house and missed the tapes, Bernardo told his lawyer where they were and he went and retrieved them, she was charged in a separate trial and then testified at his, once the tapes were entered into evidence, i feel she should have been retried, as it is she's free and clear now, had the tapes been known before hand, she'd be likely be in jail forever as Bernardo is now

That is one of the most horrible cases I have ever read about. Definitely a case where who gives a flip what deal they made with her they had PROOF she was just as culpable as Paul. If I remember correctly, their reason for not rescinding the deal was because if they did then others wouldn't trust the deals they may make in the future.

I do doubt that Karla will ever have a normal life. Anyone that knows about what she did will no doubt not leave her in peace.

She left the country.

I'm not surprised. I saw a show not long ago and she was still in Canada. The show was done years back though. Not too long after she got out of prison. She sure didn't look like the girl that went to jail. I'm sure it's not easy for her to find peace.

a guy i went to school with and his wife both covered the trial, he for The Toronto Sun Newspaper and she for CBC News (TV), i can only assume that there were some pretty uncomfortable nights around the dinner table in their household, for a while

nobody but the jury saw the tapes, but the audio could be heard by all present in the courtroom

he and another journalist eventually wrote a book about the couple

Oh I wouldn't want to even hear what is on those tapes! The book I read was graphic enough but I still think they didn't tell it all. I do not understand how people can become like this couple. I know there is evil in the world and I suppose that must be the explanation for it but I just don't know how any human being can be so sadistic to a stranger much less her own sister!

another interesting aside, i live about three hours away from where Kristen French, the second named victim of the couple was abducted, the car that was believed to have abducted her was a silver or gold trans am type vehicle, a few days later we were travelling into the city near our house, the main highway (401) that runs through the province (think interstate) starts in that city, Windsor, which is also near the Detroit border

just after where the 401 merges with the road that takes you to the border we come across a traffic stop, and not just any stop, lots of cops, heavily armed, stopping everyone, but pulling over trans am and similar styled sports cars, it took about a couple hours before we realized, we'd probably been part of a manhunt looking for French, sadly she'd never left the town she was abducted in, infact she'd barely been taken more than a few blocks

She is the one that was taken from the church parking lot? Such a crime has such a devastating effect. I think we tend to only see how it effects those directly involved but the effects can be so widespread. I can imagine those were some pretty uncomfortable feelings for you.

No. Just as what constitutes a troll is subjective (and I notice you still can't come up with a codified rule for me, and just keep replying with more flabbergasted surprise that I even dare ask and dare call your insults trolling) who instigated it is as well.

Asking us to play stupid "he started it games" is ridiculous and like I already said, if I have to objectively compare your behavior to hawkeye's I would say that you did. You found his opinions disgusting and started going around and calling him a rapist. He had done nothing remotely of the sort to you prior to that and yes going around insulting someone obsessively like that does fit the definition of trolling, no matter how convincing your self-righteous "what moi?" routine is to you. You still can't come up with objective rules, you just keep pointing your finger and repeating your blind strength of conviction (repeating in various different ways that for me to even pose the question is absurd, so when asked to present logic your answer is basically to repeat "it's obvious").

And I think asking us to play who started it in the first place is infantile. If there is behavior that should not be acceptable on the boards then it should not matter a whit who started it. Justifying your behavior on the basis of someone else having started it sounds like a three-year old.

Jesus you are delusional. Hawkeye didn't start insulting you, you started insulting him. You need to pop that inflatable high horse you never get off of, you justify all your trolling on the basis of blind conviction that you are a good guy and that they are bad guys.

If you are so sure that is the case then come up with objective criteria that establishes this on the basis of their behavior, not increasing your rhetoric about how obviously righteous you are.

Like djjd62, I remember the events clearly.

Typical stereotype in the search for the duo. They were looking for a Camaro with two men. One was said to have longish dirty blond hair. Of course, that turned out to be Karla. They did not consider to look for a woman.

Kristen French's body was found near the property of some friends of ours. Leslie Mahaffey's body was found in the canal. Not in one piece.

Kristen was only 15 years old and Leslie was 14. They too, lived in the Golden Horseshoe.

They were such brutal and heartless people. I know that the community was very upset about the deaths of these young girls. From what I have researched, at the time, male/female partners in rape were a rarity. I can only imagine the shock of your countrymen when it was revealed this was a young man and woman husband/wife team.

I think you missed a post. The answer is quite simple: He who deliberately targets innocents for abuse should be held accountable.

Pretending that he who reacts to abuse is no less guilty than he who initiates it is ridiculous. Pretending that you don't recognize Shorteyes and RM's only purpose on this thread was to troll it is asinine. No reaction of mine would be necessary if you didn't cater to these trolls in the first place.

Your idiotic suggestion that holding the instigator of a fight responsible for same is the work of a 3 year old is ridiculous. Not everyone is a cheek-turner and pretending he who responds to abuse in kind is equaly guilty is absurd.

And why are you suddenly defaulting everything to the more polite Shorteyes, when it is RM's trolling that began this spat? The post you skipped lists his behavior violating your rules, out of your own mouth, and still you persist in trying to blame me.

No, you are delusional to pretend that Shorteyes constant advocacy for rape and child molestation isn't deliberate provocation.

I did. You just ignored it in your desire to attack me for highlighting your ongoing catering to trolls.

I didn't miss it, that just makes no sense and I thought you were still coming up with something resembling a try at this.

I'd asked for you to define the abuse and your definition is whoever does it first. This is circular logic and poor circular logic at that. Well first at precisely what Bill? You aren't beginning to make sense here.



I'm not pretending anything, you troll (deliberately insult other members) more than he does. You simply delude yourself into thinking your behavior is righteous and thereby justified but I've gotten more complaints about you than either of the other two. You are clearly one of the few who believe your juvenile vigilante schtick. You justify your behavior on its supposed protection of "innocents" but you are about the only one getting your panties in a twist over them and not being able to ignore them to this degree. Just who are all these imagined innocents you crusade for? You seem to desperately need a dragon to crusade against.



Again, I am not pretending, I have not read them on this thread. I asked you to come up with an objective criteria for defining the behavior that should result in a ban instead of you just pointing at the people you are obsessed with and saying it's just obvious that they need killing.

You can't articulate any logic to use as the basis for your demands, and just obdurately repeat that it is obvious.



Firstly, I am not catering to anyone. This is nothing more than a childish dig in your attempts to get what you want. Secondly, we've already been over this. I think you troll more than they do (and thusly would be banned before them if we were to ban more people for trolling), and you are still unable to come up with any objective criteria for establishing why you say they are such obvious trolls.



You are just as much of an instigator as anyone else here, and yes when you pull the "they started it" excuse delusional you remind me of a three-year old and their tenuous grasp on morality.

Act like a grown up already. Stop making bad guys your pretext to be a boor.



This is rich coming from someone whose only stock and store in an argument is to ratchet up the rhetoric and heap verbal abuse on your interlocutor.

You verbally abuse whomever you wish and justify it in your mind with these delusions. It's pathetic.



I am more intimately involved in how your obsession with hawkeye developed. Thanks to your sock puppet friends I haven't read much of what Bill has had to say in this thread.



You said he posts too many times in a row and is irritating. You said he gamed the system but like I said, those sock puppets look like you made them just as much as it looks like he did (I make no claims here to who made what, just that the evidence I have and the deductions I made lend equal weight to you having made them as him having done so).

In any case, does this mean we should also ban Brooke? She did more site-gaming by orders of magnitude and was creating sock puppets and taunting Bill before the sock puppet accounts that might be his were created.

By your rule does that mean we should just ban Brooke for starting the sock puppet war and his reaction is perfectly innocent? If you think you've articulated any kind of reasonable basis to ban your "****" list your logic leaves even more to be desired than I had thought. Your rules would take out a decent portion of the site (One of your rules was repetition? Jesus that should include YOU, you've been nagging me forever about this like a dog with a bone). And didn't you say you were going to have the last word here (that you would stop if I did or somesuch)? That is essentially the same thing you are criticizing BillRM for, in posting too much which is essentially not knowing when to let go of something. If not knowing when to let go of something were a bannable offense that would be another large swath of the site that most certainly includes you and me.

Instead of being like a rabid dog about trying to get your "****" list banned, why don't you propose some rules to the community and see if they like your policy changes? How about that? I think the overwhelming majority of the community are against your proposed moderation policies, why don't you ask them instead of just being an arrant nuisance to me and pestering me about it? If you can show me that the community wants your proposals (I think most strongly oppose them) then I will seriously consider implementing them. But just whining harder isn't gonna make it happen.

Wrong and so wrong you are more then likely once more being very dishonest indeed.

The details of the studies cover in one case a thousand people and the other over a ten year period show a 25 percents to a 50 percent false rape rate for non-strangers rape.

Annoying worldview?

If annoying mean non-pc when if you were going to filter out such your website would then just be a propaganda tool for the likes of Firefly where no one can challenge her on even her so call facts.

One poor gentleman wished to disagree with her in a fairly mild manner and he feel the need to begin with I am not like the two trolls however…………….

Second, I can not frankly understand why you feel the need to engage Bill O and his demands in posting after posting.

To me he had zero to add to any thread and most of his postings that I had seen is nothing but insults of a nature that I had come to the conclusion that the gentleman have some semi-serious mental problems and leaving me to placed him on ignore.

You cannot disregard firm legal principles even is the case you are talking about.

Sometimes you can do an end run around them by trying someone both under the Federal court system and the state court system.

It would had been nice if in this case they could have come up with some Federal charges to place against this monster.

Your penchant for being deliberately obtuse when you're angry is the only reason you need further clarification.

There is nothing circular about my logic here, Robert. He who throws the first punch in a fight is guilty of battery. He who responds in kind is not.

When the demented duo (or anyone else) show up to ridicule a rape victim, make no mistake; that can hurt as much as a punch. (Why you'd pretend you don't know this, I have no idea.) There is no excuse for this behavior, and it is obscene that you would pretend there's nothing wrong with these assholes re-victimizing victims for sport.

This behavior clearly falls into the category of deliberately targeting innocents for abuse. So would recommending child abuse. So does advocating rape or domestic violence. What these things all have in common, is innocent victims who do not deserve to be further victimized by trolls. He who targets innocents for abuse is despicable, and I've little doubt the community would concur with this assessment.

Using the "Innocent" metric; the demented duo's disgusting distractions are easily distinguished from yours or mine. Addressing same would have the side affect of eliminating my oh so horrible condemnations of same.

Yet you run your mouth as if you know that my behavior is worse, despite the FACT you are speaking completely from ignorance.



Dude, not only are you catering to trolls, you're now advocating for them and pretending you know my behavior is worse, even as you admit you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

How telling is it that you adamantly refused to admit he created puppets in the first place, and take great care not to impugn him with his obvious deed; but hesitate not at all to impugn me with your accusations. I have just one account here Robert. One.


Only you could know who started the sock war, but your unfounded accusations against me lead me to believe you're just speculating. Regardless, the sock puppets on this thread were all created for the same reason; BillRM is a disgusting troll. Apparently, some were created in an attempt to moderate his trolling and he created some to further it. Your choice to cater to, and now advocate for, disgusting trolls is the reason for all of them.

Not that it's any of your business, but I haven't spoken to Brooke in quite some time. While my vote-count certainly appears to have benefited from these puppets; that's no excuse for you to accuse me of anything, which you are doing with zero evidence because there couldn't possibly be evidence for something I haven't done. RM, on the other hand, made his guilt as obvious as a retarded 5th grader might, both before and after his tampering.

I seriously doubt a significant percentage, let alone an overwhelming majority, of the community would oppose sanctions for the deliberate targeting of innocents.

While your attacks on me may be somewhat popular, rest assured, the demented duo are indeed almost universally despised for re-victimizing victims of rape. Only an asshole would think that was cool. And, you are the only person I've seen stand in defense of it.

For all your ranting about my attacks on the demented duo, you are a hypocrite. I do instinctually react to what I consider abusive behavior in kind. So do you. You’ve been doing it for several posts now.

Troll lover