Inmates are constantly released back into society and their reintegration can be very difficult because of social fear, prejudice and lack of opportunities. Sometimes, the only strike in their favor is not to be associated with a high profile case.
Karla Homoka after her release
Karla Homolka was released from prison on July 4, 2005 after having served a 12-year sentence for her role in the murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy in St. Catharines, Ontario.
The name Homolka is forever tied to the name of her former husband, serial rapist and killer, Paul Bernardo, and is virtually recognizable all over the world.
They were the Ken and Barbie killers, complete with their pretty white and green house and their sports car.
Joliette
After serving time at the Kingston Penitentiary in Ontario, Karla was moved to Joliette Correctional Institution for women near Montreal where the emphasis was placed on her rehabilitation.
During her incarceration there, she obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology and learned French. According to the prison psychologist’s report, “Homolka’s self-esteem and self-confidence had been influenced in a positive way at Joliette.” A month before release, she was transferred to a prison called St. Anne-des-Plaines, north of Montreal.
Karla and Paul had requested to change their legal names to Leanne Teale and Paul Jason Teale toward the end of their crime cycle, and had received formal approval five days before Bernardo was arrested in 1993. Leanne’s request for a name change after she was released was denied, and contrary to general belief, she did not keep the name as a sentimental gesture.
Therefore, the woman who walked out of St. Anne Des Plaines after serving her full 12-year sentence was named Leanne Teale and she was fluent in French.
And the hunt began
Reporters had waited outside for days hoping to catch her leaving the penitentiary and had pursued various vehicles thinking Leanne was in one of them. Finally, a prison official and the lawyer for the victims’ families confirmed her release.
In June 2005, a judge had imposed restrictions on her freedom which took effect the day of her release. She was required to:
• Tell police her home address, work address and who she lived with.
• Notify police as soon as any of the above information changed.
• Notify police of any change to her name.
• Give a 72 hours’ notice if the wanted to be away from her home for more than 48 hours.
• Not contact Paul Bernardo, the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French or Jane Doe. She also could not contact any violent criminals.
• She was also forbidden from associating with people under the age of 16 and from consuming drugs other than prescription medicine.
• She was to continue therapy and counselling.
• She was to provide police with a DNA sample.
Homolka & her attorney
Two hours after her release, Leanne gave an exclusive interview to the French-language service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. She was accompanied by her attorney, Sylvie Bordelais.
(What follows is not my opinion. It is taken directly from her interview)
In fluent French, she discussed her nervousness and anxiety in the face of her new found freedom.
She described how her lawyer had planned her release and how they avoided detection by hiding from the media by laying down in the back of their “getaway” car.
She mentioned that deciding to give that interview was not easy for her, because she is an extremely private person and does not like to talk about her feelings.
As she wanted to avoid being hounded by the media, she decided to talk publicly and tell people that she was not a dangerous person who would hurt them or their children. She chose to give the interview in French and picked CBC because they never sensationalize the news and do not scream on the air when they address the public or their guests. Symbolically, speaking French might have been a way to start fresh and try to put the past behind her.
The support network she created in Quebec was solid. Ontario was too much of a hot bed of anger and disdain for her to return there. When she was asked if she thought that her debt to society had been paid, Leanne replied that legally yes, but emotionally and socially no.
She felt that socially she could try to help people and make herself useful to the community to the best of her abilities, but emotionally she would never be free of her horrendous past actions.
In prison, she had been a member of a team of peer counselors as well as an aid group for other inmates. She had been an exemplary detainee and she intended to be a model citizen.
When asked if she had remorse, Leanne replied yes. She said that she still cried often and could not forgive herself. She could not forget what she had done and would tell herself that she did not deserve to be happy.
She felt that what she had done was terrible but she had been in a situation where she could not see clearly and was unable to ask for help. She had felt overwhelmed and deeply regretted her actions. She had felt powerless at the time but now realized that all the while she had the power to walk away but did not.
Only 17 when her relationship with Paul began, she did not know how to walk away even though the relationship was toxic.
As an adult, she felt that she knew better and would never follow anyone blindly like she had in the past.
She felt that Paul had been the initiator and that as bad as her role had been, it did not compare to his in the kidnapping and murders. She perceived herself as having been totally under his influence.
She talked about getting death threats when she was in isolation for four years at the Kingston penitentiary, and how her parents had also received constant threats. But her whole family loved and supported her even though they hated what she had done. Bernardo had lived with her family and he had fooled them also so they understood how persuasive he had been. Leanne reiterated how extremely lucky she felt to have them on her side.
When asked what she wanted to do now, Leanne replied that she wanted to be able to live somewhere in Quebec and do everything, legally, morally and ethically according to the judge’s restrictions. She relied on her psychologist and her support network to help her begin her new life. She ended the interview by saying how very scared she was.
What was the first thing she would do? At the risk of sounding foolish, she would like to get an iced cappuccino at Tim Horton’s. On a more serious note, she stated that she would never really be free. She will always be in a prison of her own making because of her past actions. And instead of time erasing the memories, they were increasingly more present in her mind as time went by.
On that same day, Paul Bernardo, speaking through his lawyer, announced that Homolka attempted to murder Mahaffy on her own while he intended to release her. The man was obviously furious that she had been released after testifying against him.
And the hunt continued
Richer Lapointe
Leanne Teale went on to live her life in the vicinity of Montreal. The media was tracking her but had not managed to get her scent yet. Not until the fat man sang in the person of Leanne’s new boss.
Leanne had found work in a hardware store in a suburb of Montreal, her boss, Richer Lapointe, had befriended her so he could reveal her location to the media and release audio tapes of their conversations. It turned out that this despicable individual had set her up to get his pay day from the press.
He alleged that she had contacted someone with a criminal record and had come in contact with children, in violation of her release conditions.
The Justice department investigated and concluded that there was no truth to the accusations. She had not breached the conditions of her release.
She obviously had to quit her job and go back into hiding.
In November 2005, a judge overturned the 14 conditions imposed on Leanne Teale. The lawyer for the families of the victims urged the Attorney General to appeal the decision but to no avail. Leanne was no longer considered a threat to society.
Lynda Véronneau
In 2006, the movie “Karla” came out on the big screen. And a few sightings were reported.
Some reporters caught up with Leanne walking in the street and standing in a phone booth. She was slimmer and had a different hairstyle and was not so easy to identify anymore.
Lynda Véronneau, her former lover from Joliette, published a book and sold photos to the press. She painted a negative picture of the woman who had rejected her but admitted that Karla was a positive influence on her because of her discipline and drive.
Veronneau, who considered herself to be a man, is a repeat offender and was given an ultimatum by Homolka about her drug use. She later expressed regrets about the book. Many other books and articles have been published about the case. Google galore
Leanne and baby
Sylvie Bordelais’ brother Thierry lived in Montreal and was introduced to Leanne. They connected and became a couple. On February 13, 2007, Leanne gave birth to a baby boy in a Montreal hospital. There are reports that the staff treated her horribly but nothing official.
That same year, reports indicate that Leanne left Canada for the Caribbean with Thierry Bordelais and their young son. They married in Guadeloupe.
There were a few sightings before their nuptials and the couple asked the reporters to leave them alone and to respect their privacy. But of course they did not. When cornered, Thierry told reporters of their intentions to live peacefully in Montreal but they eventually fled to Guadeloupe because of the constant scrutiny.
In 2010, the Public Safety Minister announced an agreement between all concerned parties to pass a bill that would prevent notorious offenders like Karla Homolka from applying for a pardon.
Luka Magnotta
Luka Magnotta, the infamous killer who murdered a young man and posted a video of it on the Internet, started a rumor that he and Karla Homolka were an item. The newspapers ran with it and for years people thought that they were a pair. It was proven to be a lie.
As hard as they tried, the reporters could not get a morsel of Leanne Bordelais and her family. Except for a few sightings of Leanne and her baby, the media had hit wall upon wall.
Then in 2012, Toronto journalist and lawyer, Paula Todd, embarked on a relentless quest to find Leanne. She succeeded where many had failed and would finally get her scoop by outing the “notorious villainess”.
With the help of a birth certificate, Todd followed clues all the way to Guadeloupe and snooped around until she found her prey. She peeked through windows of an unnamed city until she came face-to-face with the woman she still called Karla. She then cornered her into giving an interview. If Leanne refused, Todd threatened to provide her exact location to the press; if she relented, she would not divulge the locale.
Paula Todd
Todd was surprised to see Leanne with three children. Two boys and one girl. Leanne lived in a very modest but clean apartment in a secluded area. Her paleness indicated that she did not go out often. In that sunny climate, she would otherwise have had a tan. She and her family obviously lived like recluses.
Todd observed out loud that Leanne seemed to be a good mother but Leanne objected, asking her how she could possibly know that after seeing her only for such a short time. She reiterated that she had no interest in talking to the press, ever, because whatever she said would be misconstrued. She had a point.
Her husband Thierry arrived and was obviously displeased and upset at seeing a reporter. After a loud discussion with Leanne in another room, they called their attorney and asked Todd to leave. The journalist now had a scoop to bring home but wait…she had no pictures of her trophy. In fact, she had nothing but one hour of lame and empty conversation. She was nevertheless determined not to leave empty-handed. She decided to come back and do more spying around the house.
And the hunt continued
Todd commissioned a photojournalist to stake out the Bordelais’ residence. They rented a car and drove past the small building dozens of times scouting for the right surveillance point. They realized it would be difficult and that they had to be careful. They were acting like paparazzi and the neighborhood was protective of their residents. They had to pay two elderly women who had land behind the residence to set up a post. It was in a lush, thick jungle area and full of wild dogs and goats.
It was like a safari with two people waiting to corner an animal — in this case Leanne Bordelais. They were given permission to take photos on the land. They pretended to be shooting a sporting event and in a way, it was. They set up camp for four days.
The property in front of Leanne’s veranda was a goat farm. The animals surrounded them and the terrain was rough. Sometimes they would slip and tumble down. At times, they could hear Leanne’s voice from her house, calling to the children in English. They kept hiding and lurking.
The photographer had a camera equipped with a 600-mm-equivalent lens, for thick foliage, that could see as far as two city blocks. Temperatures soared to 40° C, the humidity was heavy and the bugs merciless. Four days went by with no sign of Leanne. On the fourth day, he caught her in a moment when she was reaching toward her child with open arms.
She had been out for only a few seconds. And he had taken her picture. Victory! People had been alerted of their presence and they had to rush out of there because the locals were not pleased with their intrusion. They were the ones who could now become the hunted so they ran like the wind.
Paula Todd
Maybe that infamous photo ended up in the book written by Todd but I personally never saw it. Instead of being happy that their ‘killer’ had left Canada, they had to hunt her down and reactivate the story in the media.
Which is exactly what Paula Todd decided to do the minute she returned home. She toured television stations and recounted her encounter with the DEVIL. A bit like a fisherman bragging about the 6-foot fish he caught when in fact, it was 12 inches long.
The lion they were hunting had no teeth and no claws anymore. It was a mother with three children in her arms living a simple life in a village with her husband. A woman never setting foot outside to avoid the Paula Todds of this world.
It really makes you wonder why any journalist/attorney would choose to go on a safari on their own dime, to chase a non-recidivist ex-con instead of using their skills to repair a system they obviously consider broken. Why not focus on the present and work at influencing their readers towards a better understanding of all the elements of a crime? Is it a case of greed and fame over honesty and integrity? Why not get involved in cases for the wrongly accused or push for restorative justice instead of playing Jane of the Jungle?
Restorative justice and fairness for all should be the order of this day and every day in the mind of every investigative journalist worthy of that name. Let’s repair instead of destroy. I say let’s help Bordelais lead a better life and make sure her children do not fall victims to our bad behavior.
Leanne and Thierry Bordelais used to have an Internet business. They sold mainly environmentally friendly diapers and baby products online. She remains close to her family and misses living near them in Ontario. But she knows that she needs to make a sacrifice to protect them as well as her children. And her children are innocent so why make their lives miserable?
Homolka family
For the longest time, Leanne’s mother, Dorothy Homolka, was hospitalized at the same time every year and treated for deep depression. The pain was too overwhelming.
Her father Karel Homolka has been suffering from Parkinson’s disease. From all accounts, they still live in the same house and their neighbours and friends are kind to them. They also spend time in Hamilton with their daughter Lori who also changed her name. They get horrible flak but not from the people that matter to them. They never gave interviews.
Like it or not, Leanne Bordelais has paid her legal debt to society. Emotionally and socially, she is still dealing with the aftermath of her crimes. Most outsiders think she should have never received the deal she did but that is the way the authorities handled it and it cannot be undone. At least, the Justice system did not use this high profile case to boost their image and did not give in to public outcry. They did what they thought was right at the time and stuck to their guns.
You could assemble the world’s most renowned psychiatrists in the same room and they would not come to an agreement on what Karla Homolka’s responsibility was in the crimes or what mental dysfunctions to stamp on her forehead. And if they can’t, we would be fools to pretend we can.
If her family has forgiven her and she lives a law-abiding life, the hunt for Karla Homolka should cease and desist. It should not be open season on the Bordelais. Two wrongs never make a right.
Debbie Mahaffy
The remaining victims of Karla Homolka are the French and the Mahaffy families and they are the ones we should focus on. They have every reason to be upset and to want her to disappear. Their wish came true and she moved to Guadeloupe and she is not frolicking on a beach but living inland as a pariah.
You do not see them lurking in the bush to catch a glimpse of her and she has not contacted them either. And they would be the only ones entitled to that type of madness. Instead, they remain ethical and reserved and speak up publicly about the case only when legal decisions are made.
We need to support them by not encouraging the vultures still flying around the corpses of their beloved daughters to keep spreading stories in the media. As one of the mothers stated: “We get stabbed in the heart each and every time it happens.’’
As former detective and writer Mark Fuhrman wisely said, murder has become a business and this case is the gift that keeps on giving to the media. Therefore, they will keep it alive even if it is slowly killing the families of the victims and of the perpetrator.
It’s almost like the media is trying to prove the point of this blog for me.
Quite recently, Toronto yellow journalist Rosie Di Manno, declared in her latest article about Bordelais that “she should be hounded for the rest of her miserable life”. She rehashes the past and makes ignorant statements without knowing a thing about Leanne’s present situation.
After being found out in Guadeloupe, the family had moved to Chateauguay, Quebec to live in peace, until the media went door to door to notify the neighbors that her children were attending the public school. The school was very diligent and issued a letter to all the parents. Click here to read the school letter.
During the trial of Luka Magnotta, Karla Homolka’s sister had been called to testify because Magnotta had used her name and address to send a package to Vancouver in May 2012. Quite an unlucky break for Lori Homolka who had changed her name to Logan Valentini to maintain her privacy after her sister, Karla, was sentenced.
Logan with Karla during trial
She was stunned to hear her name was used to mail body parts and wondered why it became mixed up with this tragedy. Despite the name change, Valentini told the court many people already knew she was the sister of Homolka. As she was under oath, she also had to out Karla who was now living in Quebec with her family.
Even if the school declared that the rights to education of her children would be upheld, Leanne decided to protect her 3 children by enrolling them in a private school in Montreal so that they would be left alone.
As a mother, Leanne participated in a field trip, read the children a story and brought her dog to show the pupils. The school was letting her participate under supervision. This is integration and rehabilitation, not a crime of show and tell.
The Academy run by the Adventist Church knew of her background. All her after-release conditions were lifted by the system so she is entitled to be a free woman. The school has to be applauded for standing its ground and not letting parents try to dictate their policies.
The kids were in no way endangered by the presence of the Bordelais children or the supervised presence of their mother. See article about the school’s response to complaints.
The hunt was fruitful. Bordelais will now be excluded from any school activities. The revenge machine has spoken. Some would say that it is a small price to pay, and no doubt, she will comply. Siding on the side of caution is a good policy, but we do not have to take out the pitchforks and the torches to do so.
I totally get that the parents of her victims will never be on board, but once again, they are not the ones hounding her. The media fueled by the howls of revenge seekers are.
It is almost as if some people are disappointed that she has not reoffended in the last 12 years, and they are trying to poke the bear with a stick to get some action.
And the hunt continues
click here to listen to Kim Pate, the executive director of the Canadian Association of the Elizabeth Fry Societies who explains the need to stop the revictimization of the victims’ families while respecting the right to public safety and of an inmate to be rehabilitated.
Note: I know that many would like to see Leanne Bordelais trampled by a herd of elephants or rotting in prison for life.
This article is not about her crime but about the legal right of any released inmate to live free of harassment from the media, for their sake and for the sake of the families involved.
Therefore, I will not post or answer comments that are simply hateful or personal, but I welcome comments if they concern the subject and bring up relevant elements.
There was a little girl
Karly Curls
I live in Montréal and i wouldnt be afraid to have leanne or karla or Emily or else name she use living on the same place i live….i think that she have prove to everyone shes not à dangerous person. And if i see her i will just give her a smile .Because she like anybody .
This is very kind Martine. It’s the only way people can be reintegrated into society. If we always look back, it will never work. She is a busy mother and has not done anything to indicate so far that she could be dangerous.
You mention the victims families do not need To be reminded of all this publicity but you are doing the same talking about karla and painting her as a victim and the journalists as criminals. You mention the school and how karla has a right to be involved in that. Did you forget how old the victims were. Did you read what one of the victim’s father said about the school letting karla be involved. You will never know how they feel unless you are in their shoes. All your articles are defending the criminal and the watts murder is a perfect exemple….very dangerous message.
Maybe you should read the blog again. I wrote it years ago in reaction to the case being reactivated by mainstream media. It will probably always be the case. It pays. I did not describe Karla as a victim and journalists as criminals. Instead, we could see shades of grey. Her children are not guilty of anything and she has not reoffended. She has a right to live her life, but it does not erase her past culpability. Good reporters would not go on a hunt. It makes them shady but certainly not criminals.
The parents have to be respected. I do not get into what their pain is or should be in these difficult situations. They should be able to deal with the whereabouts or actions of Homolka with the interested parties without the media shoving it in their faces. And by the way, Homolka was living out of the country which was a good thing for all. Being spotted and outed contributed to make her move back in Canada. Probably not ideal for the victims’families. You should listen to the interview I posted with Kim Pate, the executive director of the Canadian Association of the Elizabeth Fry Societies who explains the need to stop the revictimization of the victims’ families while respecting the right to public safety and of an inmate to be rehabilitated. Also “Our policy regarding personal situations of people like Mrs. Homolka that are targeted by the media is that we don’t contribute to feeding the media machine,” said Ruth Gagnon, general director of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Quebec. Ask yourself, if their messages are dangerous or simple common sense.
Once again, I know my blogs tend to be lengthy, but did you read the part where I wrote that Watts should be in prison for a very long time? That he tried to evade prison and lied? That what he did was monstrous? That he is blaming the mistress and trying to avoid his own part in the situation? In my opinion, writing about the facts of a case and questioning motive, state of mind and circumstances is the way a criminal case should be approached.
Nothing dangerous about the truth or trying to leave emotions out of a decision about inmates. This is why jurors are supposed to check emotions at the door and cannot be related in any way to the case.
In reply to Ally
I couldn’t agree more. 👏
The press has a right and a duty to report
The press has the right and indeed the duty to report and comment on all matters of public interest. The right and duty must, however, be balanced against the obligation not to promote hatred or discord in such a way as to create the likelihood of violence. It must be an honest expression of opinion without malice or dishonest motives.
When a reporter pretends to ‘find’ someone who purposely and legally moved far away from her victims’ families to write a silly book and pretend she was ‘afraid’ of a mild mannered mother of three to reignite attention mostly to herself, it is not a right or duty to report, it is invading someone’s privacy, especially by revealing her location. How is it helping the parents of the victims? It is not. It is hurting them.
Reporting on the trial or the case is another matter but chasing someone through the streets of Montreal or private citizens lying about the person breaking the law is not reporting, it is malice.
The press in this instance is looking to promote hatred and discord and far from honest in some of its reporting. This is not news, it is sensationalism.
Let’s face it, the basic codes and canons of journalism are constantly being stretched beyond the facts of the story. And there is no story there anyway. She is a law abiding citizen since years and has a right to her privacy.
I still believe that…after all those years….karla…leanne…Emily whoelse she is…have prove to society that she is nolonger a danger for public safety.. That her 12 years behind bars as beinn served..and now…she has the right… Like all canadiens citizen to be ignore by the médias….ii still believe that she deserve forgivness…. It wont erase the cruel things that shes done…but…its over now….not to be misunderstood by family….my english is not so good….
You have expressed your opinion well. I wish there would be more people like you. La bonté et un peu de compréhension ne peuvent jamais faire de tort.
You seem to be defending karla which is the wrong message to convey. Did you think about the victims or their familles before writing this article. You paint her as a victim when the police have évidence of her participating in the crimes on video. You blame the journalists but why are you talking about karla in this article.
You might think that respecting the law and not acting like avengers is the wrong message to convey, but I don’t. I will refer you to the note at the end of the blog. “I know that many would like to see Leanne Bordelais trampled by a herd of elephants or rotting in prison for life. This article is not about her crime but about the legal right of any released inmate to live free of harassment from the media, for their sake and for the sake of the families involved.”
If your message is about réhabilitation and not about the the cimes of karla then why is the article based on her?
You talk about people being given a second chance but did the murderers give their victims a chance. Some families will never see their loved ones again and will probably see the justice system as a joke and on top of that you are talking about réhabilitation. You talk about the welfare of the families but are you thinking about them when you discuss réhabilitation lets not forget the value of humain life.
What a strange question. Why is the article based on her? Because the media talks about her case and many jump in like a lynch mob. She is an inmate that was released and she has a right to her privacy. I trust her children’s private school to handle how she can interact or not because I know they are supervising any activity. The system makes the decisions in matter of release and rehabilitation. Not us. Why would I rehash her crimes? It is all said and done. The blog is about what is happening after her legal release.
Do I think of the victims when I discuss rehabilitation? The victims are the reason there was an investigation and a trial. The rest is decided by the system. If people decide to disagree and want to change the system, it is up to them to vote to change it. But let me tell you that when a member of their own family gets in trouble, they are glad to know that there is a system to protect their rights. I have no reason to rehash her case and no contact with the victims’s families. This is totally unrelated.
your cause for réhabilitation does not work because you chose someone who did not do the time she deserved. You talk about karla and when some of the readers rightly mention her crimes to get across their point you tell them we are not hear to talk about her crimes. It would have been better to talk in general about réhabilitation and media intrusion rather than use karla as an exemple. you keep mentioning her kids Well if she had done the time we would not be here talking about the kids and the media would not be hounding her as you put it.
I have to admit that you are pretty good at coming back with the same point. I get what you are saying. You want me to talk about Homolka’s case and say how bad she is and she did not deserve this or that. There are thousands of articles on the subject.
I talk about the aftermath of her case as I please. I did not choose how long she was in prison. The system did. We had 15 years to come to terms with it. I get that it was highly discussed at the time.
I do not write about rehabilitation in general. People love to hate and block any kind of rehabilitation for high profile cases. This is one of the cases where even if she does not reoffend for the rest of her life, people will try to go after her. I do not believe in this type of behavior. You disagree. Fine. Let’s move on. You made your point and I posted it.
We have every right to know where predators lurch for our own safety. Like Homolka herself stated, how could we ever know they were completely declawed? We never know the abyss of human psyche.
The author of Invisible Darkness knows a thing or two about Homolka and he was not too keen on the idea of a witch hunt or a reporter pretending to be scared of this mother. All they have to say is “she lives in another country” and leave her alone. Not write a trivial book and hound her family. This silly goose chase brought her back to Canada where she lives peacefully.
It is the law that determines what we need to know and not reporters. Is not being declawed what you took from Homolka questioning Paula’s lame comment about ‘being a good mother’?
We never know the abyss of human psyche. I will agree on that one but I think that it applies to Internet trolls, some reporters and most everyone on the planet. Do we invade their privacy and go after them? Homolka is legally a free woman and should be left alone. We do not have every right to go after her and she hasn’t been lurching anywhere.
It bothers me when I hear of the press hounding any individual. I would rather hear how a life gone sour was turned around. I too have lost a child and would not wish this on anyone but I would rather look to the positive side of humanity than help perpetuate the negative. This tabloid approach is about making money, not about justice.
I am sorry to hear about your loss. It is an unimaginable pain. I couldn’t agree more. A society should work at rehabilitating and repairing the ones who have failed instead of poking the bear, hoping to make it roar again. Thanks to the media, the Justice system has become a Circus at times. Our society deserves better than this.
Thank you for your comment.
I’m a very compassionate person and I live by the motto, “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is a shame that Karla Homolka never exemplified this creed.
As I posted at the end of the blog, this is not about Bernardo and Leanne’s crimes. This is about the legal right of released inmates to rebuild a law abiding life for themselves and their family.
I am not posting your entire comment because it is rehashing the case and a personal attack, but I will answer it for anyone tempted to do the same.
I beg to differ when you say that all Canadian citizens have been victimized, unless, of course, they all were related to the victims. They have been shocked and appalled, but more reason to leave it behind.
The point of this article is to stop victimizing the people directly affected by this tragedy by reviving this story constantly in the media. You do not see or hear the ones impacted by this crime go after her, so why would strangers from the court of public opinion want to do this if it is not stemming from self serving bias?
If you followed this story, you know that chasing this woman all the way to Guadeloupe forced her to leave and come back to Canada, closer to her victims’ families. The media has made their lives more miserable. They should stick to wrongful convictions and repairing the system instead of wanting ratings on the back of victims.
I did not paint Leanne as a victim. I repeated the words she said after her release from prison and she sure did not paint herself as a victim and expressed remorse, even if most do not want to admit or believe it. Mind you the media and the mob are victimizing her children by acting like mercenaries. I am against vigilantism in any shape or form. More for the good of society than for any specific inmate.
It is all about preserving the families from any more grief; on both sides of the coin.
It might be unfortunate that some people do not do unto others as they would have others do unto them, but it also goes for people who pretend to be compassionate, but are the first ones to judge others when it is not easy.
Compassion is not only for the good and deserving, it is for everyone.
And believe me, being on the side of restorative justice takes a lot of deep thinking and self reflection.
Exactly. I just feel for victims families . She gets to marry have children too bad she denied the same to her victims. Its very good that the police and authorities always protected her for their own secret reasons. I stand with the victims and their families. I tead the transcript and followed this case jad this predator not been caught she wouls still be prowling the streets of Canada. Its a good thing ahe screamed at reporters outside her childs school but shr sure had no mercy on her victims.
If you really cared about the families, you would not want the media to use this case for ratings and hurt the families in the process. She was not screaming at reporters. The person who screamed at them to leave them alone was a bystander. Bordelais protected her face with her purse and moved on.
This blog is not a forum to rehash a 24 year old case and make up imaginary scenarios about what could have or should have happened. She is a mother trying to live her life without bothering anyone, which she is legally entitled to do. She has to live with her past. It’s not up to you to judge what she does or not.
But it is the right of people to know who their children is at school with and who is volunteering at school events. To know if a murderer and sexual deviant lives in your community.
The court lifted the conditions. Not the school. They agreed to let her volunteer a few times because it was supervised and she was never alone with children. They did their best under the circumstances. The woman has children and tried to participate at their school. It is not like she was lurking in a park or a public place. She did not invite them at her house either.
Now the parents know. She will not volunteer again. Mission accomplished.
God will judge.
Yesterday on my facebook i saw a post saying that she’s in chateauguay quebec whit her 3 kids. I dont know how to verify if it’s true or not. Even if she paid for her crime i dont whant her near my daughter maybe she’s ok today but we never know what could happen.
I don’t know where she is and legally, she is entitled to live where she wants. As you said, she has 3 children and she leads a lawful family life so she does not have to publish or report her whereabouts. She has the support of her family and husband and I am convinced that she does not want anything to happen to her children or yours.
Starting a campaign against her could only hurt her children and her chances at continuing her rehabilitation. She is easily recognizable so you do not have to mingle with her and you would know if she interacted with your children.
Absolutly her children dont have to paie i just saw that now the régional news paper is verifying if the rumor on facebook it’s true. If it is i think that they will move again it’s sad for her children.
This goes with the title of my blog Caroline. She was living quietly in Guadeloupe for years until she was hunted by a reporter wanting to promote herself which resulted in her moving back to Canada. I am appalled that a reporter approached several parents in the Châteauguay community by going door to door and asking if people knew that ‘Karla Homolka’ was living in the area. If they keep after her, it forces her to move and her children suffer. It’s almost like people want her to fail. It sounds like revenge more than justice to me. I understand that people want to be careful, but she should be left alone.
People she was a child herself when this happened . She has faced her doings and paid for them according to the law. She will how ever pay for this for the rest of her living life , in her mind and heart. Her children have done no wrong, so do you feel they should pay for it to. Believe me when I say it is unfortunate that as a society we still haven’t learnt yet how to turn our cheek and move on and forgive. That we thrive on the wrong doings of others. The children attending the same school are in no danger from her or her children. They are however in danger from those that react with foul responses and anger for something they have no say in.
People tend to forget that she was 17 when she met Bernardo. Not to excuse the decisions she made, but she has paid her legal debts to society, and as you said, she will pay for the rest of her life in her mind and heart.
She was 17 when they met but not when she raped and murdered her sister and 2 innocent young women and helped drug and rape 2 other so called friends as presents. She doesn’t have to report in as a co evicted sexual convict only because of the deal she made to testify against her ex. They made the plea deal before they found the tapes showing how she’s smiled and enjoyed and played a major role in their assaults. Unless you have read the book and know all the info about the case, it is really easy to shrug it off and say she did her time. But it is not accurate. And while it is not my place to judge- the facts don’t lie
Seriously? I have read the books and know all about the case, and I am not shrugging off anything. Did you read the blog?
Her relationship started at 17, but I never said she committed crimes at that age.
The blog is not about her deal or what she did or didn’t do, it is about the rights of inmates to reintegrate society. And for the media to leave it alone so that the victims’ families can have peace.
Legally, she did her time. Like it or not.
I think the problem is people don’t agree with you that she did her time. They feel she got away cheaply and the punishment was disproportionate to the crime she committed. That is why people won’t let it go. Does it really not bother you that she only got 12 years and doesn’t have to register as predator because she lied and evidence wasn’t found on time? She got off easy because of an error, not because it was fair. You keep bringing up the victims’ families, how do you know how they feel about the whole thing? Maybe they don’t mind that parents are fighting to keep this woman away from their children.
I understand the perspective in this article but you chose the wrong ex inmate to make your point. Also, suggesting people are mad she hasn’t reoffended? That’s…disturbing.
It’s probably disturbing to you that some people are disappointed that she didn’t reoffend because you are not part of the extreme lynch mob out there. The woman has not reoffended, but they keep pushing and pushing and won’t accept it because it means that she won’t spend the rest of her life in prison. It is what it is. You only have to read columns by the likes of Dimanno to feel the vibe.
I think that she is the perfect inmate to serve as an example because it is very difficult to accept for many that inmates who have committed horrendous acts could walk among us.
Like the ones who say ‘I am against the death penalty, but I would make an exception for her or him.’
Our principles should not budge because a case is more high profile.
People who did really bad things get deals all the time so they can catch a bigger fish, and inmates are released after doing unspeakable things. But nobody hears about it, and our society should wish for them to be rehabilitated so they don’t reoffend. I greatly admire countries who try to apply this model.
I made it quite clear in the blog that it was not about her deal or her crimes. Been there done that. My opinion at the time could not change the reality of the situation. If you disagree with a sentencing, which happens often, it doesn’t give anyone the right to go after the person. It’s about the media hounding her and her family and the rights of all inmates.
The victims’ families do not like to hear about their murdered daughters on an on in the media; especially when it is not going to change a thing. They are not the ones waiting for her at her kids school or hiding in the bush in another country. It is probably excruciating already for them to know she is free when their daughters are gone without using their stories as ratings grabber. It’s not about forgive and forget but it’s been 24 years.
I personally wish Leanne and her kids well. It’s not my battle.
Very well written!
Thank you Cher!
Well, she is now living in a suburb of Montreal.
Yes, the media found out she was in Chateauguay and made sure the hunt would continue.
So the Hunt continues. I’m glad that Lise sees this for the sick game it is. Are we really scared that this middle age woman with 3 children is going to start raping and murdering young girls? Ridiculous.
What she did was horrific. No question. It is over. Should she be forgiven? Not our decision, we are not her victims or their family members. Do we have a right to hunt her for our entertainment (because truly that is all it is)? No. Reporters would not be hunting the story if it wasn’t a story that would sell. Shame on us.
Does it matter if she is remorseful? Was that a condition of her release? I have no way of knowing if she truly feels remorse or guilt but I don’t see why it is so important for people to speculate about it, or why it matters.
Sentencing her to a life of being loathed and hunted was not part of her deal with the Crown. We may not like that she got a lighter sentence than many people believe she deserved but that’s life. Move on. Unless and until she commits another crime she and her family should not be hunted until they snap under the pressure of being reduced to an entertainment for the tabloids that pass today for ‘media’. I would not be surprised if her family falls victim to someone looking to hurt them to gain infamy. Let’s not forget what became of Jeffrey Dahmer. This hunt is so wrong and so dangerous.
The fact that her children are innocent victims in all of this makes it more despicable, especially when so many people couch their thrill of the hunt as “concern for the children”. Leave them alone.
Thanks for the comment Lori. It says it all. I don’t have to add anything. They just opened a can of worms that could turn badly for her kids or even her husband. This is like the hunger games. And there should be nothing funny or entertaining about it.
The media keeps this hunt going because of ratings and money. They do not give a damn. And you are right, it is not up to us to decide if she is remorseful or not. She expressed herself on the subject and the rest is up to her. I am sure she wants to keep her freedom and her focus is on her family.
It feels like they would like her to commit more crimes so they could say I told you so. And the media would do the happy dance. Rehabilitation is not possible if you are hunted like an animal.
I hope these poor children don’t suffer because of these recent events.
Wait I don’t understand why it’s weird for people to be afraid? If she can do it to her sister then what’s stopping her from doing it to someone else’s child or even her own? The only thing prevent her from reoffending at this point is because she cannot get away with it. If she could then she absolutely would.
Before all of you people who think she deserves a chance, and that she was innocent but influenced by a terrible person comment, you should ask yourselves if you would like to have your children go to the school her kids attend (that she frequents). I sure wouldn’t want my kids going there.
Mary Anne, it is not my business or yours to decide if she deserves a chance. She legally is free woman. We have no right to contest this decision. Who says she was innocent? You are reading the wrong blog. I would not mind if my children went to school with hers. They are not criminals. Leave them alone. And I will not post a 1997 episode trying to poison people against a woman who has done her time in prison. The case is closed. Move on.
Oh my gosh!! I am not trying to start a fight in the comment section of your site Lise, I totally understand if this doesn’t get published but WTF????
Are we afraid this woman is going to…what… pass out poison treats to the 4th graders at her kids’ school or something? Seriously- what in the world is anyone afraid of her doing at the SCHOOL??? Why? If she is involved and going to the school I applaud the courage that takes and the determination to try to give her kids a normal life. Something to look back on when they are adults and contemplating changing their names (again) to hide from the mob, some kind of fond childhood memory. Why can’t they be allowed that!??
Why can’t we see the courage it would take for Karla (or whatever her name is) to risk her personal safety just so she can be involved at her children’s school? I would think hiding would be easier.
I am not applauding this woman’s moral character. I am not cheering her contrition. I am not commenting on her rehabilitation (or lack of). I am not claiming her innocence, or that she was manipulated. I am merely pointing out her trying to do right by her children and the huge hurdles this hunt and this public hatred put in her way. She is looking less evil than some of the people obsessed with her.
Yes, she victimized others. Does that give us the right to now victimize her and her whole family?
I hope you don’t mind the long post, but it contains perspectives I think you’ll appreciate.
I wrote some posts about Karla Homolka on Facebook last night when I was emotional; I’ve since deleted them as I incorporated the latest news about her into my core values.
Do I think her 12-year sentence was adequate? No. I believe she belongs in jail for the rest of her life. However, and this is crucial, I am not a lawyer of any sort, and I am not intimately familiar with the case against her, so while like everybody I have the right to my opinion, I do not have the right to have it taken seriously.
Karla Homolka served the time imposed upon her by the justice system. She paid her legal debt to society, and only she can judge what moral debt she still owes, if any.
We live in an imperfect world, we have imperfect knowledge about events we did not witness (and even, truth be told, about ones we did). But most importantly, we live under a rule of law and that rule cannot make exceptions or it is no longer lawful. In our imperfect justice system, we usually get it more or less right, but it any system there are outliers: criminals who get inadequately light sentences, criminals who get off scot free (Jian Ghomeshi, in my opinion, which isn’t worth much as I explained above). Also, on the other side of the coin, there are innocent people who end up in jail. That is unfortunate in the extreme, but unavoidable — yet it is minimizable.
The laws that allow Karla Homolka to walk free are the same laws that prevent a crown prosecutor, however well-meaning, for putting innocent people behind bars. And there, but for the grace of god or fate or chance, could go you or I. (Every justice conservative is one false arrest away from being a justice ultraliberal, Tom Wolfe wrote.)
Kala Homolka was convicted on the basis that she was a 17-year-old bride who suffered abuse (for which there was evidence) and was only partially responsible for her actions. Later information casts doubt on that interpretation, but the fact that the crown can’t go back and re-prosecute her is a protection that protects all of us, including the innocent.
If we change to a justice system in which well-intentioned but ill-informed outrage can overturn the workings of the legal system, we will all suffer. We will exchange our imperfect justice system for an unjust justice system.
Finally, a lot of what is happening around Karla Homolka has nothing to do with the legal system. Being hounded by journalists, facing a storm of facebook posts (like mine, earlier!) and tweets and news story comments. This is perfectly legal, but I find it troubling; it contributes to the culture of outrage Jon Ronson spoke of in his books “So you’ve been publically shamed”. It reminds me uncomfortable about women hounded on Twitter, people swatted in their homes, although I recognize there is a significant difference in the victim’s proximate actions in this case. But again, even if we feel Homolka deserves this treatment “for the public good”, it’s an imperfectly applied weapon that can so easily get innocent people in its crosshairs and ruin their lives.
I seriously question Karla Homolka’s decision to have children that will have to live with the knowledge of their mother’s past. I seriously question Karla Homolka’s decision to keep a name change she had decided on with Paul Bernardo which incorporates the surname of a fictional serial killer. I seriously question Karla Homolka’s decision to move back to Canada, where her mere presence will cause pain to the families of Kristin French, Leslie Mahaffy and Tammy Homolka. But I also seriously question my right to contribute to a public panic about it.
Over and over, I read “I feel sorry for her children, but…” There can be no “but” in that statement. Those children need, more than other children, to be protected and succored and prepared for the consequences her mother’s decisions. They have a right not to live in fear that, in my opinion, trumps the public right to keep tabs on a, in legal terms, even if you or I don’t really believe it, rehabilitated former criminal.
Parents in Chateauguay whose children go to the same school as Homolka’s, of which my very good friend is one, are totally understandably perturbed, and many are acting emotionally, as I did, and I do not at all judge them for that. But I think even they would admit the changes of their actually being a bad outcome are small. Non-zero but small. Are we willing to pay the price for a more unjust society overall to slightly increase the possibility of protection for a small group of people against a small chance of criminality from one person? I say no, and I say it with deep empathy for the parents caught in this nightmare.
Let cooler heads prevail. Give Homolka’s children and Homolka herself the help she needs to make better decisions that will not cause turmoil. At the very least, let’s help her to get out of Canada where her very presence is a raw wound. I have little sympathy for Karla Homolka, to be honest, but I have a lot of sympathy for the problems to society that would be caused by any attempt to punish her further, legally or extralegally.
One unfortunate detail in all this: yesterday, when this news broke, was the 24th anniversary of the death of Kristin French. Her poor family had to go through two emotionally devastating experiences at the same time. I have made a donation to the Kristen French Child Advocacy Centre at http://www.kristenfrenchcacn.org/, and I encourage others to do the same.
It is tragic that it happened around the 24th anniversary of the death of Kristin French, but ask yourself who is responsible for their pain this time around. The media. My point is to stop this hunt because of the families of the victims and all the innocent people directly or indirectly affected by this situation. Her children are victimized and some see it as retribution, but I see it as plain cruelty.
It’s been 24 years and even if some think she should have been in prison for life, she would have been released anyway even with a life sentence because of her age and good conduct in prison. Inmates do their time and are released constantly in our society. She simply happens to be high profile. They deserve a chance.
If a journalist had not smoked her out of Guadeloupe, she would still be there living quietly. It was not the parents of her victims who wanted her found and talked about in the press. It was the media so that the outrage could bring them ratings and profits. They obviously do not care about the victims because if they really did, they would not act this way.
I do not want to help the Bordelais move out of Canada. I want them left in peace wherever they are, and I am sure that the school knows how to handle this kind of situation so that the safety of all children is not jeopardized.
I agree that cooler heads should prevail.
She is a free person now. End of story.
Maybe.
The actions she took and horrific damage she caused are still crashing on our societies shores. She may be out of our jail system but I do not think she will ever be free from the consequences for the unthinkable horrors committed. She must now live with the fallible judgement of humanity for the rest of her life. There is no escaping that.
Today, this is very difficult moral dilemma because her children are now involved. They are innocent. But, her actions were so horrific, that she hurt her own children before they were ever born. In a way she murdered and raped her own children’s future. But when it comes down to it all, Karla, has ultimately only one person to blame for the shame, difficulty and lifetime of unending prying her kids will have to endure. Her actions caused and still continue to cause anger, sadness, worry and fear. That is the world her own children must live in.
There are laws in place to protect her from mob justice but there are no laws in place to protect her from human nature. If her own conscience does not feel remorse for the hell that she brought to earth then humanity feels it for her and will not let her escape it. Those hounds will never stop howling. Ever.
Thanks for your comment Ian but I have to disagree about Leanne murdering and raping her children’s future. She gave birth to them and is probably a loving mom doing her best under the circumstances. She obviously hoped that she could quietly rebuild her life somewhere, and when she realized it would not happen in Montreal, she moved to Guadeloupe where she was a law abiding citizen. Even if her actions were horrible, she forged ahead because what else was she going to do? Everybody needs and wants love. She tried to surround herself with a solid foundation. The only people raping and murdering her children’s future are the strangers attacking them.
You say that her actions continue to cause anger, sadness, worry and fear. She has to live her life and so far, I have not seen anything that would cause anyone sadness, fear or anger. But the media has angered me because they caused her family to be hunted and displaced.
I understand the need to be cautious and people have a right not to socialize with her. As long as they leave her children alone, all is well in the world. The pitchfork mentality still exists, but we are in Canada and we should emulate countries with intelligent and human prison systems because they get good results. http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12
They see inmates as people who are broken and deserving of rehabilitation. Like it or not, she was going to be released eventually, and trying to burn her at the stake or chase her out of town is counterproductive. People want revenge. If you listen to the interview with the director of the association of the Elizabeth Fry societies that I posted at the end of the blog, the victims families have expressed through their lawyers, their desire to leave this alone.
We are not entitled to decide who has children or not, and we have no say in her level of remorse. If she declared publicly (as she did when she was first released) that she is tortured by her past and extremely remorseful, people would laugh and say she is lying. She stays indoors and does not mingle. Her kids go to school in a safe environment for all. I agree with journalist Sue Montgomery who says that the way this story has been covered by some journalists is an embarrassment to journalism and has turned into vigilantism.
Hounds might never stop howling but it will not be because of her feeling remorseful or not, it will be because of their lack of humanity and common sense. I prefer to choose restorative justice and hope. Human nature is not necessarily vengeful and cruel. It is a matter of evolution and consciousness.
We can not know that she “is probably a loving mom.” People thought she and her boyfriend were happy go lucky good clean people before the truth came out. Her children will judge that. But I do have a feeling that no matter how steller a mom she might be, those kids will need intensive therapy to process what she’s done and come out in a healthy way, and that stands even if media were never to follow or report on her again.
Unfortunately, her children will have a heavy load to bear and that’s why the media and mean spirited people should not add to their burden.
Lise, I appreciate your encouragement to maintain relevance and productive engagement in these matters. Thank you for clarifying the purposes of good journalism. It is too easy for one to get lost in reflexive emotions that this matter ignites. I also appreciate many of the things that David Taylor expresses – it helps me to make sense of this very complicated experience of being human. i don’t agree that Leanne should have had children, that it would honour her victims and their families not to. But the thought of her falling into obscurity in the Caribbean, children or not, sounds like the best option. Too bad for everyone that was cut short.
She destroyed humanity….shes a vile woman…how can she be better now….from killer to mother Theresa…its like mother Theresa becoming a murderous woman after her acts of holiness toward humanity…it simply is impossible…karla is doing what she can to fit in society for her own selfish needs…shes an actress…but we know her true self…
Jason, where did you read that Leanne Bordelais was compared to mother Teresa? Letting her live in peace with her family has nothing to do with beatification.
On this subject, maybe you should inform yourself about humanity and its flaws. People are not perfect and even the ones called heroes are not, they are flawed, but society likes to put some on a pedestal and make total monsters out of others.
Check Mother Teresa’s background and you will see that she was not the great humanist the church made her out to be.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/mother-teresa-was-anything-but-a-saint-new-canadian-study-claims/article9317551/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html
And talking about the Church, their priests have destroyed the lives and future of so many children and they were rewarded for it. They lived quietly in our neighborhoods while continuing to perpetrate crimes under our nose.
As a friend of mine said after reading your comment: I’m a little pissed that Karla destroyed humanity. Why wasn’t I informed of this? I know she did some awful things but I had no idea it was as far reaching as destroying humanity. Now I am in agreement that 12 years wasn’t enough. The destruction of humanity should have warranted 13 years and not one day less!!!!!
I know it is not supposed to be a laughing matter but the destruction of the human race will not be the work of Leanne Bordelais. It will be the result of our collective lack of common sense and respect for each other and the planet. We will all carry a share of responsibility for it.
Whatever motives or needs she has is not our concern as long as she abides by the law.
If people decide to show her children some kindness and let them leave in peace, it will do a lot to restore my faith in humanity.
What gets me most is the people who say they feel sorry for the children. The only reason anyone needs to feel sorry for the children is if people just don’t leave them alone. Stop hounding this woman and let her be. Each and every time someone drags the past into the present they hurt every person involved. From the victims, the families to the participants.
If Leanne lived next door to me, her children would be welcome at my home.
I second that emotion. They are trying to shift the blame on her, when in reality, they are the ones feeling the need to hurt innocent kids. I hope her children are lucky enough to have people like you in their community.
I kind feel the same…but it is at some point easy to say things like that because she is not living right beside me…but…in the same time…people who are actualy living near her …never complains about her…people understand t that she have move on…and that shes not what she was in the past…nobody is perfect…not everyone making evil for living….but she was controled by what shes learn as love…
The comment is about her children. It is not to say that people would socialize with Leanne or allow their own children to be at her house. All I know is that she is in a stable situation, has earned her freedom and is entitled to live and learn.
In Norway, Anders Breivik killed 77 people and got 21 years. I was amazed by the father of one of his victims saying that he could live with that and had no desire to get revenge. They are very civilized and believe in rehabilitation or treatment, whichever is needed, and their crime rate is low. So revenge does not work. We have to protect society, but I don’t think that Châteauguay and its residents are in danger.
The comments on this blog are nothing but propaganda. She was not a child when she raped and murdered children. She was well into her 20’s . You are spreading lies, bias and propaganda. The sympathy you show someone who was proven to be a vicious child rapist, torturer and murderer is undeserved. The media has a right to inform the public of this dangerous predator. The fact that she had children is a symptom of her sociopathy. Why don’t you spend more time advocating for inmates convicted of drug crimes? Instead you choose a woman who violently raped and murdered children. You also delete comments you do not agree with. You don’t believe in freedom of speech or the rights of the majority who disagree with you. Sad.
You are right, I do not post hateful comments. This is not what I do. I believe in restorative justice and lynch mobs are very counterproductive. I have posted a note at the bottom of the blog explicitly stating that this is not about her crimes. It has been discussed and rehashed ad nauseam. Instead, it is about the rights of all inmates to live freely after they are released and the right of the victims’ families to live in peace. Lies, bias and propaganda? I am only stating the obvious; she made a deal and she is free. She is not a recidivist and it is in the best interest of society that she gets support. Her children have done nothing wrong.
How do you know how I spend my time? I did not pick Leanne over anyone else, I reacted to stories in the media that would not stop beating a dead horse. I wrote this article long before she was found in Châteauguay. But I must say that this new hunt proves my point.
I suggest you read it more attentively. I am not defending her past actions. It is about the aftermath. The victims’ families do not want to hear about this anymore. The media is simply using people like you for ratings.
In reply to Venice
Bravo! My thoughts exacly. I’ll never understand how anyone can be so blind to not see difference between light crime and murder. Isn’t it obvious that if she raped and killed children once she can do it again? People have the right to know, if they live nearby or their children are in same school. We are not worried about her ner possible victims but about her feelings about media? Sick
In reality, no one can judge somebody else. Because mankind is so complex, so are brains. No one can predict what they would do and how they would act or react in a given situation. Nothing, absolutely nothing is gained but constantly reminding ourselves of past horrible stories. .. other than comforting our own selves that .. me? no, not me, i am a good person, i could never do something like that.
This women committed terrible crimes. No one would disagree. She, herself, admits it and say that she can never forget what she did.
Years have gone by. She has now become a better person and she is free. Isn’t that side that should be highlighted?
She might have been happier in jail: no one was spying on her and she got to study . Now, ‘She and her family obviously lived like recluses’.
‘She then cornered her into giving an interview. If Leanne refused, Todd threatened to provide her exact location to the press; if she relented, she would not divulge the locale.’ What right does this women have to make such threats. Is this behavior accepted in the Press world?
Paula Todd ‘s only motive was money. Writing a less than interesting book and making money out of it.
I think you make a good point. The side that should be highlighted is that she is leading a better life. It is so easy to judge others but it only contributes to keep them down. The goal should be to repair members of our society so we can live in harmony.
Todd is a bright and educated woman who should have known better than to exploit an already difficult situation.
Thank you for your comment.
Yes, Todd should have known better than to try to profit off of the tragedy of others, which is all she was doing. Trying to shroud it behind “people’s right to know” or any other nonsense is just insulting our intelligence.
I read today that Sharon Tate’s sister was again on her soapbox to keep all Manson followers in prison, this time her target is Leslie Van Houten, who wasn’t even present when Sharon Tate was killed. While Debra Tate’s motive here is distinctly different than that of Paula Todd, the end result is that we have high profile criminals being held to completely unique sentencing. We simply can’t allow public opinion or the rights of living victims to create some kind of parallel ‘justice’ for the infamous.
Leslie Van Houten was a teenager who committed a heinous crime but it is only because of her link to the Manson name that she must pay for the rest of her life.
What is as horrific as their heinous crimes, is how many times the Manson family members took LSD and datura seeds. A lot of people used psychedelics and the hippie era was one of peace and love, but they took acid hundreds and hundreds of times. They were also isolated and clearly out of their mind. It was a clear case of Stockholm syndrome because they remained loyal to Manson and never tried to put up a defense at trial.
“In the book “Mindscapes: An Anthology of Drug Writings” by Antonio Melechi, Harry Asher writes of his experience in volunteering as a test subject for the drug LSD.
In a laboratory he was given thirty millionths of a gram of LSD, and he recounts the tale of his trip (which lasted about 2 weeks!). On the day he was given the acid, he was taken home about 8 hours later and he describes how he had a compulsive urge to do violence to his children, so much so that even in his altered state he had the wisdom to request his wife to keep the children away from him.
This guy was not a psychotic maniac like Manson, he was a mild mannered family man. I don’t presume to know why Manson did what he did but perhaps it was because LSD can produce compulsive urges (both positive or negative) and Manson had sunk so low that he no longer had the same restraints as more moderate people do.”
What I find amazing about Tate’s sister is that she says ‘I do believe in rehabilitation programs. It’s good that she got those, but this woman is a monster.’ ‘I sat as far away from her. You can feel the vibe. They’re still sociopathic individuals of great brutality.’
Notice how they believe in rehabilitation, but never for the ones who hurt a member of their own family (or in her case, someone connected to the murder of her sister). How would she know how brutal she is or if she is a sociopath? The staff and probation officers know Van Houten and say otherwise. But because the case was and still is high profile, they let the family influence the decision, and they are cheered by the media and the mob.
You are right. Being famous or infamous clears the path for a different brand of justice. All the other inmates in similar circumstances would have been paroled, unless they behaved badly in prison, which was not the case for the Manson followers.
The Media are sick, twisted individuals…they are arrogant and sad to say, above the law in an exceedingly high number of cases.
Of course Karla Homolka’s crimes were repugnant but anyone who besets another person with a camera in their face so the whole world can shame is just as repugnant.
Years ago, World Affair Productions came out with a video called How Media profits from Crime and the situation they described keeps escalating. They use fear and loathing as main ingredients to boost their ratings and we are supposed to think it is great entertainment. Crime has become a lucrative business and it’s time people say it out loud and demand that it stops.
I agree that it makes them as repugnant, but they do not do time for their crime.
To Lisa LaSalle,
People are commenting because they want to comment anonymously on a story. There is no need to thank them. Unless you only want them commenting on YOUR story…they only came here for the story, not to open up a dialogue with you. Are you here to enforce your views or present an unbiased story of a former criminal? That’s what the Daily Mail do ! LOL
I don’t remember thanking you. I agreed and added some information about the point you made about the media. I see the comment section as an interaction between the writer and the readers to further develop the content of the blog. I am always open to new information and viewpoints.
This is a restorative justice site and of course, the blogs reflect my views on a less punitive system. But I still present unbiased facts of the case while encouraging people to follow the law by not harassing former inmates or their family. This is not enforcing my views but emphasizing respect for due process and seeing the role of the media for what it is.
Comments are anonymous. With a few exceptions, I do not know who the readers are and I only care about their opinion, but politeness never killed the cat. The ones who want their comments to stand alone can simply abstain from answering my reply.
I completely disagree with you Mr. Boonie. I think one of the best things about our brave new world of instant information and exchange of ideas with the evolving internet is the ability to interact in the comment section with authors, sometimes with each other. When this is used in a constructive fashion with respectful dialog it can lead to a greater understanding of differing opinions.
In fact, I believe this to be a primary reason for freedom of speech in many places. Not to be confused with freedom of the press. Lise is not a journalist and her blog is her own observations and opinions. Well researched and well written with humor and compassion. Lise has an open mind and repeatedly expresses her desire to hear from others with different views or even someone who may have firsthand knowledge that contradicts the information available to researchers.
Personally I find it a bit rude when someone leaves a comment on a personal blog directly addressing the author and the author doesn’t respond in some way, at some time, to the commenters. I have often wondered on some sites if the person even bothers to read what is said.
It is only through the open debate of ideas that our world around us can improve. I welcome the forum Lise has provided and am grateful for it. I also love that she uses her power to banish trolls who have nothing material to add to any conservation, only hate and ignorance. There is too much of that in the world already.
So thank you Lise!!!! You are one in a million!!!!!!
I have to say people like the article author are puzzling. Maybe it is some misplaced guilt? Or championing a percieved “little guy” even if the little guy is a killer who destroyed multiple lives only to recieve a decade in a soft prison..? I would think your time could be much better spent doing something like what I do. I find it rewarding and I am able to sleep at night with it. I work with victims of violent crime. Karla was not ever a victim. Videos prove it, and she had virtually endless chances to do the right thing and save multiple lifetimes of suffering of the victim’s families. She deserves no pity and certainly needs no defending of her ever so slight intrusion by a reporter or two doing a job. She got the break of a lifetime, a serial killer paroled after a decade or so. A couple so called intrusions by a reporter are hardly putting the poor old gal out. Put that energy into becoming a victim advocate. Or dont, the world is full of people wasting time and or talents.
Here we go again. People who do not bother reading the blog deciding to infuse me with their wisdom in a comment.
Refer to Note: I know that many would like to see Leanne Bordelais trampled by a herd of elephants or rotting in prison for life. This article is not about her crime but about the legal right of any released inmate to live free of harassment from the media, for their sake and for the sake of the families involved.
My conclusion in the blog: The remaining victims of Karla Homolka are the French and the Mahaffy families and they are the ones we should focus on. We need to support them by not encouraging the vultures still flying around the corpses of their beloved daughters to keep spreading stories in the media.
You are puzzled by the fact that I have respect for the law and due process?
By the way, protecting the integrity of our system is not championing the little guy, and guilt has nothing to do with that. Mind you, I will defend the underdog any day of the week against the lynch mob.
It is quite easy to call oneself a champion of victims. Anyone can do that and of course, victims deserve services, care and help.
Inmates have rights also and the people who brokered the deal for Homolka were in a position of power. This is what it is.
Going after her or her children is the law of the jungle. It is not my job to hate and judge people for their past. The goal of the correctional services is to rehabilitate and reintegrate human beings into society.
People like you make it impossible for them.
There is such a make believe world and mystique around this woman that she does not stand a chance. They accused her of keeping the name Teale because she was malicious. In fact, she applied to get a new name and was turned down.If she professes remorse, they laugh at her.
The prison where she ended up and that people like to call Club Fed, was in no way easy, and that was after she spent 3 years at Kingston Prison for women, mostly in isolation. Anyone considering any form of incarceration a cakewalk has to be misguided.
She did her time. The couple of intrusions you mention were monumental and they mostly hurt the victims.
Good luck with your endeavors. In the meantime, I will spend my time the way I see fit. As a restorative justice advocate, I participate in helping victims and perpetrators. This is a winning combination and the most humane way to perceive others. People are not perfect and they commit monstrous acts.
I suggest you do volunteer work in a prison like I did. It might enlighten you. Do not waste your time and talent writing Chinese fortune cookie messages on blogs you did not read.
Jason Watson, you “work with victims of violent crime”? I find it hard to believe that in working with this population you haven’t been trained in the healing properties of restorative justice.
Lise states it perfectly when she says that victims are deserving of help, care and services. Of course they are. They are also, in many cases, deserving of and needing financial restitution. Sympathy. Empathy. Understanding.
Lise is a victim advocate. In promoting and advancing restorative justice she does more for victims then all the internet trolls combined who scream for justice for the victim when what they want is a public lynching.
If you really “work” with victims of violent crime why don’t you know this?
So am I to understand that no matter your crime if you go to jail and are released we should all be sorry for you and embrace you?? I don’t f*cking think so. And I really hope you’re not living in Canada Lisa, go back to the states, we don’t want you here
Once again Donna, if you had taken the time to read the blog, you would know that you don’t have to embrace or feel sorry for an inmate whose new found freedom allows her to live wherever she wants. You simply have to respect the law and not act like a bunch of torch bearing lunatics because the media says so. And it’s certainly not legal or human to go after her kids because of her past. Instead, if you don’t like the laws, try to change them.
We can’t force people to be humanitarians, but we can make sure they respect the law. That’s all I am preaching.
I am a proud Canadian and so grateful that it’s not a right that can be taken away by some angry citizens. The same way that the right of an inmate to her freedom cannot be taken away.
Work on improving the system. It is wiser than being angry at the world.
My name is Lise, and you bloody well know I am not Liysa Northon so stop the nonsense. I would appreciate your input if it was constructive or would offer solutions. No need to agree, but let’s be more practical here, fuck it does not solve anything.
Donna Donald, you really think Lise is Liysa?? LOL!! Oh my gosh that is hilarious!!
I guess in your defense you admitted you don’t actually read the blogs Lise writes. Which begs the question: why do you comment on them?
I don’t remember Lise ever asking for anyone to hug ex-cons. I have read her blogs and not once did I come across that request. Treating a human being like a human being after they have done their time seems to be a no-brainer. If you are repulsed by their crime as I think many of us are, then stay away from them.
To treat them like they are now fair game to be abused by any and all of society is sick.
Lise is right when she reminds us that incarceration is no cakewalk. These are human beings that made mistakes. Some of them have done things that mean they will never be released, society will not take the chance. These men and women are still living breathing people and abusing them makes one just as culpable and just as included in the monster category.
To act like it is acceptable to victimize someone who has served her time is to not understand civilization at all. We have laws against that. Clearly we need them when common sense is so lacking.
Thank you for the giggle about Lise being Liysa!! Silly me, I had thought people read the blogs, not just troll about spouting ignorance.
lisa lasale, karen will always have to look over her shoulder for what she did! so whats with all of you rambling bull?
Yeah, good ole Karen. Talking about rambling BS.
You seem to be defending karla which is just as bad as the journalists you accuse of hounding her. How can you write an article like this considering what the victims and families went through.
The media is keeping the message active for their own gain. High profile cases are their bread and butter. They have to maintain the narrative to stay in the game. My message is to let it be and respect the rights of others.
I just landed on your site after a search for something else went sideways, but stopped to read the post above because this is a case that’s always stuck with me. However, I am stunned at what I have just read. Before I continue, please understand I mean you no disrespect with anything I’m about to write.
First, three things:
– I think the media in general are scum;
– I don’t believe that directly harassing Homolka, her children or husband benefits anyone;
– I’ve read your entire article and the comments.
Yes, I understand you’re about restorative justice and yes, I get that you believe that once people convicted of a crime have served their sentence, they should be allowed to integrate back into society in peace. Generally, I would agree with the latter. However, your premise, at least in the Homolka case, couldn’t be more flawed in my opinion. Sure, she served the sentence she was -given-, but the true extent of her willing, even joyful, involvement in these horrific crimes wasn’t known until after her plea deal was secured; if it were, she would have been away for life. That’s not even up for debate.
Her sentence was based on the lie (in this case) of ‘battered wife syndrome’, which we all know now was an act, and the suppression by Bernardo’s attorney of a series of videos depicting not only the killings, but her and Bernardo’s behavior in the days and weeks between. Simply put, she gamed the system. Brilliantly. And while you give the Canadian courts props for standing their ground, I would argue that they failed spectacularly in not finding some way to rescind the plea deal and try her on her -actual- crimes, and therefore failed at their most basic job of serving justice and protecting the public.
Have you read the transcripts of any of the videos? The level of depravity and sheer evil that lives within this woman is beyond comprehension. Sometimes people are just bad, and no amount of restorative justice or ‘live and let live’ will change that. Nor will 12 years of relatively easy prison time. You called her a non-recidivist. I would submit that only after she’s drawn her last breath can she be called a ‘non-recidivist’; until then, we can only say she hasn’t yet re-offended, and can only hope it stays that way.
I do agree that the focus, at least to an extent, should be on the French and the Mahaffy families, but I also believe that everyone needs to know where this woman – one who willingly raped and killed her own little sister – lives and works for the rest of her natural life for their own protection. At this point, it’s not about her or her feelings, it’s about the safety and well-being of those around her and society at large.
If you think that the media can be scum at times, and that we should not be directly harassing Homolka and her family, then we do agree. This is what this blog is about.
Bordelais happens to be an extremely high-profile case so she will never really be left alone because of the media’s interest in getting ratings and reviving her story.
Do you know how many criminals get incredibly unfair deals because they testify against a bigger fish? I have seen it countless times, but people do not necessarily know about it. I know of a double murderer getting released and he participates in restorative justice sessions. Very difficult situation, but he has the privilege of anonymity.
I am often accused of not knowing the case because I believe in second chances, but believe me I do, and I listened to the tapes and read the transcripts. I saw the photo of the extreme beating with the raccoon eyes. And I saw the photos of her little sister after her horrible death (and I still wonder how they could not investigate after seeing the huge burns on her face). I simply choose not to rehash the horror. And I will not participate in repetitive arguments about the kind of person she was and what she did. We all know about it. It was 24 years ago.
So many people dropped the ball in this case.
You can agree or disagree with what the authorities decided to do at the time, but it is never going to change the outcome or the legality of her deal and her right to live as a free woman. The court of public opinion will continue judging her and so it goes.
You say that everyone needs to know where Bordelais is. I disagree. She was living quietly in another country and a reporter dug her out to be able to go on a book tour. What good did it serve? It certainly did not help the victims’ families or protect the public at large.
I would not qualify 4 years of solitary confinement and 8 years in prison as easy time, but it is the typical perception. Even if they had rescinded her ‘deal’, she would have probably come out after 12 or 15 years for good behavior. She would not have been deemed a dangerous offender like Bernardo. Her crimes started and ended with him.
We cannot argue with the fact that she is a non-recidivist. She has not re-offended and I get the feeling that some people would love to see her fail. They could finally say I told you so.
Restorative justice is meant to help people succeed and keep society safe. It’s not a form of denial of their crime. It is making amends and doing better. What else are we supposed to do? Lapidate them? Some countries seem to accept this concept better than others, and it is never an easy pill to swallow when we think of the victims, but it is what being human is supposed to be about.
You will get your wish. People will always know where she is and the media will hunt her till the end of time. No one has to trust her or socialize with her, but Bordelais and her children should be left alone.
She doesn’t deserve happy life and I am glad she is not getting it, she took it away from so many others. I cannot make myself sympathize with misfortunes of a malignant narcissist who raped and murdered children. She still has it in her, no doubt, she gives a hint when she says “how do you know I am a good mother”, perhaps meaning “you don’t now nothing about who I really am”. But since she is a known criminal she won’t do it again, she is prudent enough to impose that much self-control. Although she still has it her and probably would enjoy if she could do the sadistic stuff again.
Ignorance is not innocence, but sin.
Robert Browning
Ummm…what??? The school letting children see her as a safe person is putting them at risk period!! Showing her dog to the kids. So if any of those kids see her looking for her dog and she asks them for help she now has the upper hand!! They know her, seen her at school, know she has a dog. So “if” she does choose to reoffend then what?? Effing dumb!!
Wow, Lise.
I can’t believe you were stupid enough to publish this article.
You must be Karla.
I edited your comment Melinda because like a few others, you forgot to read the reminder or even the article. I am posting it again. This site is not for people who think with their emotions only and find it acceptable to send ignorant comments inciting violence.
I know that many would like to see Leanne Bordelais trampled by a herd of elephants or rotting in prison for life.
This article is not about her crime but about the legal right of any released inmate to live free of harassment from the media, for their sake and for the sake of the families involved.
Therefore, I will not post or answer comments that are simply hateful or personal, but I welcome comments about the case if they concern the subject and bring up elements of the case and the system, no matter if they agree or not.
I don’t know what’s in her heart today or what she may still be capable of. However, she was punished, although imperfectly in my opinion because she hid the true extent of her culpability, and the law lets her live as she wants. No, the media should not be camped out at her door. But in any community the public has every right to be aware of the presence of someone who engaged in horrific sadistic torture against children as young as 14 year olds, including her own sister, and including the dismemberment and encasing body parts in cement of one young victim and discardinig her like trash. People have the right to be on guard, especially if they share schools, neighborhoods, and any other institutions. Morally, she has forfeited any right to privacy.
There is no such thing as morally forfeiting privacy. Laws exist for a reason. Morally, she can be judged and people can have their opinions, but they are not allowed to act on them. I am certainly never going to defend her actions, but I respect her children as well as her rights. I also try to keep in mind that she was part of a duo and that the main perpetrator was already a dangerous and violent rapist who is in prison for life.
Main perpetrator is roaming the streets.she has you fooled as well.
How naive to think that this woman was the first one to get a deal in order to get someone else who has way more crimes under his belt. This is what the justice system is constructed on. Good or bad. No one is fooled. Read the blog and you will get that I am not talking about her crimes but about the media and justice system. I did not cut that deal and it is not like she did not do time and years of solitary. By the way, Paul was committing crimes long before he hooked up with her and as cold hearted as she might be, she was following her king. Not many are talking about Marlena Meneses who stood by her man and was there when they were burning people. They incarcerated Smich and Millard and she testified. She lives happily now. Wake up. What I discuss and care about here is the aftermath of a legal decision that is not ours. We can agree or disagree but all you can hope is that they will become law abiding people. Poking the bear constantly is useless. I wish them to remain on the right path.
Lisa I am not Canadian and I dont know the Canadian legal system. There is a certain reality here that due to the nature of the crimes Leanne committed, she will be held accountable indefinitely by the court of public opinion. There will always be a fear and fascination about her, her whereabouts and her behaviour in society.
You mentioned that the legal system removed her post-imprisonment conditions. That’s one element. There will always be paparazzi and check book 2 bit journalists rehashing the story. Not the respected journalists. The ones to make a buck. And there are plenty of those.
I guess my point is: the legal system has made its decision and Leanne is free to live her life, but she and her children will forever live with the consequences of her actions as Karla.