Good thing there is no death penalty here.

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
An Ontario judge had words today for Tammy Marquardt. Good ones.

“I appreciate that my words today may seem inadequate,” Justice Michael Brown told Marquardt after the Crown withdrew the murder charge that had accused her of killing her two-year-old son.

“But I offer to you, Ms. Marquardt, my deepest expression of regret for all you gave endured as a result of the miscarriage of justice in this case.”

Marquardt, 38, dabbed at her eyes with a tissue.

“Nothing I can say to you today will repair the damage that has been caused to you,” Brown continued.

“I can’t imagine what it must gave been like for you to have to bear the burden of not only losing your child Kenneth,” he said, “but also to have had to deal with being convicted of killing your son ... And spending 13 years in jail as a result.”

In the hallway later, Marquardt embraced supporters, who burst into applause. “The one thing that never should have happened has ended,” she told them. “Now Kenneth can rest in peace.”

Asked how she felt, Marquardt said, “I don’t think there’s a word for it. Relief. I. Am. Free.

“Honestly, I never thought I would see this day,” she added. “I never thought I would see justice.”

Marquardt said she had assumed the criminal justice system would stand by now-discredited pathologist Charles Smith. “Who am I?” she said. “Why would they believe me?”

Among those who came to the courthouse to support Marquardt was Romeo Phillion, who spent 34 years in prison for a 1967 murder. His conviction was quashed last year.

Also on hand was Maria Shepherd, who was also charged on the basis of Smith’s evidence. Her case is now before the Ontario Court of Appeal, awaiting review.

The charge against Marquardt was based on a flawed opinion from Smith about what caused the child’s death in 1993.

Today’s development finally concludes the criminal case against her.

She was convicted of second-degree murder in 1995 and spent more than 13 years behind bars, most recently at the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener.

As a result of her conviction, Marquardt also lost custody of two sons born after Kenneth – one now 16, and the other now 14.

Two years ago, Marquardt was released on bail. The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed her conviction and ordered a new trial in February after the Crown and Marquardt’s lawyer, James Lockyer, submitted it was the only legal remedy available.

But the lack of fresh evidence in the case made a new trial unlikely.

Smith said tiny red marks on the child’s lungs and chest indicated Kenneth he had been asphyxiated and went on to suggest the most likely method was manual strangulation or suffocation.

In quashing Marquardt’s conviction, the appeal court said the new medical evidence “completely undermines” Smith’s opinion and indicates that, at most, the cause of death could be classified as “unascertained.”

The fresh evidence, the court said, also suggests Kenneth may have suffered a sudden, unexplained death related to epilepsy.

He had been treated eight times for seizures and was on epilepsy medication.

Marquardt said she found him in his room, tangled in bed sheets, not breathing.

She made a frantic 911 call.

Smith’s cases were reviewed by a panel of experts on the directions of Ontario’s chief coroner.

The panel found he made mistakes in at least 20.

After her conviction was quashed in February, Marquardt said she wants her name placed on an adoption registry so if her sons want her in their lives, they can find her. “My arms,” she said, “are open.”
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Oh, but you see, we need the death penalty, because apparently it works, and nobody is ever convicted erroneously. The Crown never lies or fabricates evidence.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Man, do I feel for this poor woman. I cannot imagine what it was like first to lose a child (my greatest personal nightmare) then to actually be erroneously imprisoned for it.

There really is no way to ever right this wrong completely.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Absolutely agree. The death penalty on a single murder conviction is simply too risky....I read (somewhere) that between 10 and 15 percent of capital cases resulted in a wrongful conviction......in the USA, where people are much more likely to be acquitted than here.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,177
113
Low Earth Orbit
....I read (somewhere) that between 10 and 15 percent of capital cases resulted in a wrongful conviction......in the USA, where people are much more likely to be acquitted than here.
Just imagine how many have been wrongfully convicted for far less serious offenses if investigations are so sloppy on something as serious as a lost life?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
It is nice to see that justus was served but I am still in favor of the death penalty in certain cases. But it would have to be pretty much a smoking gun situation with absolutely no doubt. And even then only for murders, kid diddlers and politicians and bureaucrats that steal from taxpayers.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
A very good thing there is no death penalty here. A flawed medical opinion is enough to convince a jury of absolutely no doubt...no thank you.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
A very good thing there is no death penalty here. A flawed medical opinion is enough to convince a jury of absolutely no doubt...no thank you.
I'm not sure flawed is a strong enough word for this guy. I'd say more like negligent myself.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
As someone who sees merit in some death penalty cases, this is not a case where I would have said it should be possible. Guilt is beyond reasonable doutbt, where I think the death penalty should only be for those beyond any doubt. Thats a flaw I see in the way some states utilize it.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I am opposed to Capital Punishment, but she never would have recieved the death penalty for this.

We had a South Carolina woman drive her two children into a lake strapped in their car seats and she will be eligible for parole!

Not many women get the death penalty.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
I am opposed to Capital Punishment, but she never would have recieved the death penalty for this.

We had a South Carolina woman drive her two children into a lake strapped in their car seats and she will be eligible for parole!

Not many women get the death penalty.
Susan Smith right? She should be in prison until the day she dies.

I too oppose capital punishment but for the life of me I cannot understand why life in prison does not actually mean life in prison. Some people should never enjoy freedom again.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
Susan Smith right? She should be in prison until the day she dies.

I too oppose capital punishment but for the life of me I cannot understand why life in prison does not actually mean life in prison. Some people should never enjoy freedom again.

Our socialist do-gooders even gave Carla Holmoka a pardon. Go figure.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Susan Smith right? She should be in prison until the day she dies.

I too oppose capital punishment but for the life of me I cannot understand why life in prison does not actually mean life in prison. Some people should never enjoy freedom again.

Right.

South Carolina Law says that first time offenders must be eligible for parole... no matter what. I do not know if it has changed since then but she will be eligible for parole after 20 years. Whether she gets out or not is another story.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Our socialist do-gooders even gave Carla Holmoka a pardon. Go figure.
Did she get the pardon? I thought the rushed through some legislation to prevent that?

Right.

South Carolina Law says that first time offenders must be eligible for parole... no matter what. I do not know if it has changed since then but she will be eligible for parole after 20 years. Whether she gets out or not is another story.
She likely won't get out, at least not on the first couple of go arounds. But at some point in the future, perhaps she might.

That's always a danger when, in the not too distant future, the people deciding may have no recollection of the event of their own. Sometimes, when something is not within one's own "living memory" it can lessen the impact. Hopefully that'll never be the case with this one.

But I recall that was one of the reasons stated for the detailed and long list of charges read out in court against Russell Williams here not too long ago. The logic was that, although he plead guilty and accepted his sentencing, the list of charges would need to be read out at any future parole hearing. So even if no one was around who recalled the events and could make some sort of impact statement at a future parole hearing, at least the details would be there for all to see (or hear).
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
No she wasn't pardoned as far as I know. Mps passed legislation to prevent it.
There was a deal made with her to give testimony that would convict her husband Paul Bernardo for the murders.
That was made before one of the lawyers handed over a video tape that shows both of them torturing the two girls and I believe killing the two girls.

She got ten years without before parole and was paroled as part of the deal she made with the Crown. So it isn't some Liberal anything that allowed her to go free.

What we have now is life, which means life in that you go to jail until you die. We add parole eligibility to that after a number of years set by the trial judge to allow for someone to learn their lesson and become a better person, show that they are and then have a second chance at life outside of prison.

There is also the dangerous offenders act that sends people to jail for ever. The only thing left is the faint hope clause which is more than anything a tool to help Corrections Canada to manage prisoners. Someone with nothing left to live for becomes a very dangerous person to be around. While it's great to say lock him up and throw away the key, it's just not that easy. While it's a nice fantasy to think of enacting vengeance on convicted prisoners, the reality is that the guards and those who work in Corrections have to deal with these people each day. One mistake and having someone who can't be punished any more is a dangerous combination.

For those who think jail is a lot of fun and a nice place to be, just put a cot in your bathroom and stay in there for a week only going out in the yard for an hour a day. See how you feel about things after a week. If you can stand that, go downtown and find a violent drunk on skidrow and invite him to spend time with you in your bathroom for the next week. It's just that fun.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
No she wasn't pardoned as far as I know. Mps passed legislation to prevent it.
There was a deal made with her to give testimony that would convict her husband Paul Bernardo for the murders.
That was made before one of the lawyers handed over a video tape that shows both of them torturing the two girls and I believe killing the two girls.

She got ten years without before parole and was paroled as part of the deal she made with the Crown. So it isn't some Liberal anything that allowed her to go free.

What we have now is life, which means life in that you go to jail until you die. We add parole eligibility to that after a number of years set by the trial judge to allow for someone to learn their lesson and become a better person, show that they are and then have a second chance at life outside of prison.

There is also the dangerous offenders act that sends people to jail for ever. The only thing left is the faint hope clause which is more than anything a tool to help Corrections Canada to manage prisoners. Someone with nothing left to live for becomes a very dangerous person to be around. While it's great to say lock him up and throw away the key, it's just not that easy. While it's a nice fantasy to think of enacting vengeance on convicted prisoners, the reality is that the guards and those who work in Corrections have to deal with these people each day. One mistake and having someone who can't be punished any more is a dangerous combination.

For those who think jail is a lot of fun and a nice place to be, just put a cot in your bathroom and stay in there for a week only going out in the yard for an hour a day. See how you feel about things after a week. If you can stand that, go downtown and find a violent drunk on skidrow and invite him to spend time with you in your bathroom for the next week. It's just that fun.

You are correct about Holmolka, except I believe it was 12 years she bargained to....

Life in Canada is 25 years....NOT until you die. They can only hold you longer than 25 years if you have a dangerous offender judgement against you........

(Actually, I googled....I am wrong, the maximum sentence is life....until you die....with parole eligiblity set at 25 years....Unforgiven was correct)

Holmolka is a poor choice........in my world, she would have seen a separate charge for each of her murders (including her sister) in front of a different judge, jury, and prosecutor, and on her third conviction would have been immediately executed.

Some people simply should not be allowed to live, on a matter of principle.

I think three convictions on separate malicious killings separates the perhaps innocent from the undoubtably guilty, and the salvageable from the monsters.
 
Last edited:

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
You are correct about Holmolka, except I believe it was 12 years she bargained to....

Life in Canada is 25 years....NOT until you die. They can only hold you longer than 25 years if you have a dangerous offender judgement against you........

(Actually, I googled....I am wrong, the maximum sentence is life....until you die....with parole eligiblity set at 25 years....Unforgiven was correct)

Holmolka is a poor choice........in my world, she would have seen a separate charge for each of her murders (including her sister) in front of a different judge, jury, and prosecutor, and on her third conviction would have been immediately executed.

Some people simply should not be allowed to live, on a matter of principle.

I think three convictions on separate malicious killings separates the perhaps innocent from the undoubtably guilty, and the salvageable from the monsters.

It's not uncommon for people to think that life in Canada means 25 years or less. There is a lot of misinformation spread around to bolster the fear that is being fostered in Canada.

Once you make a life not worth living, combine that with a loathing for you, you have a dangerous person on your hands. I don't see how this is some best practice in the Corrections system.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
It's not uncommon for people to think that life in Canada means 25 years or less. There is a lot of misinformation spread around to bolster the fear that is being fostered in Canada.

Once you make a life not worth living, combine that with a loathing for you, you have a dangerous person on your hands. I don't see how this is some best practice in the Corrections system.
Misinformation and fear are tossed around like a political football by all parties, it's part of the basic rhetoric. The truth, as per usual, is somewhere in the middle of what gets bandied about on the election trail. And in the press. "Everything is working the way it is supposed to" does not sell as a news headline. Large grains of salt need to be consumed along with just about every news article or political speech, imho.

There are some egregious errors and large loopholes littered throughout our Justice System, the Charles Smith debacle and Homolka/pardon issue are highlights of them. But then the politicians use them as soundbites and the news outlets run with it, before long we're back to fear and misinformation.

Pardons Canada, to my understanding anyway, has long been "rubber stamping" pardons. Just because you may be entitled to apply for a pardon it should not necessarily follow that you should be entitled to receive a pardon. Homolka got all the big press of course, but if I recall correctly, it was also around the same time that it was reported that, three years after release from prison, Graham James also received his pardon. And I believe he then went to Spain and then Mexico to coach junior hockey there. Kind of seems like an accident waiting to happen, doesn't it? But that doesn't mean I think pardons themselves are a bad idea. In fact, I've known people who've received them and, in my opinion, they've earned them. Operative word being earned.

With Dangerous Offender legislation, I've been led to believe that, unless you're talking about a Bernardo or Olsen, it's actually not that simple to label someone a dangerous offender. I may be wrong on that, that's just my understanding. But there are people that commit crimes so heinous and frightening that I do believe it's in the publics best interest and safety that they never see the light of day. Personally, I'd lump the majority of pedophiles in this category.

The entire Charles Smith debacle, to me, highlights the most practical arguement against Capital Punishment. Basically, you just never really truly know the entire truth and you can't ever really know. There is a reason the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and not beyond all doubt.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
An Ontario judge had words today for Tammy Marquardt. Good ones.

“I appreciate that my words today may seem inadequate,” Justice Michael Brown told Marquardt after the Crown withdrew the murder charge that had accused her of killing her two-year-old son.

“But I offer to you, Ms. Marquardt, my deepest expression of regret for all you gave endured as a result of the miscarriage of justice in this case.”

Yes, there is certainly no place for it based solelyon circumstancial evidence.