KARLA-PACT WITH THE DEVIL-Stephen Williams

Chumba Casino dot com. No personesses every DALOI why lost ea terms conditions eating plus Hello, it is Ryan and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting or steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino. Chumbuck Casino has all your favorite social casino style games you can play for free anytime anywhere, with daily bonuses that sh you brighten your day.

Lowe actually a lot, so sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbu Casino dot com.

inner life of the world's most notorious female prisoner. In Carla, Williams lets Carla and the other key players speak for themselves and what they have to say will surprise, horrify, and enlighten. The book that we're featuring this evening is Carla A Pact with the Devil, with my special guest journalist and author Steven Williams. Welcome to the program and thank you for agreeing to this interview. Steven Williams.

fairly familiar with this case. You talk about the very beginning of your book of the future of Carla. Why did you think it absurd or interesting or incredible that Carla would have a future as you've summarized in your book. Tell us why that was so amazing to you.

of its timing. The trial where all of the salient information came out was held in the summer of nineteen ninety five at the same time that the OJ Simpson trial was occurring, right so that, as most people know, over one hundred and fifty million people watched the OJ Simpson trial daily around the world, and it was televised, and of course the Bernardo trial that occurred exactly at the same time was not televised. In fact, the attendance even by the media and the public was restricted to

a very small number of people. So there's no way of fully understanding why Carla is signed unless someone is absolutely familiar with the lead up in the crimes and how it evolved. But as the introduction to Carla the book discusses, I mean, here is a woman that murdered her sister, participated and arguably murdered two teenage girls at the behest of her husband and in participation with her husband, and ultimately only served twelve years in prison for those crimes.

And she was very young in their early twenties when she committed the crimes, and she was thirty five and very young when she was released, free and clear in two thousand and five. So on its face, it's a

remarkable story. There's actually nothing quite like it in criminal history. So, you know, women normally do not get involved in crimes of this magnitude, let alone become the managing partner, and if they do, they very very rarely or get out of prison and want to live a normal life at the age of thirty five.

where all the fix was in. So the authorities and her lawyers and the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Prosecution office had made the decision that for her part in these very strange and bizarre crimes, that she would receive twelve years and that would be the extent. And in Canada, of course, twelve years doesn't mean twelve years.

It means that potentially she could have been released at one third of her sentence, so it could have been a very very short amount of time, and the authorities didn't want the details of any of the any of the details of the crimes known publicly. They didn't want any preamble established at priory, and their argument was because

they didn't want to prejudice his trial. Of course, there was no reason to try her set other than political reasons, so their argument was that if we released information or allowed information to be published to do with her crimes in her trial, they would prejudice his right to a free trial. This is an amazing I don't even have words to describe how disingenuous this is on the part of the government and the legal system. But they had made decisions to do with her for absolutely self serving

reasons and enforced them. It's very simple. They simply banned all foreign media from the courthouse while she was being tried for the one day where information would have been released obviously onto the record, and they put in a publication ban that severely restricted even the Canadian media who they had to allow to sit and observe, restricted them

to very very limited disclosure in a public form. So, really, in nineteen ninety three when she was tried, there was only supposition, nothing concrete, nothing determined in what was reported. There's lots of rumors. The Internet was, frankly compared to what it is today and what it was then in a very nascient early period, so there's lots of rumors

and whatnot, but nothing substantive. Nobody really knew anything at that point, and the few American media that were paying attention, like the Washington Post or the Buffalo News, because this happened twelve miles from the Niagara border the Buffalo and Niagara Falls, New York, were outraged, but there was nothing they could do because they weren't allowing the court room.

realizing thing. So let's go back to the circumstances whereas Carla meets George Walker or contacts George Worker, pardon me tell us about the circumstances leading up to seems like Carla realizes what's going on and, being very intelligent, make some moves of her own, so tell us those circumstances.

that they would use to explain the deal that they ultimately made with her. And the fact of the matter is the case so complicated and so arcane that's very hard to deal with it in straightforward terms. The fact is, this idea of backing a plea with this kind of psychiatry came from the Attorney General's office, not from Carla's lawyer or from Carla herself, so that all the material that backed this up, all of the legal experts that they called, were hired at the Crowns at the sorry

of the Crown. It's a Canadian term or a British term for prosecutor chief prosecutor, prosecuting attorney all came out of the prosecutor's office. So their position was conveyed to Carla's lawyer, and of course he adopted it because it was irresistible. I mean, here is a woman who was deeply involved in very extreme crimes against teenage women, including her own sister, and they were going to get pass based on ideas of her being a victim like her sister,

like the two murdered victims of her husband. So who wouldn't take this opportunity and play it? I mean, I'm not exaggerating. The trouble is that the two books I've written on the case, one of six hundred and forty pages long, the other is what three or four hundred pages, there's certainly four hundreds, I'm odd, impossibly detailed and the things that no one ever wanted known. And the other thing is this is a very unusual couple. In fact, I don't think there's any ever been a couple like

these two to be charged with a crime. They were very, very good looking kids in their twenties. She's younger than him by five or six years, but no less, you know, he's twenty four, she's eighteen when they mate. They are middle class or even upper middle class, depends on your definition, and that in and of itself makes them unusual. I mean, his father was a six figure earning registered accountant. They lived in a very middle class neighborhood and an upscale

middle class neighborhood. Her parents weren't quite as accomplished, but they had middle class aspirations. They're both educated, and to the point where he had a degree in economics from a university and had held a job for three years. So it's a very unusual couple. Attractive, middle class, aspiring a better life than their parents, and all this sort of stuff that it works around that kind of lifestyle.

And yet the two of them went deeply into an incredibly dark, murderous relationship that ended up with not only your sister being murdered and a plethora of sexual assault, but also two strangers who were school girls, teenage schoolgirls. Now, the problem that people have had with this case and understanding it is that it is so dense and so

inexplicable that it's almost beyond understanding. Certainly, their behavior is beyond understanding, but in the wake of their behavior, the way in which the judicial authorities and policing dealt with it is beyond bizarre.

ushering and a new era. But also from the fine journalism that you've done, and from the narcissistic tendencies of these people videotaping and recording and diaries and the situation where Karla is actually testifying and has to by law technically tell the truth and disclose, and with the videotapes and with your journalism, this stuff is incredible. How slow you have to read this stuff because it's it just sinks in and affects you when you're reading the details

of what this couple did. What I wanted to say was that.

it became without Carla. He wasn't. He was really what I've always thought is a serial rapists are unusual in the criminal landscape, But he was a really feckless example of a serial rapist because he sort of grew into it after he met her. He was toying with things, but he never actually raped anyone until after he had met her, and there was something about their chemistry that empowered him to go on rampage of serial raping and all the time wooing her and having a relationship with her.

But the instructive thing in that is that he never killed any of his victims until after he moved in with her and started living with her. His first murder victim was her sister, whom she provided the drugs and the circumstances and the ambiance to set up the murder. So you say to yourself, what is it that it is, Keskus said set Grand Richard, it's nuts and frankly, in

the end, that's all. No matter how you look at this situation, it's absolutely unique and bizarre and at least worthy of serious analysis because the crimes are inexplicable, because many, many crimes are inexplicable. I mean, there's a great book about Hitler called Explaining Hitler by Ron Rosenbaum, a great New York writer. He spent ten years looking at the academic industry that has grown around trying to find or evolve explanations for Hitler. Why Hitler? How did Hitler happen?

How do we explain that capacity for evil? And ultimately, Rosenbaum concluded that there is no viable explanation, even in spite of the fact that some of the greatest minds in history have spent their lives trying to figure out why Hitler. So these two present not anyone near that kind of impetus or query, but they present an equally complex and inexplicable situation. So the real issue then becomes, what the hell were the authorities thinking? What did they do?

Why did they let her off virtually scot free? Twelve years in prison? Is scot free, but it it is in no way commiserate with the dimensions of her crime. So how do they let her off and put it on him? Those are the questions that preoccupy me. I can't I can't explain evil of this dimension anymore than people have succeeded in explaining evil, the evil of Hitler in the Holocaust. So what can I tell you?

It's unlike anything else. It's absolutely unique, which is why it justified virtually ten years of my life in two books. Will it ever be recognized as being a justifiable preoccupation? I have no idea, since I was arrested and prosecuted over a ten year period for alleged breaches of publication bands and court orders, and that exercise took whatever earnings I ever had from these books and much more beside, Will it ever justify that? I have no idea? You know that's up to buster.

You're not afraid to ask the hard questions, and hard questions needed to be asked this case is outrageous to anybody, I know Americans from this audience expressed the outrage and also just the confusion. So your book really he sets the record straight on how this could happen, the differences in the law, and then just how this prosecution the

egos involved. So let's get to that, and let's put first, if you don't mind, and again I don't want to take you back, you know, bad memory, Lane, but tell us how you became in the crosshairs of prosecution and what you did exactly to enrage these people before we

get into the deal itself. And what I would refer to earlier was not that Carla had anything to do with the deal, but being an intelligent, psychopathic personality that she was, she knew right away with the lawyer to you know, to read books, to have the terminology down, to sort of understand the defense that she wanted to the battered woman syndrome that she wanted to express. She sort of fits the bill. And also, of course we're going to get to this what everybody's participation, and it's

because to me it's outrageous, of course it's outrageous. Paul Bernardo and Carla Malka, but I think it's outrageous. The police, the lawyers, the psychiatrist. So before we get into that, tell us how you became in the crossairs of prosecution during this case. Sell us how that happened.

as watchers on the watch tower. So an investigative journalist, if he has the resources and has the will and whatnot, is working in a very fertile field because there are all sorts of people within the system who want to talk about what they are not supposed to talk about. So in Canada, the idea of a book writer, of a person who only has contracts with a publishing company and is not in league with any media doesn't work for a newspaper, doesn't work for a television broadcasting firm.

It's almost even in nineteen ninety four, ninety three, ninety two was a foreign concept that some in Canada, not in the United States, but in Canada. So no one understood what my real purpose was or what my role was. But more importantly, the intelligent people that work in the toil in this minefield called judicial process, like the expert witnesses, you know, the psychiatrists, the psychologists, the defense lawyers, even

some senior police and prosecutors, even judges. Some of them understand the duplicity, the ambiguity, the frailty of the process, the so called sacred process of adjudicating responsibility. They understand it's frail and fraught with politics and whatnot. So, particularly at that place and time, they saw in me someone who had no vested interest in disclosing anything I learned early on to the public. In other words, I would not breach confidence because, frankly, it was in my own

interest not to do that. It was in my financial interest, in my personal interest as only a writer of books, with some contracts with Random House and whatnot, it was in my best interest not to disclose anything I learned until all of the proceedings were gone and finished. So therefore, people who would never talk to anybody in the media not only talked to me, but supplied incredible information. And frankly,

it's all documented in the two books. If anyone spends enough time reading closely and paying attention all of this that happened to me, that I learned that the people I knew, that I met and who supplied me with information in the books. But at the time, no one knew any of this. And we're dealing with a ten year period over which that period, each of the books

was published and each of the prosecutions were initiated. And so not only did I get the backstory, I got the backstory that no one thought was ever going to be told. So the authorities aren't faceless bureaucrats, they're actually individuals. There were a few individuals that took umbrage with this.

he care? Well, because every time anything was about this case, money flowed into his office because there was some setup that he had created to defend their honor the victims of the families of the victim's honor created a very strange phenomenon whereby people would donate money to their so called victim's fund or integrity fund or whatever it was, whenever there was anything in the press about the case, whenever anyone was perceived to a transgrass or trespass on

the victim's integrity. Of course, my work is the only work that really gave the victims their humanity, and it's anomaly. But nevertheless, through a number of back channels, I became a target for the Attorney General and the police to a sale on the idea that's my dog drinking water in the kitchen, I hope can you hear that?

simply protected because we didn't want it told. Well. And then there's the other thing in my first book, where in the section where you a true crime writer always looks at the history of the people who were involved in the case. In other words, the fifteen or sixteen or twenty important people that were involved in the case. One goes down and says, well, this I died of a heart attack in nineteen ninety seven. This guy went back to the Crown Law Office in New York in

two thousand. This guy did this. This guy did that. I happened to mention the fact that the prosecutor prosecuted Carla had divorced his wife and left his three children for his assist secutor, who was his second chair in the prosecution of Carla Homonka, that they had affair during the case, and he was the assistant Attorney General at

the time. That powers that be decided to have me arrested for breaching publication orders and ignoring court orders in nineteen ninety eight, after the book of the first Invisible Darkness was published. What do you say about that. Once there's an order to investigate an individual ordered by the Attorney General, the police do what the police do. They had dogs hunt, so when they finish hunting, they kill. In the case of the police, they arrest, So whether

or not it was justified is immaterial. To arrest me again, charge you with numerous breaches of publication, bans and court orders. Make a long story short. You know, after almost three years on trial, I was acquitted of those charges, as I should have been, because there was innocent of the charges. But it takes three years out of a man's life,

a writer's man's life. When a writer is interrupted in his life, it's a serious interruption because it makes all of his concentration, all his momentum and rhythm, so they end up doing serious image. So I may have won the battle, but I lost the war when I also in the process because I was forced to go back into all my research and archives. I realized in that period of time, which is ninety eight to two thousand or so, that I realized something that no one else realized.

That Carlo was actually going to get out of jail and she was going to be let out scott free at some point. So I went to another publisher and I was able to get an advance to write Carla. A pact with the devil. My wife happens to be a very prolific and successful writer, and she was able to continue her work. So it was a terrible period, but it wasn't a horrible, horrific end of life period. When Carla came out in two thousand and three, they decided to arrest me again, but this time they had

decided to double down. They had put twenty senior investigators on me, brought in the FBI, they brought an inter Pol. They took me down like a drug dealer in my farmhouse at six am with a swat team and my old farmhouse up in southwestern Ontario. They drove me around for ten hours so my lawyer figure out where I was or what jail I was in or whatever. And they doubled and tripled down by charging me with one hundred and ten counts of breach, a publication ban and

court order. They raided the farmhouse, all of my wife's computers and all of my computers and all of our files and everything we have. Now my wife writes funny stories about living, like moving from the city to the country. She won the Leecock Award, which was the equivalent of the Mark Twain Award for Humor in the United States, etc. Et cetera. So she has to do with any of this. But they took all of her stuff as well. And even more importantly and bizarrely, they arrested her and I

on illegal storage of firearms. We live on a farm, and part of that law states that anyone that lives on a farm can have firearms at the ready that they're exempt from the principles of this particular law. But nevertheless, that can't be adjudicated until you're a year or a year and a half into your charge before it gets

to a judge. I arrested her by thereby stopping her work and everything else, stopping me completely, and they decided they just continued to prosecute for another three years, and they failed. The whole point in the end, which I realized too late in life, was that the idea was to not really put me in jail, but rather make an example of me, but more importantly, to break me financially. I won the battles. I was acquitted in the first instance instead of one hundred and ten. You know, the

firearms charges were dropped. I ended up in bankruptcy, misdemeanor breach, of a publication ban to do with my website only. None of the books were never assailed nothing. I was never sued for lear anything else. But I ended up broke, which was the point. And that's after almost a decade of prosecution and persecution for the simple fact that the books are completely accurate and tell the real story behind what went on in the government, with the prosecution and the police.

you have with him? But I just I, yeah, so let's talk about that, because that's I think one of the more profound parts of this book and surprising to me knowing that the psychiatrist for the prosecut for the defense, pardon me, tell us doctor Hans Aren't's role in this, and then after that you can tell us about this profound moment where he gives you this incredible amount of information.

Hans lawyers had issues. He just wondered if this role was really valid or if he was just a very kind and intelligent and gifted man who had questions when he was given the responsibility in the case to examine Carla at length on behalf of the legal community. He and I happened to me. I mean, this is all there's a serendipity to it that is beautiful, but there's also the fact that he was doing his job. I

was doing my job. And we happen to have mutual friends who introduced us, and we spent five or six hours having dinner and talking about things in general, and my telling him that I had a real interest in the case and in his patient, et cetera, et cetera, And he decided, in a period of a very short amount of time to share with me everything he knew about his patient, all of her records, medical school, whatever, And because he decided that, as I described earlier, I

was a person in a position that people actually believed they could trust me, and that I could hold information that no one else should have and it wouldn't compromise them or their profession at the time that they shared. He knew that ultimately, maybe all of the information that he had, technically all of the information that he had

then should have been made public. It never was, but he knew that legally, at some point in time, once the trials of these two individuals was over, that this material was technically legally in the possession of the Canadian American public, in the possession of the public, and he decided to share it with me before she had even been tried, because he believed he could trust me not to disclose it until it was appropriate, and that gave me enormous insight into the process of what was going on.

In fact, it was probably the pivotal thing that allowed me to get the amount of insight that I needed to realize who I should then subsequently interview and who I should pay attention to, and how much effort should be put here there. In another place. I mean, it was like a road for the best investigative journalism in

the world. It was one of those scenarios that you very very seldom see, and it really did provide that that capacity so that I could write both of the books with ultimately absolute authority and confidence that I had the correct information.

by since the role of the expert witness. I wrote a piece back in nineteen seventy nine about a shoeshine what they call in Toronto the shoeshine Boy murders, where four very strange pedophiles kidnapped a shoeshine boy and raped him for twenty four hours and then drowned him in their sink and then put his body in a bag on top of a massage parlor on Young Street in Toronto, and then fled to all parts of the continent, and of course they caught all of these guys, and in

the trial I wrote a piece about it, the only other true crime piece I've ever really written except these two books, called Sympathy for the Devil in Toronto Life in nineteen seventy nine. And what my real interest in that case was, is psychopathy a real thing? What's the role of the psychiatrist to the expert witness in a

trial of this kind? Because one of the lawyers pled one of the perpetrators who was like sort of a Hollywood looks guy named Saul David Patch, who came from a very well to do Jewish family and was completely deranged and basically the leader of these four strange, lethal people.

His defense put on the argument, because he was a psychopath, he was not legally responsible for what he did, and of course that defense has been tried probably before and many times since, but at my age in those days, in the late nineteen seventies and eighties, it seemed like an absolutely unique and bizarre defense, because even then I thought psychopathy was a fiction, and so I had a

really hard long look. Those were the days when magazines would actually pay serious money to do serious in depth pieces, and I looked into the whole issue of expert witnesses and their role relevance in the judicial process, of course, concluding that they're mostly an impediment and a confusion and not really relevant to the issue at hand. But this was a later day revelation that just up the stakes.

There's two different trials. Let's get to just a little bit of of the nexus of how Carla got to have this future in terms of contacting Walker and then Walker making those next moves, and the Psychiatrist's involvement in this even before they cook up this deal. And then we can talk about Vince Bevin because he is the most important or one of the most important characters in

his story. So first talk about that nexus with Walker and the psychiatrist and what they did for Carla to be able to come up with this deal.

that everyone would recognize Americans and Canadians together. They have a lot of donut and coffee shops, and they have a lot of veterinarian practices, and Carla worked at one of them, and a lawyer of the statue of George Walker would never have even considered taking on Carla as a client except for the fact, like I am, he was a very serious dog lover, and he happened to be a big Dalmatians guy, and he had the vet clinic that Carla happened to work at, had actually, knowing

that he was a Dalmatians dog man, had given him a Dalmatian that was partially blind because they knew he would take care of it. I think at the time he had three or four Dalmatians and they were right, of course, and he brought his dogs back, of course, to the same clinic where Carla was working, certainly after he had gotten the half blind dalmatian and she had met as the sort of receptionist, VET clinic assistant whatever.

She had met both George Walker, who became her criminal defense lawyer, and his wife Lori in the context of their need for veterinary services for the dogs. And when Carla realized that she was under siege and that she was in jeopardy, the first thing she could she couldn't think of any lawyers per se, but she remembered that George Walker was a lawyer and she was wife well

enough to call her. So she put a call in to Laurie and said, I need help and I've got a domestic problem, and do you think that George would see me? And of course Laurie said, no problem, having known I mean, nobody knew anything. No one had any foreknowledge of anything there was. Laurie had no idea what was going on. She said, of course, my dear, you know, I'll set up an appointment for you and you can come in and talk to George. I hope it's not

too serious. So when Laurie, George Walker's wife, turned to George and said, by the way, I've set up an appointment for you with Carla Amonka at three pm the next day, George looked at her and said what for, And she said, well, there's some apparently domestic problem she's having, and George said, worse to this effect, Well, tell her to kill the bastard and then I'll defend her. Because

his practice was basically a very high end practice. He defended murderers and drug cartel, keypins and stuff like that. He didn't do domestic law. And it's darkly funny. Tell her to murder the bastard and then I'll see her. And Laurie said, no, no, this is the girl that helps our dogs in the Martindale clinic. So and I've set up the appointment, so you're going to see her.

And so he did, as we all do, we do what our wives tell us, and the game was on from then From there on forward, it's so complicated, I mean, I could digress at almost every statement I made. Because, of course, the Toronto Police, the police from the city of Toronto drove her to the appointment because they had discovered that the DNA and the rapes that were committed in Toronto were Bernardo's DNA, but they didn't suspect her,

so they actually drove her to her lawyer's appointment. From that point on, Of course, George became her lawyer and he immediately started to talk to the senior prosecutors that would be involved in this case, and the rest is history.

he'd be familiar with it, maybe roughly. If you're a criminal lawy, if you're handed something you don't argue with it, you say, that's an interesting concept, you know, because your obligation is to your client. And George, I don't know what he opinion he holds today, but certainly back in those days he thought that was as good an explanation as any.

more detail, these psychiatrists were brought to his attention. He said, that's fine, they're well known, they have good reputations, so we'll work with them and take what their assessment is. People seem to think there should be some different morality on the part of defense lawyers than there are for

prosecuting attorneys or the government. In this case, as I've demonstrated, it was the government's idea that he worked with these particular psychiatrists and psychologists, two of whom were at least no one for their work with the prosecution. Nobody in their right mind, given the definition of their job in his case or in a defense lawyer's case, would move

away from that. And if the ultimate decision that the psychiatrist and the psychologists make is that she was about a woman suffering from post traumatic stress disorder was the definitive position, who's to argue not him.

crimes of this dimension occur. So you've got a police force that is hugely inexperienced in dealing with anything this weird, but anything like weirder than some motorcycle gangs beating up themselves in the back of an alley, or some cross border drug dealing, some organized crime stuff like that. But it's not a crime ridden area. It's certainly not a sex crime area. It's not an area where it's any real history of sex crimes. That's what I'm I'm trying

to say. So, you have two strange, bizarre incidents in fairly quick succession whereby Leslie Mahafi is murdered and dismembered and her body parts are encased in cement and they're thrown in a reservoir near the city of Saint Catharine or that feeds the city of Saint Catherine, and those

are discovered in nineteen ninety one. And you have a couple of other strange incidents of a sexual crime nature that happened uncharacteristically between that particular incident and the death of Christian French in nineteen ninety two around Easter in April nineteen ninety two, whereby her naked body with her long hair cut off, is found in a ditch across from the cemetery where less than Haffi had been buried, but uncharacteristic to the area, he had a couple other

sex crimes. And when French's body is found, of course, because she is from Saint Catharine's and Mahaffy wasn't. She was from another town further along the peninsula. Niagar Regional Police took horrendous interest, a very serious interest in her disappearance immediately and couldn't find couldn't solve it, and couldn't

figure it out. They immediately, you know, within that period of time, they formed the task force, which involved the Ontario government and involved other police forces, with the exception of the Toronto Police Force, who had absolutely no interest in being involved with the Naga Regional Police Force for reasons that can only be talked about in a book because they're about regional prejudices and discrepancies among police forces,

which I think most people are vaguely familiar with. But Bevan was somehow appointed as the head of the task force that was formed with the impetus of the Ontario government, the state government, and was the participants, the people who they are police officers that were enlisted into this task force involved six or some six or seven regional forces in the vicinity. That's the other thing. There were all kinds of regional forces in a very not very big area.

There was a very small area where all kinds of small police forces were operational, and so they brought in the Hamilton people that whatever, it doesn't matter a bunch of regional police forces, and the funding came from the government, and therefore Bevin became not a young police officer who was going to report to his chief and Nagara Regional but he then became somebody who was reporting to the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the

Solicitor General in Toronto, and he made all kinds of like bizarre rookie mistakes based on ida is like semi witness to this crime that no one knew was actually a crime, had been driving an old Camaro. In fact, that Bernardo and Carla when they kidnapped Christian French were driving a very late model, like only a year or two old Nissan. So almost everything that he accumulated as a clue and then publicized as clues was wrong, which

made the idea that they'd be apprehended almost impossible. And even though because the Toronto Police been developing DNA evidence, finally after years, because DNA evidence was in its naiscence, the development of it as evidentiary stuff that worked well in courts, and all this stuff was in trial even in New York. I mean, this was nineteen ninety three, and only the first first use of DNA evidence was in nineteen eighty four in a small area in England.

So it was new stuff, new science, and yet police tend to get into new science. Bernardo's DNA from Toronto rapes had been sitting in the lab for years, and the Toronto Police had developed a couple of hits that made him the man who committed those couple of crimes, and they were down and arrest Bernardo. Bevin had already interviewed Bernardo, He'd already had enough information passed on by the government liaison and all that stuff to know that

he could be a suspect, interviewed him, cleared them. So it was an impossible situation. Bernardo had been cleared by Bevin and the Toronto Police were about to arrest him definitively as the Garborough rapist. And that's when the politics started to kick in, because what are you going to do. You're going to let this guy be arrested as a rapist when in fact he's in responsible for two murders of young girls down in the Nagara region. Not politically acceptable.

So in that scenario, which is far more complicated than I've been able to describe because I'm already testing anyone who's listening patients, you know, evolution of this bizarre and inexplicable case that let her go free and put Bernardo behind bars not for the Scarborough Race, but for the two murders in Saint Catharines, as you.

to fathom that they could get past that. So tell us explain to the audience about the importance of Jane Doe and Carla's behavior six months after her sister was killed accidentally.

using a sleeping pill. I can't remember whether Tamasa, PAM or something in conjunction. She is almost absurd, an anesthetic that was counter indicated to even eating or let alone being put on a cloth, and she used these same

techniques on her sister and the sister died. Then six months later did the same thing of her own volition to a young teenage girl that she knew and enticed into their home Paul Bernardo, of her own volition, and the same thing to Jane Doe as she had done to her sister six months earlier, and that procedure killed her sisters. Without regard to that issue, she did it.

And then old Bernardo was out gallivanting somewhere and said, come home, dear, I have a present for you, and of course the present was a comatos Jane Doe, and they proceeded aper and videotape their performance. I think that what I was saying to Michael was have you seen the videotapes of both incidents? And were you were aware of the of the proximity? And if I'm not mistaken, Mike said, I haven't really a reviewo tape at all, and no, I haven't seen those. That wasn't the issue.

The issue was to do with the decisions that have been made about how to deal with the situation and what was So anybody who wants to try and parse that is I understand what he's saying, and I understand the position he's taking, but it's a hard one to reconcile with. Das of tooth in the American way.

the case hardly would have added. He said, hardly added any more time to the twelve year sentence, and it would affected her credibility in the Bernardo case. And like you say, he seemed to compartmentalize it in terms of, well, no, I didn't review I just reviewed the statements from the experts. I didn't review the evidence, and the evidence I looked at I looked at a certain way.

resolution as it had been developed. In other words, she had been dealt with, and Bernardo was being dealt with in his own way. The thing that's very hard to understand is that in the end, what I suggested was that, and it's true. And by the way, the prosecutor in the Nardo trials said, coo things structive, they're in my books. When he was starting the case against Paul Bernardo, he said, we're going to call Paul Bernardo's wife, Carla Hamalka to the stand as a witness. She is not on trial

in this case. She had a witness and as such, only her testimony is relevant. You're not to be concerned earned with any other issue other than what she testifies to. They're both guilty of first degree, but we've made an arrangement and a plea agreement with miss Amoca, so she's not on trial. So that was part of his opening statement, his closing statement after her having been on the stand for twenty days and most of being in cross examination,

not examination in chief. In other words, she was on for nineteen days with Bernardo's defense lawyer and about a day with the Crown with the prosecutor. The prosecutor said in his closing remark to the jury, they're both guilty of first degree murder, but we made an arrangement with Carlo Homalca and nothing she said had any relevance to this case, ignore all her testimony. So what I've always, I mean, I understand what's going on, and most people don't.

I don't think because most people don't get themselves deeply involved in this ship. I mean, what's going on is that this trial could have been conducted in four days. The Crown and the defense could have agreed on selected stills from the videos, like a dozen, maybe sixteen them in front of the jury. They also have this evidence in this evidence, you know, this stuff from the stains on a carpet, this DNA and whatnot. He's guilty and it would have been found so in three or four days.

But instead they were intent on doing three or fourms of what I think is a Dasadian sort of charleton play, a sick play from the decade from the asylum where he used to put on his place for French Aris doctors. And they do this to somehow justify this incredibly inexplicable and bizarre deal they made with Carla, the She Devil.