R. v. Bernardo [Evidence – Psychiatric – Karla Homolka]
to understand the manner in which ‘expert’ evidence has deformed the natural flow of Canadian law in the last 40 years, turn first to what is the most glaring example of how ‘expert’ evidence, and prosecutor-enablement, led to a reversal of what should have been multiple life-sentences to Karla Homolka rather than the golden handshake given to her by the enabling prosecutors:
The case is emblematic of the extent to which the state (meaning: prosecutors) were so gullible and enthralled by ‘experts’ that they credulously aided the construction of the narrative that Karla Homolka was the ‘victim’ rather than the mastermind of the horse-tranquilizing, then rape and murder of her little sister. The ‘expert’ narratives included the following from the above-case CanLII case here)
- 6 Dr. Stephen John Hucker and Dr. Chris Hatcher are tendered as experts in Battered Spouse Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Dr. Peter G. Jaffe is offered as an expert in Battered Spouse Syndrome only. Mr. Roy Hazelwood, an FBI expert, is tendered for his development of and expertise in, the Compliant Victim Of A Sexual Sadist theory. Dr. Hucker will also offer expert evidence on this theory. Although the Crown has provided the Court with a formal report, written by Dr. Angus McDonald, Mr. Porter does not intend to call Dr. McDonald at this time.
Hucker states:
- It is therefore my opinion, based on the information so far available to me, that Mr. Bernardo was far more likely the murderer. It could be argued that Mr. Bernardo induced Ms. Homolka to actually perform the killings (as she herself states he said he would subsequently require of her) but, if there is evidence to support this contention, it would be my opinion that she would have carried out the killings under extreme duress and other very abnormal circumstances.
Here is some more expert ‘evidence’ so persuasive to LeSage J:
- 12 The Crown’s position is that for the jury to properly assess Homolka’s testimony, they must have an understanding of Battered Spouse Syndrome. Further, the intricacies of Battered Spouse Syndrome require an appreciation of other scientific 12 concepts such as Normalization. Normalization (as I understand it) is an attempt to mix and integrate a criminal act into normal aspects of one’s life. An example of this is Homolka’s ability to prepare and serve Father’s Day dinner while Leslie Mahaffy’s dead body lay in her root cellar. Mr. Porter submits Battered Spouse Syndrome and many of the accompanying theories such as Normalization are areas of science beyond the expertise of a lay jury. It is essential, he submits, that the jury hear from the Crown experts in order to comprehend much of Homolka’s behaviour. This in turn will aid the jury in the determination of the ultimate issue which is who killed Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. This evidence is also relevant and helpful to rebut the defence position that Homolka was extremely happy in her situation as evidenced by the voluminous cards and notes she sent to the accused throughout their relationship. With the experts’ help, the jury will understand why Homolka “relates past events, including sexual assault, the apparently un-intended death of her sister, sexual and physical abuse of herself by her husband and the eventual kidnapping, sadistic sex and murder, with seeming nonchalance.” (Dr. McDonald’s Report, p. 2) This evidence will explain Homolka’s “flat affect”. The Crown contends the expert evidence will aid the jury in assessing Homolka’s testimony.
Here is LeSage J. in one of the worst moments in Canadian judicial history:
- 54 A definition and explanation of the scientifically recognized and accepted concepts of Battered Spouse Syndrome, Normalization and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder will be of great assistance to the jury and will help to dispel any myths or misunderstandings that may exist. Such evidence will aid the jury in their assessment of Homolka’s evidence and ultimately their decision of who killed Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. The jury’s conclusions, in assessing the evidence of Homolka, will be based on their factual findings and the application of the psychiatric evidence
ECC note: it is not the existence in the justice process of people like Hucker and the Bernardo prosecutors who are most problematic. (They are problematic but expected to exist, and should exist, in an adversarial system) The fact that the prosecutors could not see, chose not to see, the obvious mastermind, and chose to ally themselves with that mastermind for the trivial purpose of convicting the clearly less important co-accused Bernardo, the judicial effect of which conviction was neutralized by putting Homolka back on the street almost immediately. The prosecutors are to blame for their judgment in allying themselves with Homolka. But it is LeSage ACOC that I expected more from – he should have rejected, rather than accept this pro-Homolka expert-nonsense which LeSage then feed to the jury so that our own Ontario-style Hannibal Lecter now walks the streets with state-blessing.
This is the first of a long series of expert-stories that tell our story of the last 40 years.
