GUILTY Canada - Marie-France Comeau, 37, & Jessica Lloyd, 27, slain, Ont, 2009 & 2010 - #6

[JayFriend]

Well, if MEH becomes concerned about struggling to support herself and her cat, a sure fire way she can make lots of dough- would be to write a memoir.Later on,when a film is made- she can pickup more bucks for tender vittles, by selling/renting the Tweed home to the movie-makers.

Like "My Ex the Pervert Serial Killer"? I hope that was tongue-in-cheek, but it's still a bit sick. Why are so many people slagging his wife? Is there something I should know?

Besides, I thought there was talk of demolishing the cottage and turning it into a common area open to the lake.

 

[Patience]

I am convinced that Williams was practicing, while building his courage, to choose a younger victim, a child. He went from a couple of women in the neighbourhood; women that were not initially taken seriously, to a soldier he had stalked, to the civilian employee that got away (music teacher), to a person he saw in the yard whlie driving down the highway (JL). Each victim would offerr less resistance.

In fact, when we think about how Williams mispelled words at crime scenes, it's likely that he expected his computer messages to be broadcast in the news - but they weren't That probably did give him a sense of false security about being caught ... while at the same time he wouldn't have left the messages if he didn't expect them to be significant. Perhaps the suppression of this evidence resulted in the carelessness that led to his confession.

Russell Williams mispelled words at crime scenes? Thanks for that bit of info as I had not read about that. I wonder if you might have a link so I could explore that further? Thank you so much.

 

[dotr]

No slagging intended, sorry- just looking at ways to raise revenue that could be helpful to all affected parties if the well runs dry.
Tongue-in-cheek, reserved for cat.

 

[JayFriend]

Russell Williams mispelled words at crime scenes? Thanks for that bit of info as I had not read about that. I wonder if you might have a link so I could explore that further? Thank you so much.

There are several references in Appleby's book, written notes and messages left on victims' computer screens. Common errors like those made by uneducated people, like inappropriate use of apostrophes, "there" in place of "their", etc. Maybe he was trying to pose as someone less educated than he was, but it would only be apparent to others with a good knowledge of English.

 

[otto]

Russell Williams mispelled words at crime scenes? Thanks for that bit of info as I had not read about that. I wonder if you might have a link so I could explore that further? Thank you so much.

I read it in the Appleby book. He switched your and you're, their and there ... made other common errors (those made by people without formal education) in an attempt to portray himself as youthful or young and uneducated.

 

[otto]

There are several references in Appleby's book, written notes and messages left on victims' computer screens. Common errors like those made by uneducated people, like inappropriate use of apostrophes, "there" in place of "their", etc. Maybe he was trying to pose as someone less educated than he was, but it would only be apparent to others with a good knowledge of English.

Thanks ... that's exactly where I found the info. I think the misspelled notes were also included in some of the programs about the case.

 

[antiquegirl]

Tim Appleby's book is currently the 2nd best-selling work of nonfiction in Canada ... up from #5 last week. I pre-ordered it months ago, got it a couple of weeks ago, but haven't started it yet. Looking forward to reading it.

 

[JayFriend]

What a recent publication ban reveals about Russell Williams’s wife

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/25/a-matter-of-public-record/

The ruling also confirms, for the first time, that the confessed killer agreed to transfer his $60,000 military pension to his spouse as part of a “domestic contract” signed six weeks after his arrest. (That same deal gave her full ownership of their $700,000 townhouse and other “additional assets,” but until now, it wasn’t certain that his pension was part of the contract.)

 

[Macright]

What a recent publication ban reveals about Russell Williams’s wife

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/25/a-matter-of-public-record/

wow......and the victims of her husband?.....I doubt whether they are sleeping much. Such a "me" person. Most people with that many problems would not be able to hold down a full time position.

 

[Wondergirl]

There are some who will fight for what's right:

Petition prompted by Russell Williams

PENSION: Student says murdered shouldn’t get funds

By Jason Miller



A Belleville high school student is lobbying for convicted killers like Russell Williams to forfeit their right to lucrative pensions.

Cody Vader was prompted to start a petition after listening to widespread reports about how the disgraced former colonel would be the recipient of a $65,000 yearly military pension, while spending the rest of his life behind bars.

That bombshell news didn't sit well with the 18-year-old whose family knew both female victims who were viciously murdered by the sexual predator during his crime spree.

"That's more than an average family make in a year and he's making that in prison," he said. "Most people want that to change but not a lot of people will actually start something and I wanted to change that."

He also launched a petition online through gopetition.com to generate some additional buzz.

http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3092726

 

[otto]

There are some who will fight for what's right:

Convicted killers receive various sentences ranging from 10 years for second degree to 25 years for first degree. Some convicted killers are found guilty of manslaughter and serve only a few years. As it stands today, those convicted murders are sent to prison to serve their time with the hope that when they are released they will be able to live normal lives. Is it wise to impoverish those who have served their time? Some may only receive a small monthly income through pension. Shouldn't that be available for them so there is some hope that they are able to rebuild a life? Convicted murderers that were not yet eligible for a pension will have no reason to save and plan for the future, thus drastically reducing the probability of assimilating back into society. Is that really what we want? To return convicts to the streets with no hope? It seems to me that will significantly increase the likelihood of additional offences.

The case of Russell Williams is unique in many ways, one of which is that he was able to become extremely successful prior to the murders. He has a generous pension. The victims should seek relief through the courts, not attempt to rewrite Canadian law.

For example, suppose a University student becomes a convicted killer after drunk driving. He spends 2 years in jail, and he is told that he will "forfeit [his] right to any pension, or other form of income once being convicted". What's he going to do?

 

[otto]

wow......and the victims of her husband?.....I doubt whether they are sleeping much. Such a "me" person. Most people with that many problems would not be able to hold down a full time position.

She is not responsible for her husband's crimes. For some people with personal problems, the normal response is bury themselves in their work. She seems to be one of those people. Should we hold that against her?

 

[otto]

What a recent publication ban reveals about Russell Williams’s wife

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/25/a-matter-of-public-record/

"The ruling also confirms, for the first time, that the confessed killer agreed to transfer his $60,000 military pension to his spouse as part of a “domestic contract” signed six weeks after his arrest. (That same deal gave her full ownership of their $700,000 townhouse and other “additional assets,” but until now, it wasn’t certain that his pension was part of the contract.)"

That is a bit more of a problem. I understood that she transferred the cottage plus $62k to Williams, and he transferred the townhouse to her; whereby she assumed the mortgage. I had the impression that this was an equitable separation of assets. If the pension transfer was done under the advice of a lawyer, one has to wonder what the lawyer was thinking. If MEH brought the papers to Williams and he signed them, then she filed them, then I can understand the perception that she is selfish with his assets. I wonder if they thought that the pension would float under the radar and no one would be the wiser.

I do think that she's entitled to 50% of the pension, and 50% of the matrimonial assets. I think that she should probably transfer the pension back such that she receives $30k, and the remaining $30k is put in Russell's account and available for victims. Would $30k annual pension and the value of the cottage be enough, or is it believed that MEH should lose everything because of her husband's crimes?

 

[latte]

She is not responsible for her husband's crimes. For some people with personal problems, the normal response is bury themselves in their work. She seems to be one of those people. Should we hold that against her?

We have no right to hold anything against her. She's a "private" person so seems to think we should also know or say nothing about her. In her mind - because that's not realistic. Many people are thrust into the limelight against their wishes for whatever reason/s.

This lady chose to use her marriage to full effect by the transferring of assets in a hasty and probably timely fashion. She also chose to take/accept RW's pension.

Of course she wanted complete, absolute secrecy. Good grief the woman is not stupid. I'd want it too.

Her biggest problem/worry/concern would or could of course be public persecution. Wondering how she didn't know about her husband, why she wanted money for her floors (yes things don't go away), why the transferring of assets so quickly etc.

Each thinks differently. My view is her privacy is precious to her and so was the victims, who clearly don't come high on her priorities. There is a thing called "Goodwill", businesses base their business worth on it and people base their good intentions on it. Hers is missing imo.

I don't think for a minute she should lose everything for her husband's crimes. She's not a poor woman in her own right. She will also receive her own pension - so she would not lose everything for her husbands crimes in any case.

The lady is innocent of her husbands crimes. I doubt that's questioned by most reasonable people. The rest is open to speculation. Her absolute persistance for 'complete legal' privacy is now clear.

Personally, unless she planned to take off and live incognito in another country (which is not unlikely to me) - she made a mistake with his pension. The icing on the cake so to speak.

And yes, I'm guessing they expected that pension would fly under the radar.

 

[otto]

We have no right to hold anything against her. She's a "private" person so seems to think we should also know or say nothing about her. In her mind - because that's not realistic. Many people are thrust into the limelight against their wishes for whatever reason/s.

This lady chose to use her marriage to full effect by the transferring of assets in a hasty and probably timely fashion. She also chose to take/accept RW's pension.

Of course she wanted complete, absolute secrecy. Good grief the woman is not stupid. I'd want it too.

Her biggest problem/worry/concern would or could of course be public persecution. Wondering how she didn't know about her husband, why she wanted money for her floors (yes things don't go away), why the transferring of assets so quickly etc.

Each thinks differently. My view is her privacy is precious to her and so was the victims, who clearly don't come high on her priorities. There is a thing called "Goodwill", businesses base their business worth on it and people base their good intentions on it. Hers is missing imo.

I don't think for a minute she should lose everything for her husband's crimes. She's not a poor woman in her own right. She will also receive her own pension - so she would not lose everything for her husbands crimes in any case.

The lady is innocent of her husbands crimes. I doubt that's questioned by most reasonable people. The rest is open to speculation. Her absolute persistance for 'complete legal' privacy is now clear.

Personally, unless she planned to take off and live incognito in another country (which is not unlikely to me) - she made a mistake with his pension. The icing on the cake so to speak.

And yes, I'm guessing they expected that pension would fly under the radar.

Good. We have no right to hold anything agaisnt the wife of a man that turned out to be a monter.

What exactly do people want from her? The 50% interest in the pension? Her townhouse? His assets, her assets? If the pension was returned to him, would it be more equtable? Should she be penalized for trying to pull a fast one with the pension transfer papers?

 

[latte]

Good. We have no right to hold anything agaisnt the wife of a man that turned out to be a monter.

What exactly do people want from her? The 50% interest in the pension? Her townhouse? His assets, her assets? If the pension was returned to him, would it be more equtable? Should she be penalized for trying to pull a fast one with the pension transfer papers?

I don't know what they want from her, apart from many I'm guessing want her accountable if she's done anything financially underhanded. Far as I'm aware, Massicotte wants her to stand up and be counted, she wants to hear from her in some way. She's been unable to work and is angry. Jane Doe wants money and wants to be sure nothing was underhand in the property dealings.

For what it's worth, I think yes, she should be penalised if she was trying to pull a fast one. Just like everyone else would be. But you know, the pension would have been disclosed in a show & tell even if it had been kept 'secret' from the public. All assets as well of course.

 

[Crosby87]

I know a woman who was raped by a registered sex offender who lived next door to her. He knocked on her door one Sunday evening and because she recognized him and didn’t know he had a criminal record, she allowed him into her home when he asked to use her phone. He quickly pulled out a knife he was carrying, held it to her throat, led her into her bedroom and raped her. When this woman attempted to escape through the back door the large male grabbed her, held her down on the floor and beat her repeatedly in the face and she was unrecognizable for several months. She was naked when she found a way to escape and fortunately for her, the police happened to be driving down the street and they stopped and picked her up. They gave her a blanket to wrap herself in and drove her to the Health Sciences Centre where she underwent a physical examination. After she told the police what happened, they went to the man’s house where he lived with a woman and his infant son, and found him hiding in the basement. They arrested him and took him into custody. In the morning the victim was discharged from the hospital and no one bothered to contact a social worker to accompany her home. She has no family and she had no choice but to return to the place where the crime occurred. This crime victim worked as a secretary and earned a low income. She was unable to work for nearly 6 months and the landlord evicted her when he learned what happened. It took months before she could leave her house.

The Criminal Compensation Board of Manitoba does not financially compensate victims for psychological damage like they do in Ontario and her attacker was poor. Two days after the attack, a representative from the Victims Rights Organization showed up at her door and gave her a cheque for $50 dollars to replace the clothes that were torn off of her and he never bothered to contact her again. She didn’t receive any medical attention during her recovery or home support services. Recently this woman's apartment was broken into while she was at work because the caretaker didn't repair the lock on the front door and when she filed a grievance against the management company, her case was dismissed by the Residential Tenancies Branch Office. They said she should have had insurance to cover her losses. She is afraid to leave her apartment and is in conflict with the caretakers due to their negligence. This woman has not been able to “get on with her life” and she is reliving the emotional aspect of her past assault. I don’t think she will ever heal from this experience and she doesn't stand a chance of recovery. She hast never married or had children. The man was convicted for rape and sentenced to serve 10 years in prison.

If this brutal sexual assault had occurred in the Province of Ontario, this woman would have been eligible to receive financial compensation from the government for the psychological damage that was inflicted upon her so where the crime occurs in Canada makes a difference. IMO all provinces should compensate victims of sexual assaults for psychological damage but unfortunately they do not.

 

[Wondergirl]

Convicted killers receive various sentences ranging from 10 years for second degree to 25 years for first degree. Some convicted killers are found guilty of manslaughter and serve only a few years. As it stands today, those convicted murders are sent to prison to serve their time with the hope that when they are released they will be able to live normal lives. Is it wise to impoverish those who have served their time? Some may only receive a small monthly income through pension. Shouldn't that be available for them so there is some hope that they are able to rebuild a life? Convicted murderers that were not yet eligible for a pension will have no reason to save and plan for the future, thus drastically reducing the probability of assimilating back into society. Is that really what we want? To return convicts to the streets with no hope? It seems to me that will significantly increase the likelihood of additional offences.

The case of Russell Williams is unique in many ways, one of which is that he was able to become extremely successful prior to the murders. He has a generous pension. The victims should seek relief through the courts, not attempt to rewrite Canadian law.

For example, suppose a University student becomes a convicted killer after drunk driving. He spends 2 years in jail, and he is told that he will "forfeit [his] right to any pension, or other form of income once being convicted". What's he going to do?

RW signed over his pension to his wife, as indicated recently in court documents, so it's a bit of a moot point, really.

Convicted multiple murderers such as Clifford Olsen and Russell Williams should have their pensions stripped away, under new legislation, IMO.

 

[Wondergirl]

That is a bit more of a problem. I understood that she transferred the cottage plus $62k to Williams, and he transferred the townhouse to her; whereby she assumed the mortgage. I had the impression that this was an equitable separation of assets. If the pension transfer was done under the advice of a lawyer, one has to wonder what the lawyer was thinking. If MEH brought the papers to Williams and he signed them, then she filed them, then I can understand the perception that she is selfish with his assets. I wonder if they thought that the pension would float under the radar and no one would be the wiser.

I do think that she's entitled to 50% of the pension, and 50% of the matrimonial assets. I think that she should probably transfer the pension back such that she receives $30k, and the remaining $30k is put in Russell's account and available for victims. Would $30k annual pension and the value of the cottage be enough, or is it believed that MEH should lose everything because of her husband's crimes?

BBM: THAT is the issue, I believe.

If MEH willingly and knowingly signed legal documents entitling and transferring RW's entire pension to her, then there is a question of intentions, isn't there?

 

[Wondergirl]

We have no right to hold anything against her. She's a "private" person so seems to think we should also know or say nothing about her. In her mind - because that's not realistic. Many people are thrust into the limelight against their wishes for whatever reason/s.

This lady chose to use her marriage to full effect by the transferring of assets in a hasty and probably timely fashion. She also chose to take/accept RW's pension.

Of course she wanted complete, absolute secrecy. Good grief the woman is not stupid. I'd want it too.

Her biggest problem/worry/concern would or could of course be public persecution. Wondering how she didn't know about her husband, why she wanted money for her floors (yes things don't go away), why the transferring of assets so quickly etc.

Each thinks differently. My view is her privacy is precious to her and so was the victims, who clearly don't come high on her priorities. There is a thing called "Goodwill", businesses base their business worth on it and people base their good intentions on it. Hers is missing imo.

I don't think for a minute she should lose everything for her husband's crimes. She's not a poor woman in her own right. She will also receive her own pension - so she would not lose everything for her husbands crimes in any case.

The lady is innocent of her husbands crimes. I doubt that's questioned by most reasonable people. The rest is open to speculation. Her absolute persistance for 'complete legal' privacy is now clear.

Personally, unless she planned to take off and live incognito in another country (which is not unlikely to me) - she made a mistake with his pension. The icing on the cake so to speak.

And yes, I'm guessing they expected that pension would fly under the radar.

Great post, Latte, very well said.

Thank-you.