GUILTY Canada - Noelle Paquette, 27, Sarnia, Ont, 31 Dec 2012 - #4

[zoomom]

ok. - call me an old lady.

Throw rotten tomatoes at me.

This is crazy talk......

I just don't get this...

I read about the publication ban in Canada, but I'm not allowed to post what I think???? Or about what I read in the U.S. papers or media? (or anywhere?)


Not trying to step on anyone's toes - I just don't feel like it's humanly possible!

Just typing out loud here.


Let the tomato throwing commence........

 

[Ninae]

Poorly made movie, but they were very respectful of the victims. (Did not even mention the horrors...Just skipped over it all...to the news of a missing person found kind of thing.) They mostly focused on the relationship of Karla and Paul...How they interacted, what made them tick as a couple, etc...Made Karla out to be a victim also...I was hoping for extra info, things an author sourced out by talking to neighbours, etc that the media didn't.

if they did show it in canada i for one would not see it

 

[SpriteGal]

ok. - call me an old lady.

Throw rotten tomatoes at me.

This is crazy talk......

I just don't get this...

I read about the publication ban in Canada, but I'm not allowed to post what I think???? Or about what I read in the U.S. papers or media? (or anywhere?)


Not trying to step on anyone's toes - I just don't feel like it's humanly possible!

Just typing out loud here.


Let the tomato throwing commence........

I am right there with ya. Hopefully a mod can clear this up soon because I am confused.

 

[redheadedgal]

The movie confused me, since I didn't understand at first why I didn't recognize names...but when they made the movie, they changed the names of the victims.

i made that exact comment here in the most recent KH thread after i found the dvd at a rental store and watched it. i theorized it was done to protect leslie and kristen as much as they could be protected. but i also suggested it made both girls less important by not naming them. seems the argument can go both ways...

 

[Jubes]

I guess I am confused, as a site isn't this a united states based site, so what does that mean for here? I mean obviously they can't do anything to a website forum of americans? No offense to anyone, but like if an american news site wanted to publish an article about this case they could, as rights protect that. So I guess I am confused why can't people speculate any more? If it is the to respect the ban, i get that but legally us americans could speculate to the moon and back about a case without any reprecussions correct? As mentioned it just boggles my mind a bit, and am confused. I don't mean to disrespect or offend anybody I just want a clearer picture.

Obviously the ban is only in Ontario, but I would think this would be a case of there are a lot of locals on this board right now posting in these threads, if we continued to talk about the case here we could get in a load of trouble being we are covered by the ban. I think staff here has chosen to abide by the ban to ensure that any and all members of the board are protected from any future charges in relation to this publication ban. Personally I would have no problem abiding by any and all publication bans on any case in any country to ensure that a trial is not tainted and that the accused get a fair trial. We wouldn't want the accused in any case to get off on a technicality because we were sitting at our computers speculating and posting hearsay. Nor would we want innocent people sent to jail because of something we speculated about in a thread. I don't LIKE the publication ban but I certainly do not want the accused walking free because we were more worried about sitting here making conversation.

 

[Bravo]

ok. - call me an old lady.

Throw rotten tomatoes at me.

This is crazy talk......

I just don't get this...

I read about the publication ban in Canada, but I'm not allowed to post what I think???? Or about what I read in the U.S. papers or media? (or anywhere?)


Not trying to step on anyone's toes - I just don't feel like it's humanly possible!

Just typing out loud here.


Let the tomato throwing commence........

No maters here lol Welcome to Canada. Canadian Law and Cases.

 

[SpriteGal]

That part I understand that we would go by the ban to protect Canadian posters. I don't understand how speculation of people who have nothing to do with the case would taint a trial. I am used to the American Justice System and laws, and I have never seen a case where people posting hearsay or speculating (that have nothing to do with the case, or are even a local) tainting a case. I understand more now that that you reminded me that there are many Canadian posters, but let's take that out of the equation how would Americans that have nothing to do with the Canadian justice system or anything to do with the case taint it by talking about it? Would a case really be thrown out because a person in Ohio, or Florida is speculating on case they have no knowledge of?? Once again my knowledge is only in the way the American justice system works so my questions are not accusatory I am just confused on the justice system up there IMO.

 

[Bravo]

On page 1 of this thread it is explained as to what can and cannot be discussed. The news can be your lead. If they are talking about something or printing it. It wont be under the ban.

 

[zoomom]

sorry to repeat myself, but, this is crazy. I am not a Canadian citizen.

It kinda reminds me of the crazy stuff going on in Belize (I have family members there going through a lawsuit against the government. They won the judgement, but now it's time to try and collect). They have really different laws there.

But I live in the U.S.A. - Am I supposed to be bound and gagged???? On my social websites?

 

[zoomom]

That part I understand that we would go by the ban to protect Canadian posters. I don't understand how speculation of people who have nothing to do with the case would taint a trial. I am used to the American Justice System and laws, and I have never seen a case where people posting hearsay or speculating (that have nothing to do with the case, or are even a local) tainting a case. I understand more now that that you reminded me that there are many Canadian posters, but let's take that out of the equation how would Americans that have nothing to do with the Canadian justice system or anything to do with the case taint it by talking about it? Would a case really be thrown out because a person in Ohio, or Florida is speculating on case they have no knowledge of?? Once again my knowledge is only in the way the American justice system works so my questions are not accusatory I am just confused on the justice system up there IMO.

Or Fresno?

 

[Ninae]

WOW! Thanks! I missed that one! And again...going back to the psychology end of this....I followed it all through Karla's 12 years in prison, and her parent's standing by her side....Another piece of the puzzle that amazed me, since I have 3 children and wondered how I would have dealt with it, knowing one killed the other...

the timeline i posted above referred to this banned article by anne swardson -that somehow i managed to find a copy of- which discusses the 1993 ban too:


http://khiss1.tripod.com/Banned_Washington_Post.html

 

[JustinH]

Bit confused myself. Hopefully a mod will come on and clear things up for us.

I would think a publication ban (as a thread at the start outlines) would only negate talking about direct evidence, the actual method of murder, etc. Does it really cover a person conversing with another saying, for example...."I think x got in the car that night with y, and I think they headed down z road."

If that is the case, does that mean that every resident of Sarnia at the local Tim Horton's is breaking the law when they share a coffee this week and gossip about what they believe happened?

Just curious..

 

[redheadedgal]

WOW! Thanks! I missed that one! And again...going back to the psychology end of this....I followed it all through Karla's 12 years in prison, and her parent's standing by her side....Another piece of the puzzle that amazed me, since I have 3 children and wondered how I would have dealt with it, knowing one killed the other...

yw

if you get bored, here's the most recent KH thread... feel free to add your thoughts... i'll be reading

Karla Homolka married with child - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[zoomom]

Bit confused myself. Hopefully a mod will come on and clear things up for us.

I would think a publication ban (as a thread at the start outlines) would only negate talking about direct evidence, the actual method of murder, etc. Does it really cover a person conversing with another saying, for example...."I think x got in the car that night with y, and I think they headed down z road."

If that is the case, does that mean that every resident of Sarnia at the local Tim Horton's is breaking the law when they share a coffee this week and gossip about what they believe happened?

Just curious..

Exactly! I'm a nobody - who cares what I think or say? (Becept my friendies at WS?)

I certainly have no intention of contacting Canada with my schmeezly 2 cent opinion. Like it would matter. I have no inside information!

 

[Ninae]

I think there was a lifetime ban on a movie with their names being mentioned for monetary gain if I remember. One of the girl's parents had a lawsuit against Bernardo so he couldn't profit, and I think it went Canada wide for any one who wanted to make a movie...Wish I can remember the details, but I think no movie meant no names, also...I don't think it made the girls less important...If it was my daughter, I wouldn't want her name in it either...anyone who knew the story knew who they were...The movie actually showed how depraved Karla and Paul were...I just never learned why...

i made that exact comment here in the most recent KH thread after i found the dvd at a rental store and watched it. i theorized it was done to protect leslie and kristen as much as they could be protected. but i also suggested it made both girls less important by not naming them. seems the argument can go both ways...

 

[Ninae]

Thank you! My thoughts exactly! I think the ban is for the media, who have clout...You hear it on the 6:00 news, it is gospel...

Bit confused myself. Hopefully a mod will come on and clear things up for us.

I would think a publication ban (as a thread at the start outlines) would only negate talking about direct evidence, the actual method of murder, etc. Does it really cover a person conversing with another saying, for example...."I think x got in the car that night with y, and I think they headed down z road."

If that is the case, does that mean that every resident of Sarnia at the local Tim Horton's is breaking the law when they share a coffee this week and gossip about what they believe happened?

Just curious..

 

[519er Sarnia]

So if I post anything regarding the case from my cottage in Michigan that isn't against the publication ban? Not saying that's what I want to do. Just seeing if it's within my legal right.

On a side note...I haven't seen the city of Sarnia like this since the JN murder from a decade ago

 

[zoomom]

Bit confused myself. Hopefully a mod will come on and clear things up for us.

I would think a publication ban (as a thread at the start outlines) would only negate talking about direct evidence, the actual method of murder, etc. Does it really cover a person conversing with another saying, for example...."I think x got in the car that night with y, and I think they headed down z road."

If that is the case, does that mean that every resident of Sarnia at the local Tim Horton's is breaking the law when they share a coffee this week and gossip about what they believe happened?

Just curious..

seriously, JustinH,

Does this mean the thought-police are in force? Not being sarcastic. If the ban is that hard core- I might as well walk away right now. Poor Noelle. I would hate that a torch was not being held up for the justice of my demise..........

 

[Ninae]

What is the name of that board game, when you are the candlestick? It is sleuthing the same way....Agatha Christie's weekly...again...trying to figure it all out...I discuss this case with my husband, kids, parents, neighbours...I don't think I am under ban, because I am not saying I KNOW for a fact and am sending my news to the papers as such for them to print, while under ban....I am curious, I am wondering, I am impatient, and I want to know the dynamics of the minds of these 2...How did they come to this? People are still commenting on the news and radio station sites here....why can't we? Especially if those close get *verified*?

ok. - call me an old lady.

Throw rotten tomatoes at me.

This is crazy talk......

I just don't get this...

I read about the publication ban in Canada, but I'm not allowed to post what I think???? Or about what I read in the U.S. papers or media? (or anywhere?)


Not trying to step on anyone's toes - I just don't feel like it's humanly possible!

Just typing out loud here.


Let the tomato throwing commence........

 

[ethelemu]

C'mon people, irrespective of a publication ban applying only to one province or one country, the admins/mods have already said in the first post what they do and don't want discussed in this thread. Whether it flies in the face of your first amendment or not, the admins and mods run the place and their rules for continued discussion, have already been spoken of.