Kelly Ellard
- Thread starter Massagegirl
- Start date
... but at 16 she can drive a car ... she was already smoking and using Reena's face as an ashtray ... drinking ... having sex ... and committing murder but we should try her as a child?LisaGigglez said:
the end of any childhood is engaging in adult acts: ergo: act like one and be tried like one.
the young offender's act was never intended for the types of crimes that young people now commit, it was intended to provide an opportunity to avoid a life-long criminal record for stupid acts ...
murder is not simply a stupid act ... or one of a child.
I couldn't agree more Lonelyghost............at 16 she knows the difference between right and wrong......they definetely need to rewrite the young offenders act..........whether she is 16 nor 21 is irrelevant...............we are far to lax here in our justice system....if she is convicted she can be out in 5 to 7 years if she does everything that is asked of her inside ie: programs that are available. What a joke............she deserves 0 breaks
During her first trial she was still a juvenile and that jury who got to see her as a juvenile found her guilty. So far after seeing all the evidence 23 out of 24 jurors thought she was guilty, but because of one moron she may go free. Just because your lawyer drags out your case for 6 years doesn't mean you should get away with murder committed as a 15 year old because now your 21 and 'a different person'. Her assault in the park shows she is still a violent person, who is a danger to society. I don't feel any more sympathy to 15 year old murderers than I do to adult murderers.LisaGigglez said:
I agree with BDAclub Murderers should be treated harshly whether they are 15 or 25 or any other age. A couple blocks from where I live another 15 year old, Jeremy Wade Vojkovic raped a mother of 3, slit her throat, then burned her alive. This fucker may be eligible for parole is as little as 4 years because he was only 15 at the time. I don't feel any safer that by then he will be an adult, 'a different person', with his 'childhood mischief' behind him. Personally I think if someone is enough of a monster to kill another human being at 15, that they are so fucked in the head, becoming an adult isn't going to fix them.
sir
exactly ... that is the one reason i support the death penalty ... if you can cross the line to killing someone or even something then you have crossed a line that 99.99% of the population will never cross.
typical profile of killers is a domineering mother (feminists hate that); an ineffectual or absent father (single moms, eh? feminists hate that); a bed-wetter; a fire-bug and, the biggie, tortures or kills animals.
that asswipe that killed a bunny at Uvic recently got off with a wrist slap when reality says that if he can beat a pregnant rabbit near to death (and it did die) then the next step is not too far off.
we DO NOT NEED THESE FUCKERS IN OUR WORLD ... particulalry that cunt Kelly Ellard ...
as for that juror, she can take kelly home to live with her ... until the little bitch kills her ... like she deserves anything less!
exactly ... that is the one reason i support the death penalty ... if you can cross the line to killing someone or even something then you have crossed a line that 99.99% of the population will never cross.
typical profile of killers is a domineering mother (feminists hate that); an ineffectual or absent father (single moms, eh? feminists hate that); a bed-wetter; a fire-bug and, the biggie, tortures or kills animals.
that asswipe that killed a bunny at Uvic recently got off with a wrist slap when reality says that if he can beat a pregnant rabbit near to death (and it did die) then the next step is not too far off.
we DO NOT NEED THESE FUCKERS IN OUR WORLD ... particulalry that cunt Kelly Ellard ...
as for that juror, she can take kelly home to live with her ... until the little bitch kills her ... like she deserves anything less!
Cat, you hit the nail when you said stupid jurors. I have never understood why they want a person that lives in a hole somewhere and hasn't heard beans about a huge case like this and not an intelligent, well informed person.
Lisa.......I saw on another thread that you were studying criminology. As soon as I saw that I can understand why you are able to take a more analytical view of the case........if that's the right word, or at least you will approach it from different angles. Your certainly well spoken in your above post..........I agree Homolka was a case of her lawyer out negotiating the crown they totaly blew that one. Ellard is just a perfect example of how bullshit technicalities can change the outcome.
In the first trial it was overturned not because the burden of proof wasn't met but because they deemed that the crown asked inappropriate questions even though these questions didn't affect the burden of proof.......in short a technicality.
In this second one only ONE juror stood in the way that's ridiculous, to me I can see if it was 7-5 or something......... fine the Crown didn't do their job......but just because one juror wasn't able to process the facts then it's a mistrial????
@#$$%* that really needs to be fixed
In the first trial it was overturned not because the burden of proof wasn't met but because they deemed that the crown asked inappropriate questions even though these questions didn't affect the burden of proof.......in short a technicality.
In this second one only ONE juror stood in the way that's ridiculous, to me I can see if it was 7-5 or something......... fine the Crown didn't do their job......but just because one juror wasn't able to process the facts then it's a mistrial????
@#$$%* that really needs to be fixed
one point, however, is that there is a difference between scientific fact and evidence and simply stating our opinions and feelings ...
as for the absence of prejudice ... no such thing ... someone on the jury obviously felt differently about the evidence and ellard than the other 11 jurors ...
though a dif topic, one scientific study examined sexual harrassment in the workplace ... the major finding? if women were approached and told sexually inappropriate things by a guy who they considered 'good-looking' then they did not consider his actions to be harrassment ...
if the guy was not 'good looking' then the women considered his actions offensive and harrassing ...
but that is the problem in our jury system ... it is not blind because the accussed has the right to face his/her accusers and therefore the jury cannot be hidden ... though, on the face of things, it would be better if they could not see the accussed because then they could only form an opinion on the facts presented into evidence, not their opinion on the appearance of the accussed.
it helped ellard that she is good looking and reena was not ... that's a fact.
as for the absence of prejudice ... no such thing ... someone on the jury obviously felt differently about the evidence and ellard than the other 11 jurors ...
though a dif topic, one scientific study examined sexual harrassment in the workplace ... the major finding? if women were approached and told sexually inappropriate things by a guy who they considered 'good-looking' then they did not consider his actions to be harrassment ...
if the guy was not 'good looking' then the women considered his actions offensive and harrassing ...
but that is the problem in our jury system ... it is not blind because the accussed has the right to face his/her accusers and therefore the jury cannot be hidden ... though, on the face of things, it would be better if they could not see the accussed because then they could only form an opinion on the facts presented into evidence, not their opinion on the appearance of the accussed.
it helped ellard that she is good looking and reena was not ... that's a fact.
ironic
that our courts can find a host or business responsible if someone drinks and drives and hurts someone, including themselves ...
but cannot find ellard guilty for at least instigating the events that led to reena's death ...
how stupid was that 12th juror? and were her initals GG??
that our courts can find a host or business responsible if someone drinks and drives and hurts someone, including themselves ...
but cannot find ellard guilty for at least instigating the events that led to reena's death ...
how stupid was that 12th juror? and were her initals GG??
I lived up North. The sun didn't come up for about 6 months. Course, with no sun there's no shadow anyway so that whole beyond the shadow of a doubt goes right out the window.
While I'll admit that I haven't followed the proccedings extremely closely, I would have to say that I havent really heard of any actual proof that she did this? So far all of the evidence that I've read about (granted jurors would get far more) is all eyewitness testemony and hearsay. "Oh, she was bragging she killed her". I'm sorry, but thats BS. How many times have kids in school bragged about doing things that they never have in order to appear tough or cool or just to fit in? I'll admit, copping to murder wouldnt be the top of MY things to brag about, but I've known plenty of guys who bragged about curb stompping ppl or putting ppl in hospitals. And eyewitness testimony has been proven numerous times to be so unreliable that I'm kinda surprised it's still taken seriously in court. I mean, yeah sure the person (maybe) saw what happened, but human memories are funny things and tend to greatly distort facts and make assumptions. Even questioned immediately after an event happening, studies have shown that if you ask ten different people what happened, you will very often get ten very different accounts of the events in question. I also found it interesting the comments made about a person's attractiveness affecting the outcome of their trials. I actually saw a study on this exact thing. As a test, they set up two (fake) trials of two different men accused of the same crime, with two different "jurys". The first man was tall, well groomed & dressed, and handsome. The second man slouched, his hair was a bit messy, his suit was rumpled, etc. Almost invariably, the "jurors" initial opinions was immediately that the slovenly dress man was guilty, while with the other man was seen as innocent, as such a clean cut person couldn't be a criminal. While of course the evidence will be the primary factor in the case, you know what they say about first impressions.
