Tuesday, 3 April 2012

Pussy Pass in Ontario Courts

"Speaking softly and chuckling at odd points in the narrative, the woman accused of plotting to kill Mississauga teenager Aleksandra Firgan-Hewie told a Superior Court jury Tuesday that her former boyfriend and co-accused acted alone." [1]

Some Canadian Law on Murder:

Homicide [2]
  • 222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

Classification of murder [3]
  • 231. (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.

Hijacking, sexual assault or kidnapping
(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:
  • (a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);
  • (b) section 271 (sexual assault);
  • (c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);
  • (d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);
  • (e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or
  • (f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).

"Accessory after fact to murder[4]
240. Every one who is an accessory after the fact to murder is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
  • R.S., c. C-34, s. 223." 

There are troubling things about this case beyond the murder of a 13 year old girl. Do not take me wrong I am not belittling this horrendous crime. The guilty party(ies) deserve the book thrown at them and then some. 
The troubling part is the all to well known pussy pass. 

You know when the courts fail to hold a woman to the same standard of accountability as a man. It has been a standard of justice for quite some time now and the examples of it are too numerous to mention but lets touch upon a one shall we.

Perhaps the best well known case of the pussy pass was given to Karla Holmolka. Karla was given a reduced sentance for giving testimony against her former husband Paul Bernardo. She was given this reduced sentance on the condition that she did not lie to the police and crown attorneys when giving her confessions and or written and or recorded to them, but she did.
There was video taped evidence of her lies, but that didn't matter, Karla was given 12 years for her part in the killing of 3 young girls, despite her lies.
Need proof dear reader well here it is;

"Most people believe there was only one "deal with the devil."
That may be technically correct in terms of Homolka's essential plea bargain in May 1993 but, in truth, there were two. A second pivotal decision by Code's team on May 18, 1995 essentially gave Homolka the blanket immunity she sought from the outset. It was made on the eve of Bernardo's trial, with Homolka slated to be star witness for the prosecution.
Her 1993 plea bargain stipulated that authorities would not protect her from prosecution if she lied or left herself open to charges of "obstructing justice, public mischief, fabricating evidence, perjury, inconsistent statements and/or false affidavits."

But that's what she did, says Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young. In a 1996 memo to Galligan, obtained this week by the Star, Young argued that Homolka "perpetrated a fraud by hiding the full extent of her criminal wrongdoing." He says she withheld evidence on the Mahaffy/French murders and covered up details of the rapes of Jane Doe. The videotapes showed the girl being sexually assaulted by the couple on two separate occasions.

Homolka apparently "forgot" about Jane Doe. It came back to her in a dream. On Oct. 6, 1993, she wrote Walker "I'm having a major problem. Paul raped Jane, a friend of mine. I don't remember much of it ... I have to tell them but what if they nail me for this too?" ....
"... Young remains skeptical. "She has a dream and it starts to come back. The first thing she does is write her lawyer asking for immunity because she's afraid she would be 'nailed' for this disclosure," he says. "She's protecting her ass. Is this an amnesia victim or a manipulative person?" [5]

" leaving Karla to keep the halothane-laden rag over her sister's face. " [6]

So there you have it Karla's deal was built on a foundation of lies told by her a manipulative killer. A Killer who I might add planned and participated in the rape of her sister for her then husband Paul Bernardo.

Which brings us back to the crime I opened this piece with.
In this latest travesty of justice via the routinely handed down pussy pass  by the Ontario courts the woman, Liard, is absolved of all her involvement in the killing of Aleksandra.

In fact the "judge" in this case had already made up his mind on just whom the guilty party was.

"Friday after Justice David Corbett delivered a 60-page charge to the jury, instructing them on the finer points of the law. The judge also offered his opinion on certain aspects of the evidence, suggesting it seemed clear Mr. LaSota had the necessary intent for murder but questioning whether the Crown had established it was a two-person plot.

“It is hard to imagine why they would plan a killing in this way,” Judge Corbett said, citing an apparent lack of planning for body disposal or escape." [7]

And found in another article on the "judge's" comments

"Even before the trial proper began, Justice David Corbett addressed the jury, laying out some broad legal principles and providing a glimpse of the evidence that Goulin would present. Some of his comments were startling to veteran courtroom observers.

“There is no mystery about how she died,” Corbett said of the victim. “She was wounded 37 times with a knife. Several wounds were serious enough to cause death.’’

He then added: “There is no mystery as to who killed Miss Firgan-Hewie. Mr. LaSota killed her.” [8]

This last statement by the presiding judge is unbelievable. The judge before the trial even began had already, in his mind, convicted the male party to this crime and absolved the female criminal in this case.

This is pure and utter vilification of all men and the absolution of women regardless of what evidence tells us. This is how the courts here in Ontario view men and women.
Men are always evil and therefore guilty while women are always good, and therefore deserve to be absolved of their actions.

I suggest the readers go through the articles provided as sources and then if you really want to see justice done call the Attorney General's office and demand he do his job, that is to apply the law equally without favour.

[1] http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/20/co-accused-in-death-of-mississauga-teen-points-blame-at-former-boyfriend/?__lsa=5a5a4464

[2] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-108.html#docCont

[3] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-110.html#docCont

[4] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-113.html#docCont

[5] http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/releases/47F95C9CE0CAE54385257011007096CA

[6] http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/bernardo/rapist_2.html

[7] http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/30/jury-begins-deliberations-in-mississauga-teen-murder-trial/?__lsa=5a5a4464

[8] http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1135200--trial-begins-for-two-charged-with-13-year-old-girl-s-murder