GordianKnot
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
- Messages
- 5,780
- Reaction score
- 119,769
The problem is they have to know 100 percent for sure exactly what her role is before they offer immunity. There was a case in Ontario, Canada approx 15 yrs ago. Paul Bernardo and his wife Karla Holmolka. Google it. Two teens went missing separately. They kept them alive for awhile and then killed them. Karla got a reduced sentenced for turning on Paul. Said she was abused and battered and had to help him. Then they found videos showing how involved and how much she enjoyed it, and found out her role in killing her own sister. Some say she may have been the one that drove the killings because prior to meeting and marrying her he was a rapist but not a killer. The Canadian public was furious that they bungled her deal. She got out, her lawyers brother married her, moved out of the country for awhile, had kids. It makes me want to retch...
I remember that case, j-mac...it makes me feel sick to my stomach, too.
Talk about making a deal with the devil.
There was no way to unring that bell once the bargain was struck .
I agree with you 100% that they really must FULLY investigate this creature's involvement before offering any kind of deal for her testimony.
I'll also add that if the DA is certain they can make a compelling case without her cooperation, they need to go ahead and charge her to the fullest degree possible. Gift her with a shiny new pair of wraparound bracelets.
Steel is going to be in this year, I hear.