Kelly Ellard

For those like me that forgot who she was.
Shame time before final conviction counts as time served (forget the truly stupid fact that it counts double, which only benefits the guilty) it would be nice if she spent 7 years in jail from right now after all this crap. I may be wrongheaded legally on that opinion but given the crime (and that I don't actually impact the decision) I don't really care.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/12/virk-ellard-court012.html?ref=rss
 
The Bandit said:
How about a little more info so people know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Anyone that doesn't know whom I'm talking about:
a) never read a newspaper
b) has a memory disorder
c) is a moron
d) all of the above
:rolleyes:
 
dcbogey said:
Anyone that doesn't know whom I'm talking about:
a) never read a newspaper
b) has a memory disorder
c) is a moron
d) all of the above
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Can I add e?

e) knew the story but forgot the name of the person involved.
 
gramage said:
Can I add e?

e) knew the story but forgot the name of the person involved.
Click to expand...

For most - that would be covered by a combination of b and c, unfortunately.
 
gramage said:
For those like me that forgot who she was.
Shame time before final conviction counts as time served (forget the truly stupid fact that it counts double, which only benefits the guilty) it would be nice if she spent 7 years in jail from right now after all this crap.
Click to expand...

The reason that there is a "2 for 1" rule for pre-trial time is that you cannot earn time that counts towards parole until after you have been convicted. Makes more sense now, huh?

(I guess I'm a moron with a memory disorder. Somehow while running my law practice, I forgot the name of the assailant. Along with 99% of the other people on TERB, who are also morons with memory disorders. Unlike dcbogey, who is smarter than us)
 
I am always happier when people remember the name of the victim (Reena Virk).

Fernie
 
oagre said:
The reason that there is a "2 for 1" rule for pre-trial time is that you cannot earn time that counts towards parole until after you have been convicted. Makes more sense now, huh?
Click to expand...

Well thats a reason at least but certainly not one that should work on a two to one scale and I don't know that I want time served before conviction benefiting the guilty.
 
This is neither here nor there but she is a looker with probably size D breasts. Wonder if she gets 500 letters a week from male admirers proposing marriage:( ? (Apparently, Paul Bernardo was getting 500 letters a week from female admirers proposing marriage.)
 
dcbogey said:
Anyone that doesn't know whom I'm talking about:
a) never read a newspaper
b) has a memory disorder
c) is a moron
d) all of the above
Click to expand...
I remember the story, but forgot her name

I guess that makes me a moron then :rolleyes:
 
The LoLRus said:
I remember the story, but forgot her name

I guess that makes me a moron then :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Me too . I don't care what her name is . Pity someone hasn't drowned her yet .
 
gramage said:
Well thats a reason at least but certainly not one that should work on a two to one scale and I don't know that I want time served before conviction benefiting the guilty.
Click to expand...


2 for 1 does seem fair as they were not guilty when they served the time. We are supposed to be considered innocent before proven guilty are we not?
 
serviceman said:
2 for 1 does seem fair as they were not guilty when they served the time. We are supposed to be considered innocent before proven guilty are we not?
Click to expand...

But they were guilty at the time they served it, we just hadn't proven it yet. They were considered innocent during their trial but time served should take into account the actual guilt.

Maybe I'd be less bothered by this if we didn't also have as a policy near-automatic parole at 2/3rds your sentence. But when you combine both those facts with how slow trials are we aren't keeping criminals off the street nearly as long as our already kinda soft sentencing indicates we should.
 
She's got a nice rack. I'm sure that goes over well in the prison.

Fernie
 
gramage said:
But they were guilty at the time they served it, we just hadn't proven it yet. They were considered innocent during their trial but time served should take into account the actual guilt.

Maybe I'd be less bothered by this if we didn't also have as a policy near-automatic parole at 2/3rds your sentence. But when you combine both those facts with how slow trials are we aren't keeping criminals off the street nearly as long as our already kinda soft sentencing indicates we should.
Click to expand...

I see your point, perhaps it's because of the right to a speedy trial, the longer you have to wait, the less your sentence will be. NOT saying I agree with this, but there is some logic to it.
 
serviceman said:
I see your point, perhaps it's because of the right to a speedy trial, the longer you have to wait, the less your sentence will be. NOT saying I agree with this, but there is some logic to it.
Click to expand...

Actually "right" to a speedy trial does factor in to this, I had not considered that. Given that I would respect 2 for 1 AFTER a certain point regardless of guilt, I just wouldn't start from day 1 as this statute does.
 
gramage said:
Actually "right" to a speedy trial does factor in to this, I had not considered that. Given that I would respect 2 for 1 AFTER a certain point regardless of guilt, I just wouldn't start from day 1 as this statute does.
Click to expand...

There is no 2 for 1 statute.

Fernie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom
Back