"people from the area" are not "very sensitive to the case". people from any area who followed this case as it was happening are very aware of the facts and the horrifying outcome. if you're interested in facts, you're best to look somewhere other than a message board on IMdB. all of the reports from the investigation are available online. i'll even provide you a few reputable webpages to get you started:
http://www.opconline.ca/depts/omcm/Campbell/Bernardo_Investigation_Review%20PDF.pdf
http://www.criminal-lawyers.ca/criminal-defence-news/the-ken-murray-case-defence-counsel-s-dilemma
the second site in particular includes the following evidence which answers your question about why it is hard to believe big bad Paul forced poor little Karla to participate in his crimes.
In the Murray case[4] it was proved that on May 6, 1993, after he was retained by defend Bernardo for domestic assault and a number of rapes in Scarborough, and while a police investigation was ongoing for two murders, on Bernardo’s written instructions, Mr. Murray retrieved six videotapes from the bathroom ceiling on the second floor of the house that Bernardo occupied with his wife, Karla Homolka. He was with his junior and a law clerk, and they made a pact not to reveal to anyone what they had found. Murray said he felt he had found a “bonanza” for the defence. The tapes were locked in a safe in his office. Twelve days later, on Bernardo’s written instructions, Mr. Murray viewed the tapes and made a copy that he kept in a secure place. Two of the tapes (the “critical tapes”) were horrific depictions of gross sexual assaults on Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, two young women who had disappeared from their family homes and whose bodies had been found in circumstances that suggested homicide. The tapes demonstrated that Bernardo was the prime culprit in the assaults while Karla assisted in them and in their videotaping. The tapes were circumstantial evidence that Bernardo killed the two girls and hard evidence that he sexually assaulted two others, Tammy Homolka and Jane Doe.
Also portrayed on the two critical tapes was Karla administering a noxious inhalant to her sister Tammy Homolka and to a woman identified as Jane Doe. While Tammy and Jane were unconscious, Bernardo could be seen sexually assaulting them. The inhalant ultimately led to Tammy’s death. On the tapes Karla could be seen subsequently luxuriating in the death of her sister while she and Bernardo made love in her sister’s bed.
Four of the tapes (the “non-critical tapes”) showed Karla performing sexually provocative acts, once with a prostitute, and once while play-acting for the camera, during which she made sexually explicit comments. It was later submitted that the critical tapes demonstrated that Karla was guilty of the murder of her sister and all the tapes put the lie to Karla’s statements to the authorities that she was an abused wife who was under the control of her husband.
In May 1993, Karla Homolka negotiated with the prosecuting authorities and ultimately a deal was struck whereby she would plead guilty to manslaughter in respect to the deaths of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. The facts regarding the death of her sister Tammy would be read in during her sentencing hearing, and the crown and defence would jointly submit that imprisonment for 12 years would be an appropriate sentence for her. She agreed to be interviewed by the police and to give evidence for the prosecution at Bernardo’s trial for murder. Ultimately, the deal was implemented, and Karla was sentenced to 12 years.
i bolded the part about people far more knowledgeable about the case, and about criminals of her caliber in general, than you or i could ever be determining that Karla was lying about being under the control of her husband. that's why it's hard for us, the laypeople, to believe her - THE EXPERTS DIDN'T EVEN BELIEVE HER. the video evidence backs them up. she told her "i'm a victim" story before those tapes came to light, but the video evidence put proof to the lie. and it's still a hot topic because this woman is currently living her life free, with three children and a husband, instead of locked up where she belongs, because Bernardo's lawyer sat on those tapes so the police needed Homolka's testimony.
look, i'm all for keeping an open mind. i'm all for examining the evidence myself before drawing a conclusion. what i'm not all for is coming onto a board where people are discussing a still-heated situation about a monster who did monstrous things and then was turned loose, and implying that the people who know more than you admittedly do aren't keeping an open mind. your implication is offensive. the fact that you come on here and say you're looking for facts when you are on the internet and have, at your fingertips, EVERY piece of information you need to know about this case is astounding in its ignorance.
reply
share
LovesConfusingJoy
10 years ago
Wow, I think you just take anything you read in however way you like. I was saying people from the area are very sensitive to the case because it seems to me that a lot of people from the area comment on the case and to be honest vilify her- I'm not saying she should be or not but they do. And also anytime horrific crimes happen of course it hits the people from the area the hardest because it is horrifying to think it happened so close to you and it might have been you.
By the way, I came here a WHILE ago and commented a while ago after I saw the movie. You are very easily offended and it's so annoying to read comments like that.
Perhaps our greatest cruelty is our blindness to the despair of others.
reply
share
Erin-Leigh-14
10 years ago
i was only recently able to comment on your very old post because, unlike you, i just watched the movie a few nights ago and came here to comment. i wasn't aware there was a statute of limitations for commenting on a post. i'll keep that in mind next time i come across a post of yours. since this one is recent, however, i feel safe in replying. i'll point out 'people from the area' can only vilify her because she commited heinous atrocities. if you don't want people to speak badly of you, don't give them anything bad to say. and i'll condense both responses into one: again, Paul abused Karla because he was an abusive person - not because she was or wasn't following along with what he was doing. there are, however, as pointed out in the webpages i listed for you, doubts about exactly how much she was actually abused, and a consensus among the experts that even the abuse she suffered did not contribute to her participation in the crimes.
your signature is rather interesting. can you imagine how Kristen French's mother or Leslie Mahaffy's mother would feel if they stumbled on your post talking about how people are 'vilifying' poor Karla Homolka and implying nobody is keeping an open mind? can you imagine the despair they would feel seeing that this movie has inspired people who aren't familiar with the case to think that Karla may have been a victim and urge others to keep an open mind?
yes, i am easily offended when i think about what these families have gone through and what Karla was able to get away with. i'm not ashamed of that, and i don't think anyone ought to be ridiculed for it.
reply
share