|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 27, 2008 13:40:31 GMT -5
She'da been in Canada legally. It's a whole iffy situation. Guilty? Not guilty? Let's just get her "home". Actually no ... I think she should stay in Mexico until we get all the facts. All the news I have read have been written totally biased in her defense. We made that mistake before and were wrong, very wrong. Let's at least get our media to give us Mexico's side of the story and the evidence they have, before we bring her home. I don't think the Canadian authorities are making this decision on the basis of information they are getting from the media. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 27, 2008 13:52:36 GMT -5
So someone robbing people of their life savings is high in morals? Just because you do something wrong, no matter how wrong, doesn't mean you "have no morals." I'll give you that ... so I'll clarify. This guy wasn't exactly Mother Theresa, the fact he scammed everyone BUT her (that we know of), should send out alarms. And I read today that he didnt return Martin's money until AFTER he was arrested, and it wasn't all of it. It was done through offshore accounts and so elaborately that once again gives the impression she was more than a cook. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 27, 2008 13:56:56 GMT -5
Actually no ... I think she should stay in Mexico until we get all the facts. All the news I have read have been written totally biased in her defense. We made that mistake before and were wrong, very wrong. Let's at least get our media to give us Mexico's side of the story and the evidence they have, before we bring her home. I don't think the Canadian authorities are making this decision on the basis of information they are getting from the media. Dont be so sure ... we made the mistake before. Anyone remember David Spencer and Christine Lamont? Lamont's family controlled the media ways for a great deal of 1989, had all of Canada, especially the media convinced that the two were innocent. Canadian authorities intervened ...and guess what? They were as guilty as sin.....so guilty that Ryderson Review of Journalism wrote about the role the media played in the mess. Some journalists even defended the two when falsified passports/documents surfaced.... all any journalist had to do was ask Brazil what evidence they had - none did. www.rrj.ca/issue/1996/summer/230/ |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 2, 2008 11:37:04 GMT -5
I'm surprised no one mentioned that she is back in Canada and will immediately have a parole hearing.
This is setting a terrible precedent. What Martin allegedly was involved in is defined in the Criminal Code of Canada as "wilful blindness".
I agree with her getting double time for time-served (as is the law in Canada on this type of crime). The Mexicans sentenced her to 5 years ... the equivalent crime in Canada is money-laundering, which carries a maximum 20-yr sentence (and it is possible she could have been charged with fraud over $5000). So with time served she'd have one year left on her sentence. Can we honestly say she exhibited "good behaviour" to be eligible for immediate parole? So will every person in Canada who threatens suicide going to get paroled?
I thought Harper said after when asked about bringing that guy who was on death-row in Montana back to canada "we will not bring people who commit crimes in other countries back to Canada".
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 2, 2008 11:51:36 GMT -5
Haven't watched the news or read the paper for a few days.
It'll be interesting to see what happens, that's for sure.....Harper has a feather in his political cap now, at the very least. Depends how the media (and his PR people) spin it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 2, 2008 12:08:53 GMT -5
If the evidence was flimbsy to begin with, and if the Mexican judicial process was a joke, then I don't have a problem with an immediate parole hearing.
I'm of two sides here. First, if she is granted parole it might send the wrong message to Mexico. And if the Mexicans feel Canada has dissed their judicial system, I wonder how they will handle future cases involving Canadians.
At the same time, after hearing what happened to Canadian/Iranian photojournalist, Zahra Kamezi, I don't have a problem with Martin's extradition to Canada. It shows me that the government will be proactive in at least trying to find out the whole story, which often fails to surface a lot of times.
Having said all of that, it will be interesting to see just how much more digging the government will do to find out the whole scoop.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 2, 2008 12:38:12 GMT -5
If the evidence was flimbsy to begin with, and if the Mexican judicial process was a joke, then I don't have a problem with an immediate parole hearing. I'm of two sides here. First, if she is granted parole it might send the wrong message to Mexico. And if the Mexicans feel Canada has dissed their judicial system, I wonder how they will handle future cases involving Canadians. At the same time, after hearing what happened to Canadian/Iranian photojournalist, Zahra Kamezi, I don't have a problem with Martin's extradition to Canada. It shows me that the government will be proactive in at least trying to find out the whole story, which often fails to surface a lot of times. Having said all of that, it will be interesting to see just how much more digging the government will do to find out the whole scoop. Cheers. And if they find out she was guilty as charged, and sentenced? Can they revoke parole without her having done anything to violate parole? I'd like to at least hear what the Mexicans have against her ... we haven't heard what it is, so I can't see how we can call it flimsy. As I said in an earlier post, this was tried in the court of public opinion here in Canada and we all assume the Mexicans are corrupt and she is "innocent" (maybe she is) .... but this media court one-side information stream that we have been subjected to has occured before (she my link to the case in Brazil) and the media and the Canadian public heartstrings were wrong. All I ask is for one media outlet to show us what the Mexicans have on her in an unbiased piece of journalism. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 2, 2008 13:01:15 GMT -5
Sounds like a job for The Fifth Estate.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 2, 2008 13:44:58 GMT -5
I thought Harper said after when asked about bringing that guy who was on death-row in Montana back to canada "we will not bring people who commit crimes in other countries back to Canada". No, that wasn't it; it had to do with capital punishment: In making his decision to no longer seek clemency, commutation or extradition for Canadians facing death in other countries, Harper explicitly said it would apply only to cases in "democratic" nations where offenders have been convicted and sentenced in a fair process. one link |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 2, 2008 13:48:04 GMT -5
How quickly internet reports change. This morning she was smiling as she got on the plane, with a head line "relaxed and tanned Martin leaves for home" . . . now it's back to the woe-begone sad-sack victim pictures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 2, 2008 13:55:14 GMT -5
How quickly internet reports change. This morning she was smiling as she got on the plane, with a head line "relaxed and tanned Martin leaves for home" . . . now it's back to the woe-begone sad-sack victim pictures. They did the same thing with Karla Homolka as well. Initial headlines read, "... Karla's Story ..." Later, as more came out, the press was criticizing the law for her plea bargin. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 2, 2008 18:05:51 GMT -5
If the evidence was flimbsy to begin with, and if the Mexican judicial process was a joke, then I don't have a problem with an immediate parole hearing. I'm of two sides here. First, if she is granted parole it might send the wrong message to Mexico. And if the Mexicans feel Canada has dissed their judicial system, I wonder how they will handle future cases involving Canadians. At the same time, after hearing what happened to Canadian/Iranian photojournalist, Zahra Kamezi, I don't have a problem with Martin's extradition to Canada. It shows me that the government will be proactive in at least trying to find out the whole story, which often fails to surface a lot of times. Having said all of that, it will be interesting to see just how much more digging the government will do to find out the whole scoop. Cheers. And if they find out she was guilty as charged, and sentenced? Can they revoke parole without her having done anything to violate parole? I'd like to at least hear what the Mexicans have against her ... we haven't heard what it is, so I can't see how we can call it flimsy. As I said in an earlier post, this was tried in the court of public opinion here in Canada and we all assume the Mexicans are corrupt and she is "innocent" (maybe she is) .... but this media court one-side information stream that we have been subjected to has occured before (she my link to the case in Brazil) and the media and the Canadian public heartstrings were wrong. All I ask is for one media outlet to show us what the Mexicans have on her in an unbiased piece of journalism. You keep saying the media won't tell us what the evidence was against her, but they have reported that the only evidence was the bank records of money transferred to/from her account, and that the prosecution admitted it was all circumstantial. So are you saying the media is deliberately lying and that there is other evidence they aren't telling us about (and if so, what basis do you have for saying that)? Or are you saying something else? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 2, 2008 18:10:56 GMT -5
Can we honestly say she exhibited "good behaviour" to be eligible for immediate parole? So will every person in Canada who threatens suicide going to get paroled? You make it sound like it was posturing and not genuine distress. Guilty or not, it seems pretty clear she is not in good mental health at this point. If she had contracted hepatitis, would you hold that against her, too? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 3, 2008 11:21:36 GMT -5
And if they find out she was guilty as charged, and sentenced? Can they revoke parole without her having done anything to violate parole? I'd like to at least hear what the Mexicans have against her ... we haven't heard what it is, so I can't see how we can call it flimsy. As I said in an earlier post, this was tried in the court of public opinion here in Canada and we all assume the Mexicans are corrupt and she is "innocent" (maybe she is) .... but this media court one-side information stream that we have been subjected to has occured before (she my link to the case in Brazil) and the media and the Canadian public heartstrings were wrong. All I ask is for one media outlet to show us what the Mexicans have on her in an unbiased piece of journalism. You keep saying the media won't tell us what the evidence was against her, but they have reported that the only evidence was the bank records of money transferred to/from her account, and that the prosecution admitted it was all circumstantial. So are you saying the media is deliberately lying and that there is other evidence they aren't telling us about (and if so, what basis do you have for saying that)? Or are you saying something else? I've already stated what I meant ... but if it needs repeating... In the Brazil case, we never heard what the Brazilian had on the accused kidnappers. The media kept telling us they had nothing and that the Brazilians had a corrupt law system. (sound familiar?). Even when evidence of falsified documents and passports surfaced the Canadian media continued to support the accused canadians.... then one reporter went in and asked to see what the Brazilians had as evidence and the Brazilians said that the evidence was public record that no one requested before ....it was an open and shut case ... and the accused recently admitted they were guilty. Did we ever hear a recant from the media? NO So before we jump on the "ohhh she was soo unfortunate" bandwagon ... lets just be sure we have the facts. The media is not above making things up or misreporting (Alex Kovalev anyone?).... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 3, 2008 11:25:45 GMT -5
Can we honestly say she exhibited "good behaviour" to be eligible for immediate parole? So will every person in Canada who threatens suicide going to get paroled? You make it sound like it was posturing and not genuine distress. Guilty or not, it seems pretty clear she is not in good mental health at this point. If she had contracted hepatitis, would you hold that against her, too? Her suicide threats were posturing ...she wanted the Canadian government to intervene and when she realized they weren't doing enough the reports of her "suicide watch" surfaced... it worked ... I have no doubt she was in distress, and it affected her mental health. I would suspect most convicted criminals exhibit the same types of distress when they realize they are going behind bars for a long time. To turn it around on you, if Conrad Black gets hepatitis do we forgive him and say he deserves out of jail? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on May 3, 2008 13:04:51 GMT -5
You keep saying the media won't tell us what the evidence was against her, but they have reported that the only evidence was the bank records of money transferred to/from her account, and that the prosecution admitted it was all circumstantial. So are you saying the media is deliberately lying and that there is other evidence they aren't telling us about (and if so, what basis do you have for saying that)? Or are you saying something else? I've already stated what I meant ... but if it needs repeating... In the Brazil case, we never heard what the Brazilian had on the accused kidnappers. The media kept telling us they had nothing and that the Brazilians had a corrupt law system. (sound familiar?). Even when evidence of falsified documents and passports surfaced the Canadian media continued to support the accused canadians.... then one reporter went in and asked to see what the Brazilians had as evidence and the Brazilians said that the evidence was public record that no one requested before ....it was an open and shut case ... and the accused recently admitted they were guilty. Did we ever hear a recant from the media? NO So before we jump on the "ohhh she was soo unfortunate" bandwagon ... lets just be sure we have the facts. The media is not above making things up or misreporting (Alex Kovalev anyone?).... Ok, so how do you know when the media is giving the full story? I mean, what can they do to convince you? You want to see "these bank statements are all the evidence we have" in quotes from a Mexican official? If you think they're lying now when they say that, why would you think they're above making up quotes? And if you don't think they are, then how could you ever be convinced unless you go to Mexico and interview officials yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 3, 2008 15:27:14 GMT -5
If the evidence was flimbsy to begin with, and if the Mexican judicial process was a joke, then I don't have a problem with an immediate parole hearing. I'm of two sides here. First, if she is granted parole it might send the wrong message to Mexico. And if the Mexicans feel Canada has dissed their judicial system, I wonder how they will handle future cases involving Canadians. At the same time, after hearing what happened to Canadian/Iranian photojournalist, Zahra Kamezi, I don't have a problem with Martin's extradition to Canada. It shows me that the government will be proactive in at least trying to find out the whole story, which often fails to surface a lot of times. Having said all of that, it will be interesting to see just how much more digging the government will do to find out the whole scoop. Cheers. And if they find out she was guilty as charged, and sentenced? Can they revoke parole without her having done anything to violate parole? If the press can be believed the whole Mexican judicial process was a farce. Evidence was supposedly all circumstantial and her defence was allegedly a joke. Maybe we haven't heard the whole story or more specifically everything the Mexicans might have against her. So, if it was such a slam-dunk why haven't we heard the whole story? Why are the Mexicans being so tight-lipped about? I think flimsy, as in incomplete, is a very accurate term. Could be one-sided. But the Mexicans are more apt to cave into pressure than dig their heels into the ground. If they have such strong cases against Canadians why do they simply hand them over most of the time? As far as assuming they're corrupt, I don't know about that. But, I do think they're incompetent. I remember when two Canadian women were formally charged in a murder in Mexico. Two Canadian SuspectsEven their instigative procedures leave a lot to be desired. A confusing investigationI'd like to see that myself. Do you think the Mexicans will cooperate with something like that? I think they'd have to have their facts in order first. Not saying they don't in this case, but given the speed at which this trial was conducted ... SLAM! BANG! CLICK! Watch your fingers!! Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 3, 2008 23:50:35 GMT -5
Do the folks at "The Fifth Estate" have to wait until the legal proceedings are done, or can they conduct their investigative journalism during such cases?
I'm sure they'll dig as far as the Mexican officials will allow, in order to get as much of the whole story as possible.
|
|
