Karla Homolka is a mother...


#juan
#1
Quote: Karla Homolka is nursing a newborn baby, Sun Media has confirmed.

Using the name Leanne Teale, Homolka gave birth to a seven-pound baby boy Saturday at St. Mary's Hospital in Montreal.

Homolka and the baby's father took the newborn child to their bungalow on the Montreal South Shore Monday.

The couple plan to jet off to the Caribbean, where they will get married in the Antilles islands, sources told Journal de Montreal, but first they have to secure a passport for the baby.

It is not known if the couple is going to the West Indies only for marriage, or whether they plan to leave Canada forever.

According to an anonymous letter sent to the Journal, Homolka was first admitted to St. Mary's Hospital with contractions last Tuesday.

The contractions proved to be false labour and Homolka was released after a few hours.

She returned again Friday morning and gave birth the next day.

"The baby had the umbilical cord rolled up around the neck, which complicated things a little," a source said.

St. Mary's Hospital officials said yesterday they will probe claims that hospital staff recognized Homolka and initially refused to give her treatment.

The confirmation of Homolka's baby comes despite denials by Homolka's sister and her lawyer, Sylvie Bordelais. Sources told the Journal Homolka was introduced to the baby's father by Bordelais.

"I do not know anything," Bordelais said, other than what she read in yesterday's Toronto Sun.

As reported by Sun Media yesterday, rumours surrounding Homolka's motherhood have run rampant since the weekend.

Homolka, 36, spent 12 years in prison for her part in her ex-husband Paul Bernardo's sex murders of teens Leslie Mahaffy, 14, and Kristen French, 15, and the fatal drug rape of her own sister, Tammy, 15.

Homolka pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter and accepted the prison term in exchange for her testimony against Bernardo at his first-degree murder trial.

Comments?
 
#juan
#2
I wonder if the baby will have a chance for a decent life with the press following the mothers every step and every move. The father is apparently unknown to the press at this juncture.
 
karrie
#3
If there is a court order barring you from being around children, doesn't it count for your own as well? I think if Homolka has really had a baby, she'd be best off to adopt the poor thing out. Sever all ties and don't sully that poor child's name with an association to her.
 
MikeyDB
#4
Karla should be spending time behind bars for what she did. It's an incredible stupidity that some John with a wank has the nerve to breed this wench...knowing she's not above anything when it comes to her own family or anyone else she thinks will make a good study in horror...

Once again Canada ruled not by the principles of justice but by slimy lawyers and a bought and paid for judiciary...same old same old...
 
darkbeaver
#5
I was wondering the same thing Micky, that DNA maybe ain't going todo the pool any good.
 
#juan
#6
I've had mixed feelings about Homolka. At least half the stories I've read suggested that Bernardo was in complete control and Homolka was almost a puppet. In any case, she has served the time that was given her and that is all the law demands of her. As far as I'm concerned, the Air India defendants got away with murder, and so did quite a few others. Should we arrest her, take her baby away, and lock her up again?
 
MikeyDB
#7
No Juan we shouldn't do those things...

What we should do is see the Niagara Region police responsible for their having to cut a deal with Homolka charged and put in prison...aiding and abetting a criminal....gross dereliction of duty and criminal negligence in a case so poorly handled it will undoubtedly be included in the up and coming "How NOT to discharge your duties as a police officer"....

Canadians don't care....why do I bother...?
 
CDNBear
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I've had mixed feelings about Homolka. At least half the stories I've read suggested that Bernardo was in complete control and Homolka was almost a puppet. In any case, she has served the time that was given her and that is all the law demands of her. As far as I'm concerned, the Air India defendants got away with murder, and so did quite a few others. Should we arrest her, take her baby away, and lock her up again?

I agree juan.

As an ex-con, I paid the price for my stupidity and I have chosen to change my ways. She has paid a rather slim price for her part in the crime, but paid it in full she has. She should be afforded that respect. If in the future she tresspasses again, then can we stone her though???!!!
 
tracy
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I agree juan.

As an ex-con, I paid the price for my stupidity and I have chosen to change my ways. She has paid a rather slim price for her part in the crime, but paid it in full she has. She should be afforded that respect. If in the future she tresspasses again, then can we stone her though???!!!

I don't have a problem with ex-cons moving on with their lives. I do have concerns with a woman convicted of helping to rape her underage female relative creating another potential victim. She's a sexual predator. That's not like someone who went to jail for robbing a store or doing drugs. The notion that she was under her husbands control is just insulting to women in general IMO. She did what she did and should be monitored like any sexual predator would be.
 
L Gilbert
#10
"Karla Homolka is a mother... "

Scary.
 
TenPenny
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

If there is a court order barring you from being around children, doesn't it count for your own as well? I think if Homolka has really had a baby, she'd be best off to adopt the poor thing out. Sever all ties and don't sully that poor child's name with an association to her.

I think she plans to rent/sell the baby to Michael Jackson.
 
L Gilbert
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I think she plans to rent/sell the baby to Michael Jackson.

In whole or in parts?
 
karrie
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I've had mixed feelings about Homolka. At least half the stories I've read suggested that Bernardo was in complete control and Homolka was almost a puppet. In any case, she has served the time that was given her and that is all the law demands of her. As far as I'm concerned, the Air India defendants got away with murder, and so did quite a few others. Should we arrest her, take her baby away, and lock her up again?

Wasn't part of her sentence though, to not be around children? It wasn't just a condition of release from the way I understood it in the paper, but, a lifelong sentence in and of itself. So, should she be allowed to have a child of her own in light of that? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding NO.
 
mapleleafgirl
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Wasn't part of her sentence though, to not be around children? It wasn't just a condition of release from the way I understood it in the paper, but, a lifelong sentence in and of itself. So, should she be allowed to have a child of her own in light of that? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding NO.

that sounds kinda mean. but i dont know, im sorta confused about the issue cos i do see what youre saying but if its her own kid, maybe itll be okay?
 
karrie
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by mapleleafgirlView Post

that sounds kinda mean. but i dont know, im sorta confused about the issue cos i do see what youre saying but if its her own kid, maybe itll be okay?

Well, considering that she was in prison for the sexual assault and murder of her own little sister, that 'maybe it'll be okay', doesn't seem like an okay risk, even if it seems mean to take her child away. I know you probably didn't hear all the details of the case when it was happening (at least, I hope you didn't), but what they did was truly horrific, and once she took the plea deal and started talking about what her role in it had been, people were horrified to realize the relatively light sentence she would get for it.
 
mapleleafgirl
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Well, considering that she was in prison for the sexual assault and murder of her own little sister, that 'maybe it'll be okay', doesn't seem like an okay risk, even if it seems mean to take her child away. I know you probably didn't hear all the details of the case when it was happening (at least, I hope you didn't), but what they did was truly horrific, and once she took the plea deal and started talking about what her role in it had been, people were horrified to realize the relatively light sentence she would get for it.


ohmigod! i did not know that! her own sister! are you serious? how could her family even talk to her after that!
 
RomSpaceKnight
#17
From a pig male point of view I could see throwing one in to her to see waht the big deal is but to father a baby on her that guy is probably twisted too. News reports have her with a childlike personality. Sounds like she found the "daddy" she wanted and he has a hold on her through a child. My prayers and best thoughts go out to the child.
 
mt_pockets1000
#18
Read the book "Lethal Marriage" and draw your own conclusions. I'm sure there are many more on the subject, but this book will put it all into context.
 
Ariadne
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by mapleleafgirlView Post

that sounds kinda mean. but i dont know, im sorta confused about the issue cos i do see what youre saying but if its her own kid, maybe itll be okay?

Karla Homolka or Leanne Teale and Paul Bernardo were a team. Together they planned to kidnap teenage girls, they both raped them, drugged them, kept them for days, videotaped what they did and then murdered them. On one occassion, they murdered the girl because they were going to have a dinner party with her parents and were a little concerned their kidnap victim would be in the way. Karla was alone with the kidnap victims and did not let them go. Karla was equally guilty to Paul but because she came forward, pleaded battered wife syndrome and gave the police the information they needed to convict Paul, she was let off with a light sentence. Part of the deal was that she would tell the truth but in fact she was caught in a lie. Again she used the battered wife syndrome claiming she was traumatized and forgot about one of the rape victims. She got away with it. It was a completely bungled case because of jurisdiction problems. They had Paul's DNA and had interviewed him prior to Karla coming forward, but they hadn't gotten around to testing the DNA after something like a year and a half. Additionally, the video tapes were in the house and although the house was thoroughly searched, the police didn't find them. It was one lazy mistake after the next.

Any child that is around Karla will be in danger at some point during childhood. In fact, I wouldn't want Karla around a baby ... ever. I think she is a very sick, and twisted, woman who lacks empathy and understanding of the pain she inflicts on others ... sexual sadist and sociopath come to mind.
 
mt_pockets1000
#20
Here's another angle I'll throw into the mix.....

ca.news.yahoo.com/s/13022007/...by-lawyer.html (external - login to view)

We spend so much time pondering the everyday life of Ms. Holmolka. How about the victim's families? It must tear them apart to know Karla can opt to have a child of her own if she wishes while their loved ones have been torn away from them so cruelly. Yes, the case was a fiasco from the start and she did her time as sentenced, but she's free now, while the families still live with the pain everyday. I think it's totally unfair. Our justice system seems so backwards sometimes.
 
Libra Girl
#21
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, (and if I am I unreservedly appologise) But, didn't they also murder the newborn of one of their victims? I seem to remember something about photographs of victims in a basement... Is this the same case?
 
Ariadne
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Libra GirlView Post

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, (and if I am I unreservedly appologise) But, didn't they also murder the newborn of one of their victims? I seem to remember something about photographs of victims in a basement... Is this the same case?

Their victims were all young girls ... 14, 15 years old ... from good families. None of them were pregnant or had children. It must be a different case. Their bodies were found dumped or chopped up in little pieces and encased in concrete.

It is important to note that Paul had been peeping and raping women for years prior to meeting Karla but had never committed murder. Also, during his marriage he raped women along lonely dark roads and again, did not murder. The only time he murdered a victim was when he was with Karla. One can only conclude that Karla had something to do with the murders ... not that she was another victim of Paul. Paul, acting alone, left his victims alive.

Perhaps Karla was on to Paul and figured out that he was that Scarsbourough rapist. Rather than turn in her boyfriend (he had already been reported by work colleagues) she wanted to be part of his rape experience. This is a more likely scenario than she was battered into helping Paul.
 
Libra Girl
#23
Thank you Ariadne! And thanks for the excellent summary! It was indeed another case that I was thinking of then! I have so many books on similar crimes, I obviously got confused. Your conclusions do seem plausible.
 
Ariadne
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Libra GirlView Post

Thank you Ariadne! And thanks for the excellent summary! It was indeed another case that I was thinking of then! I have so many books on similar crimes, I obviously got confused. Your conclusions do seem plausible.

You're welcome. This crime happened when I was pregnant 11 years ago. I remember this because when I'm pregnant, I'm too emotionally vulnerable, and his case was too much for me to handle. I couldn't watch any news about the missing girls or their familes - it all made me want to toss my cookies. Years later, I wanted to read everything I could in order to try to understand the dynamic of the murderous couple. Paul alone may not have been able to lure the girls into the car, but with Karla dressed to the nines, holding a map, and asking for directions, even the sweetest girls would approach her. The girls pleaded with Karla to let them go but Karla just gave them a stuffed toy and treated them like a plaything. It was her idea to use halothane from the vet clinic, where she worked, to drug her sister, friend and other girls. She thought of young girls as a present she could give to Paul to please him ... this is Karla's idea of being a good wife. Sure Paul beat her towards the end of the marriage ... she was probably driving him nuts with her neediness, manipulation and complete disregard for anyone except herself. He also would have been under a lot of stress over being arrested and realized that the gig was pretty much up even before Karla went to her uncle, a lawyer and then the police.
 
Kreskin
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Libra GirlView Post

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, (and if I am I unreservedly appologise) But, didn't they also murder the newborn of one of their victims? I seem to remember something about photographs of victims in a basement... Is this the same case?

You're probably thinking of Charles Ng. He and Leonard Lake committed some gruesome crimes of the sort in the US. Ng crossed the border to Calgary and fought extradition. Even though Canada had a policy not to extradite people faced capital punishment even it relented and sent him off. No punishment would be too much for him.
 
MikeyDB
#26
Oh c'mon now Kreskin would you have been so harsh to judge if Ng had been clever enough to cut a deal with the "Crown" for evidence in some case...that the KeyStone Kops of Niagara Region couln't dind...?

Homolka deserves better than Ng?
 
Ariadne
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

You're probably thinking of Charles Ng. He and Leonard Lake committed some gruesome crimes of the sort in the US. Ng crossed the border to Calgary and fought extradition. Even though Canada had a policy not to extradite people faced capital punishment even it relented and sent him off. No punishment would be too much for him.

Charles Ng was in jail for theft and assaulting (I think he actually shot the guy) a police officer. During his incarceration, he drew pictures of his crimes and shared them with his cellmate. The cellmate died in an accident prior to the trial of Ng in California. I recall that the death penalty was taken off the table and he was quickly whisked out of the country by a waiting plane. Ng is not on death row. Canada, fortunately, holds firm on extraditing people to countries that will murder them unless they promise not to murder them ... seems reasonable and civilized.
 
CDNBear
#28
Seems ridiculous and impetuous actualy. But hey, if the US dictated to us what we should do, the Liberal world would come to a screaming halt and the shyte would hit the fan.

I would have enjoyed 1 hour with Ng an bottle of vinegar and my skinning knife. His crimes were well worth the death penalty.
 

Similar Threads

35
Karla Homolka
by missile | Sep 12th, 2005
23
Karla Homolka
by digigirl | Jul 7th, 2005
12
Karla Homolka
by peapod | Jun 29th, 2005
36
8
Homolka
by serenitynow | Apr 13th, 2005
no new posts