PING!
Posted on 05/30/2005 10:49:21 AM PDT by GMMAC
TORONTO SUN
May 30, 2005
Karla victim claims 'coverup'
By BRODIE FENLON AND AL CAIRNS, Toronto Sun
Jane Doe wants Karla Homolka charged for drugging, raping and almost killing her when she was only 15 years old.
The diminutive woman, who is now 29, told The Toronto Sun in an exclusive interview that it is "impossible" Homolka "forgot" her chilling drug rape during three days of police interviews that followed Homolka's infamous May 1993 plea deal.
"It's lies. It was a coverup," Doe alleged of Homolka's unexplained silence in her drug-laced rapes -- allegations that could call into question the entire plea deal.
Jane Doe also asserts that neither she, nor her parents at any time agreed with prosecutors to waive charges against Homolka for her rapes.
Homolka did not make any mention of Jane Doe's drug rapes in three days of police statements given after she inked a deal to testify against her estranged husband Paul Bernardo in the sex slayings of Kristen French, 15, and Leslie Mahaffy, 14, and in the fatal drug rape of her youngest sister, Tammy, 15.
But Jane Doe revealed for the first time that Homolka offered her a vague apology during a telephone call sandwiched sometime between Paul Bernardo's arrest on Feb. 17, 1993, and Homolka's plea deal three months later.
Jane Doe recalled that Homolka, who was under police orders not to contact her at the time because Jane Doe was a witness in the Bernardo case, said: "I'm sorry for what you went through. I'm sorry for what you're going to go through. And we will see each other again."
The apology calls into question whether or not Homolka lived up to her end of the plea deal that stipulated she could be prosecuted if caught lying, "obstructing justice, public mischief, fabricating evidence, perjury, inconsistent statements and/or false affidavits."
Homolka did not give one hint of the Jane Doe drug rapes until October, 1994, when she wrote to her lawyer that she had a "dream" of doing things with Jane Doe and asked him to make sure nothing undid her deal.
The full truth of Jane Doe's rapes did not emerge until the notorious videotapes of the sex assaults were handed to police in September, 1994 after Bernardo's first lawyer, Ken Murray, quit the case.
The videotapes show an unconscious Jane Doe being raped by Bernardo and Homolka in June,1991 in almost carbon-copy circumstances to Tammy's fatal drug rape only six months earlier.
Both then and now, Jane Doe has no recollection of the videotaped drug rapes, other than recalling that she woke up the next morning with what she thought was a vicious hangover.
During a second attack by Bernardo and Homolka in August, 1991, Jane Doe lost all life signs for several minutes.
Homolka made a 911 call, but cancelled it when Bernardo revived Jane Doe through mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.
Jane Doe also had no memory of that attack, but recalls being violently ill and sleeping for 72 hours.
"I don't believe for a second that she forgot about me. There is no way. How can you do that and conveniently forget you did that?" she said.
Prosecutors gave Homolka immunity from prosecution in Jane Doe's rape on the eve of Homolka giving testimony at Bernardo's 1995 murder trial.
Jane Doe said she never signed a waiver of her rights, nor did she agree with prosecutors that Homolka should not be charged.
"I was told by police, 'Sorry, there is nothing you can do. There is a plea bargain now. The law is the law and it has been done ... this is the bargain. This is it. You have no rights. The case is closed," she recalled.
"That's why I have always been shy ... I always assumed there is nothing I could do."
Jane Doe's account contradicts elements of an Ontario government-ordered review of the infamous "deal with the devil" conducted by retired Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Patrick Galligan.
DEALS WERE REVIEWED
A condition of Homolka's 1993 plea agreement stipulated the entire plea could be quashed if her involvement in any other crimes surfaced.
Galligan was asked to review Homolka's initial deal and the second deal to grant her immunity on the Jane Doe sex assault.
Galligan concluded prosecutors had no choice but to make the initial deal with Homolka in May, 1993 and that he would have done the same thing in the same circumstances.
Galligan said the decision not to charge Homolka in Jane Doe's crimes was "not taken in a vacuum" and was part of a trial strategy that ultimately helped convict the "extremely dangerous" Bernardo. Ontario prosecutors feared Homolka would be angered by the charges on the eve of her testimony.
Galligan accepted Homolka lawyer George Walker's position that his client had a genuine loss of memory.
"There is substantial evidence in support of that factual allegation," Galligan wrote, citing psychiatric reports which indicated Homolka experienced post-traumatic stress disorder and suffered from battered wife syndrome.
The Galligan report said Jane Doe did not want Homolka charged, citing her need to get on with her shattered life.
When asked about those comments, Jane Doe said she was never interviewed or consulted for Galligan's report.
SHE DOESN'T KNOW GALLIGAN
"Galligan? I don't even know (who) that is," she said.
If Jane Doe's assertion is correct, Galligan's report could be viewed as fundamentally flawed.
Jane Doe said she has always been told by prosecutors, police and her own lawyers that the government's plea bargain with Homolka could never be undone.
"It was never an option," she said.
Jane Doe said she asked her lawyer about whether she could launch a civil action against Homolka, but her lawyer has warned her that she would be put through hell in court.
When asked if she ever considered laying a citizen's private information charge against Homolka, Jane Doe had never heard of the process.
By law, citizens can lay their own criminal charges if police opt not to. But ultimately, the charges need the approval of the attorney general.
Jane now believes her rights have been violated. "If I had my choice, she will be back in jail with Paul for the rest of her life," she said.
Harnick, because he sympathized with and/or lacked the political courage to clean-out the Marian Boyd protégés at the AG's Office who had drafted the infamous 'Deal With The Devil', made certain that Justice Galligan's terms of reference were so incredibly narrow that a full whitewash of the active betrayal of the public trust by 'the Boyd gang' and its related politically correct gender-bigotry was a virtual certainty.
While, upon the Harris government's election, many conservatives hopefully anticipated a thorough house-cleaning at what is still Ontario's most openly corrupt Ministry, the writing was on the wall when Harnick's first and virtually only major policy move was the appointment of his fellow reddest-Tory and long-time homosexual activist Keith Norton to head-up the Province's - alleged - Human Rights Commission.
Some of these Fiberals probably want her and Paul completely free; they love criminals while despise victims. That's because THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!!!
" If Jane Doe's assertion is correct, Galligan's report could be viewed as fundamentally flawed. "
Fundamentally flawed??
It would be outright lies!
I think we FReepers should start a trust fund to pay for a private prosecution. That would make the whole plea bargain issue moot because a private lawyer would not be bound by any deals made by the Crown.
Good grief! I became aware of this terrible couple during an episode of "American Justice" (I think it was the show). The show indicated that the woman was just as guilty as her killer husband.
Darling Karla - the real-world face of Canadian Values.
Lovely Karla! She helped her husband to kidnap, rape and kill two girls--and also helped him to rape her SISTER, who died after the chloroform Karla used on her caused her to choke on her own vomit.
This piece of garbage has said that she wants to move to the States, because she's just too notorious in Canada, and will have a difficult time fitting in there.
Poor girl!
Maybe a civil case, but criminal?
Yes. One little-known and rarely used aspect of criminal law in Canada is that any private citizen can prosecute a criminal case. It's considered a final resort in the event that the Crown shows no interest.
She can say it until she turns blue in the face but that doesn't change the fact that they can (and should) turn her back at the border.
How much would it cost?
I really have no idea what the dollar amount would be, but as a minimum you'd need a lawyer to present the case. Count on needing a private investigator to do some legwork gathering evidence and hope that the politicians and/or Crown don't try to silence the cops who did the original investigation.
Like the current cheif of police in Ottawa, Vince Bevan?
No one is trying to silence these people. they silence themselves.
For power.
Few people in a Pact with the Devil emerge worse than Inspector Vince Bevan, head of the Green Ribbon Task Force that investigated the deaths of abducted teens Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.
Williams states flatly that Bevan's ineptitude and hubris were the real reasons Homolka received a lenient plea-bargain deal in exchange for testifying against her husband, Paul Bernardo, and not a lack of evidence.
"The deal with Karla was precipitated by Vince Bevan so that he could participate in the arrest of Paul Bernardo and execute his own search warrant on their matrimonial home." (The Toronto Police already had DNA evidence fingering Bernardo as the "Scarborough Rapist"; Bevan, Williams argues, wanted to keep him in his own Niagara-region jurisdiction to face murder charges first.)
Williams also contends that Bevan's "unusual and arguably inappropriate relationship" with the owners of the Port Dalhousie home rented by Homolka and Bernardo led him to withhold "the internal devastation another police force ... would have invariably unleashed on the interior of the house."
And indeed, after 69 days, the search failed to discover trace vomit from French on a carpet or the videotapes Homolka and Bernardo had made of their brutal attacks and hidden in an upstairs bathroom."
This will make you ill.
Not that I am blaming the victim, but what was she doing spending the night at this couples house....twice? She was obvioulsy drinking & possibly doing drugs as she thought she had a hangover....why was she partying with an adult couple?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.