Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 288

Thread: Russell Williams, 82 add'l charges - PLEADS GUILTY #6 & stripped of Mil.Rank

  1. #76
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,827
    Justice David Doherty, who is presiding over the three-judge panel, doubted several key aspects of her case.

    He said M.E.H seemed to hold an irrational fear of a U.K.-style journalism, “where people are hanging out of trees taking pictures in people’s windows.”

    “I have trouble understanding how referring to someone by name in a newspaper is a ‘constant invasion of their privacy,’” he said.

    “We accept that as a result of everything’s that happened to her a lot of this may be in her head,” Binks said. “But it is in her head.”
    Doherty added that the order from Justice Mackinnon appeared to be “a very decent thing to do” for M.E.H., whose world was shattered by her husband’s crimes.

    “But it’s not what the constitution … requires,” he said.

    He later asked Binks why Williams’ wife’s concern for her privacy was “greater than yours or mine.”

    “Because of her current psychological state,” Binks replied.


    Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Media+spotlight+much+Williams+wife+lawyer/5787352/story.html#ixzz1fLHONkAB

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Wondergirl For This Useful Post:


  3. #77
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazel View Post
    a court fight with her husband?
    Yes. ???

    What court fight? I didn't read anywhere that he would be contesting a divorce. For what purpose? Since he signed assets over to her I presumed a divorce was a mutual decision and would not be contested.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JayFriend For This Useful Post:


  5. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,712
    MEH's money should have been used to hire a publicist/spokesperson who is seasoned at handling the "awkward" situations one does not want in the papers,starting with putting the "right spin" on shiny new floors.IMO.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dotr For This Useful Post:


  7. #79
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,827
    Interesting comment regarding visitation at Kingston Penitentiary on this article.

    Does MEH visit her husband in jail? If hypothetically speaking she did, from a legal stand point, would that effect the current litigation against them both? I would be interested in the legal argument, if so.


    Search warrant unsealed

    Posted 2 hours ago

    Lawyers for CBC have successfully argued for the public to have access to an OPP search warrant of the home of a man now suing both the OPP and Russell Williams.

    http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3399748

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Wondergirl For This Useful Post:


  9. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,712
    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2.../19109736.html
    Statements from other sources and additional damning evidence from Massicotte fuelled police suspicions that Jones was a person of interest.

    Police also pushed for the warrant on the basis that Jane Doe, the first of two women attacked, said her predator had working hands and “smelled like wood.”

    That led police to draw the inference that Jones would have rough working hands and may “smell like wood,” since he is a carpenter and works with wood in his shop.

    Det. Const. Colin Reinke requested the warrant on the grounds that he believed Jones had committed the sexual assault, according to the document.

    Reinke wrote that there was a “practical, reasonable and non-technical probability” that several items -- computer files, digital cameras used to photograph the victims and items of female clothing taken from the women -- would be found in Jones' home
    "

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dotr For This Useful Post:


  11. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,712
    http://www.torontosun.com/2011/12/11...our-implicated
    Link includes video and lots of comments.I see a great big stinking expensive mess, left for others to clean up, by the "tidy, organized" former Colonel.IMO.

    "Jones and his wife, Bonnie, former neighbours of Williams, are laying claim to damages for "emotional and mental distress" against Williams and his wife, Mary-Elizabeth Harriman, as well as the province for "negligent investigation by its servants (OPP)."

    They've filed a civil statement of claim in Belleville court. The statement is a legal document in which anything may be alleged. Its contents have not been proven in court.

    The document shows Massicotte telling police that over the years Jones would make advances toward her and even went as far as calling Jones a “pervert.”

    Information in the warrant relates to how the police investigation was sparked by reports that in September 2009 a male predator bound, blindfolded and proceeded to photograph two victims, including Massicotte, who resided in the Cosy Cove neighbourhood.

    Massicotte would later spur further speculation about the chances of Jones' involvement by telling police he was the owner of high-tech cameras and regularly took pictures.

    The real intruder, it was later learned, was Williams, then the colonel in command of CFB Trenton. He flew under the radar while police turned their attention to Jones."

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dotr For This Useful Post:


  13. #82
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    607
    Did Massicotte file suit against the OPP, or was she the only victim who didn't? I can't remember anymore. If she did file suit, it's ironic that she herself accused an innocent man and caused him all kinds of hurt and embarrassment.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JayFriend For This Useful Post:


  15. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    3,842
    Quote Originally Posted by JayFriend View Post
    Did Massicotte file suit against the OPP, or was she the only victim who didn't? I can't remember anymore. If she did file suit, it's ironic that she herself accused an innocent man and caused him all kinds of hurt and embarrassment.
    "Massicotte is now suing Williams and his wife, Mary-Elizabeth Harriman, as well as the Ontario Provincial Police for $7 million."

    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7262634&postcount=46"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7262634&postcount=46[/ame]
    My posts are merely my humble opinion. Unless you are quoting within Websleuths Forums, you do not have my permission to copy nor use any post made by me for anything.
    ★ Thank you ★

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hazel For This Useful Post:


  17. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    3,842
    Quote Originally Posted by dotr View Post
    I see a great big stinking expensive mess, left for others to clean up, by the "tidy, organized" former Colonel.IMO.
    RSBM
    hmmm, maybe it's a means to an end?

    new comments under article (below) ...I find the answers to golf's comment, very interesting and enlightening and hope they are spot on.

    http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleD...aspx?e=3399748


    CBC and media group
    My posts are merely my humble opinion. Unless you are quoting within Websleuths Forums, you do not have my permission to copy nor use any post made by me for anything.
    ★ Thank you ★

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hazel For This Useful Post:


  19. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazel View Post
    "Massicotte is now suing Williams and his wife, Mary-Elizabeth Harriman, as well as the Ontario Provincial Police for $7 million."

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...4&postcount=46
    Is she the woman that initially reported to police that she thought the person that assaulted her was hired by her husband to scare her so that she would move out of the house? Is so, I think we have to take that into consideration ... her initial reports to police were that she believed it was a domestic situation, so police, based on that information, would have been looking in the wrong direction. If she is upset that police initially looked in the wrong direction, or misperceived the seriousness of the situation, it cannot be entirey their fault.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  21. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    3,842
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Is she the woman that initially reported to police that she thought the person that assaulted her was hired by her husband to scare her so that she would move out of the house? Is so, I think we have to take that into consideration ... her initial reports to police were that she believed it was a domestic situation, so police, based on that information, would have been looking in the wrong direction. If she is upset that police initially looked in the wrong direction, or misperceived the seriousness of the situation, it cannot be entirey their fault.
    Do you have a link for that otto? I can't remember anything involving her husband trying to scare her out of the house. She was more than scared, she was attacked!

    What I remember is RW told her she was being robbed, and there were others in the house at the time ... or was that Jane Doe
    My posts are merely my humble opinion. Unless you are quoting within Websleuths Forums, you do not have my permission to copy nor use any post made by me for anything.
    ★ Thank you ★

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hazel For This Useful Post:


  23. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazel View Post
    Do you have a link for that otto? I can't remember anything involving her husband trying to scare her out of the house. She was more than scared, she was attacked!

    What I remember is RW told her she was being robbed, and there were others in the house at the time ... or was that Jane Doe
    I have no idea if there is a link to this info about her husband, but it is all written in the book "Camouflaged Killer, The Shocking Double Life of Canadian Air Force Colonel Russell Williams" by David A Gibb. I am currently reading it and it is worth the read!!!!

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to flipflop For This Useful Post:


  25. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazel View Post
    Do you have a link for that otto? I can't remember anything involving her husband trying to scare her out of the house. She was more than scared, she was attacked!

    What I remember is RW told her she was being robbed, and there were others in the house at the time ... or was that Jane Doe
    I think it was Laurie who was told that she was being robbed and it was also Laurie that thought her husband was trying to scare her into moving out of the house. That's in the first few pages of the latest book about the case (I posted the title upthread). That is what she first reported to police, so that would be what police used in the beginning of their investigation.

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  27. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,072
    Quote Originally Posted by flipflop View Post
    I have no idea if there is a link to this info about her husband, but it is all written in the book "Camouflaged Killer, The Shocking Double Life of Canadian Air Force Colonel Russell Williams" by David A Gibb. I am currently reading it and it is worth the read!!!!
    That's the book ... thanks ... I'm reading that too, but very slowly.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  29. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    3,842
    no wonder I didn't remember anything of that sort!
    So there was nothing about initial reports to the police regarding that, reported in the media - I wonder where TA obtained that info, am assuming he interviewed her for the book, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Is she the woman that initially reported to police that she thought the person that assaulted her was hired by her husband to scare her so that she would move out of the house?
    If so, I think we have to take that into consideration ... her initial reports to police were that she believed it was a domestic situation, so police, based on that information, would have been looking in the wrong direction. If she is upset that police initially looked in the wrong direction, or misperceived the seriousness of the situation, it cannot be entirey their fault.
    My posts are merely my humble opinion. Unless you are quoting within Websleuths Forums, you do not have my permission to copy nor use any post made by me for anything.
    ★ Thank you ★

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hazel For This Useful Post:


  31. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,072
    I think the author attended the trial and took notes to write a book.

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  33. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,072
    I really don't understand all the lawsuits. There was a very dangerous man on the streets, someone that no one would suspect. Police very quickly gathered important evidence, connected the related cases, set up road blocks to zero in on possible suspects, caught the right guy, arrested him and he's in jail ... done. Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo are other examples of very dangerous men that stalked victims for much longer ... no one sued police for any reason regarding their crimes. Everyone was simply extremely relieved that the murders would stop.

    If the police have milions of dollars less in their budgets, who does that help? I can understand that some people are upset with the bedside manner of police, but the investigator's job is to solve the crime ... other organizations are set up to help victims (and others) that are caught up in the process of solving the crime. If there needs to be an inquiry about whether the police were polite and fair, great, but suing for millions? I don't see how that helps anyone.

  34. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  35. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    3,842
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I really don't understand all the lawsuits. There was a very dangerous man on the streets, someone that no one would suspect. Police very quickly gathered important evidence, connected the related cases, set up road blocks to zero in on possible suspects, caught the right guy, arrested him and he's in jail ... done. Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo are other examples of very dangerous men that stalked victims for much longer ... no one sued police for any reason regarding their crimes. Everyone was simply extremely relieved that the murders would stop.

    If the police have milions of dollars less in their budgets, who does that help? I can understand that some people are upset with the bedside manner of police, but the investigator's job is to solve the crime ... other organizations are set up to help victims (and others) that are caught up in the process of solving the crime. If there needs to be an inquiry about whether the police were polite and fair, great, but suing for millions? I don't see how that helps anyone.
    I'm with you otto, I don't understand, but don't want to judge because I've never been in their shoes (and hope never will). I totally DO understand why they include the one who cannot be named.
    What is hard for me to understand is why LM is suing LE? She called them, she needed their help, and in order for them to conduct a proper investigation, they needed to do their job. Hadn't they been thorough, they might not have been able to connect dw as her attacker. I am sure there were mistakes, but as long as those were not intentional or an attempt to 'protect' someone, then IMHO all was properly done.

    Where there seems to be something questionable is the roadside...have read in different places that the dots were connected thanks to the insistence of a LE officer. I am trying to think that perhaps in order to learn of all these 'things', they need to have access to all info, and that's why I asked above if this is 'a means to an end"....Since we don't know what the 'end' is, that's probably why we don't understand these first steps? Just a thought.
    sorry if I sound a bit cryptic, but don't want to get in any sort of trouble, nor start a huge discussion
    My posts are merely my humble opinion. Unless you are quoting within Websleuths Forums, you do not have my permission to copy nor use any post made by me for anything.
    ★ Thank you ★

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hazel For This Useful Post:


  37. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,738
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I really don't understand all the lawsuits. There was a very dangerous man on the streets, someone that no one would suspect. Police very quickly gathered important evidence, connected the related cases, set up road blocks to zero in on possible suspects, caught the right guy, arrested him and he's in jail ... done. Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo are other examples of very dangerous men that stalked victims for much longer ... no one sued police for any reason regarding their crimes. Everyone was simply extremely relieved that the murders would stop.

    If the police have milions of dollars less in their budgets, who does that help? I can understand that some people are upset with the bedside manner of police, but the investigator's job is to solve the crime ... other organizations are set up to help victims (and others) that are caught up in the process of solving the crime. If there needs to be an inquiry about whether the police were polite and fair, great, but suing for millions? I don't see how that helps anyone.
    BBM
    I agree....a lawsuit against the police is a lawsuit against all us taxpayers....who do they think pays the police? The police requiring a lawyer is from the police budget, which again is payed by us taxpayers.

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to flipflop For This Useful Post:


  39. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,738
    I am only on page 86 of the new book that is out. So far it really BUGS me that LE did not warn the public of a predator on the loose. After each attack, they felt it was an isolated occurance and DID NOT warn the public. LE stated they had no leads, no suspects and still no reason for public safety concerns. I feel that after one lone incident of this severity LE SHOULD warn the public to be extra careful with locking doors, windows and to keep an eye for suspicious activity, afterall they had no leads, no suspects. Each woman that was attact had an unlocked door or window that was used as an entry point for RW. He went into each resident prior to his victim arriving home to check to make sure they were living alone, then left and returned later. If the public was WARNED, perhaps these women would have locked up their houses, preventing RW from scouting out the house to ensure his next attack.

  40. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to flipflop For This Useful Post:


  41. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,738
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I think the author attended the trial and took notes to write a book.
    I agree, this book is VERY graphic and VERY sickening in many parts. I am learning of new details and filling in gaps/answers to many questions that we had here on WS.

    I feel like Chatty Cathy with 3 posts in a row.

  42. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to flipflop For This Useful Post:


  43. #97
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,827
    From what I have read, the general consensus on the crimes seem to be:

    -The Tweed attacks were done by a "creeper". Not threatening, stealing women's underwear, a perv, but not a murderer. Widely thought to be Jones.

    -Marie France's murder was thought to be related to a domestic issue, or related to her work flying military missions. Largely personal, she was targeted, the public was not in danger.

    -I do think that the locals and possibly LE, generally thought the assaults were somehow related to the victims personal lives, a sort of "blame the victim" and I don't think the 1st victim was even believed by LE.

    -As for poor Jessica, her disappearance, and ultimately murder, was what brought it all together, unfortunately. By then it was too late (well, it wasn't too late for RW's next chosen victim).

    So, really, there should be an inquiry for sure as to the various police investigations. I do believe that the file is still open on RW.

    I truly think that because of the wide geographical area that these crimes occurred in, they were truly not connected, and therefore the public was not warned, well, not liked they were warned when the dots were connected.

  44. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wondergirl For This Useful Post:


  45. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazel View Post
    I'm with you otto, I don't understand, but don't want to judge because I've never been in their shoes (and hope never will). I totally DO understand why they include the one who cannot be named.
    What is hard for me to understand is why LM is suing LE? She called them, she needed their help, and in order for them to conduct a proper investigation, they needed to do their job. Hadn't they been thorough, they might not have been able to connect dw as her attacker. I am sure there were mistakes, but as long as those were not intentional or an attempt to 'protect' someone, then IMHO all was properly done.

    Where there seems to be something questionable is the roadside...have read in different places that the dots were connected thanks to the insistence of a LE officer. I am trying to think that perhaps in order to learn of all these 'things', they need to have access to all info, and that's why I asked above if this is 'a means to an end"....Since we don't know what the 'end' is, that's probably why we don't understand these first steps? Just a thought.
    sorry if I sound a bit cryptic, but don't want to get in any sort of trouble, nor start a huge discussion
    I read the remarks suggestsing that one of the officers did not seriously examine the vehicle of Williams because he was a Colonel. That officer was young and new to the job, he made the wrong judgment call when he decided not to flag the Colonel's vehicle. The inexperienced officer immediately passed the information to the more senior officer that was at the same road block, and the decision was made to flag Williams vehicle even though he was the Colonel. The correct decisions were made even though the officer that made the first connection between William's vehicle and the suspect's vehicle was inexperienced. I fail to see how this could be a point of criticism.

  46. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  47. #99
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,072
    Quote Originally Posted by flipflop View Post
    BBM
    I agree....a lawsuit against the police is a lawsuit against all us taxpayers....who do they think pays the police? The police requiring a lawyer is from the police budget, which again is payed by us taxpayers.
    It's a huge amount of money to take away from the police and give to victims of crime. There are victim's assistance programs that provide thousands of dollars, but it's more in the area of 10s of thousands, not millions and millions. If the perp had been a lowlife drug addict, would we see these same complaints and lawsuits, or are we seeing these lawsuits because Williams was by all accounts a successful upstanding person that most would consider above suspicion? The bottom line is that he was not above suspicion, he was treated like everyone else, he was arrested and convicted. I can understand that victim's of crime are upset, angry, frustrated and wanting to lash out, but buckets of money isn't going to make any difference.

    Williams tried to set-up his neighbour. Police pursued the information they had, investigated and concluded that the neighbour was not involved. What more can they do? They had to investigate even if it upset the neighbour. Williams was treated quite differently when he was arrested because police knew he was guilty and they had to get him into a corner where he would confess.

    I guess I'm of the opinion that dwelling and dragging something out really doesn't help ... and lawsuits drag everything out, force the victims to repeatedly relive the experience over and over again, and really don't result in anything worthwhile.

  48. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  49. #100
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,072
    Quote Originally Posted by flipflop View Post
    I am only on page 86 of the new book that is out. So far it really BUGS me that LE did not warn the public of a predator on the loose. After each attack, they felt it was an isolated occurance and DID NOT warn the public. LE stated they had no leads, no suspects and still no reason for public safety concerns. I feel that after one lone incident of this severity LE SHOULD warn the public to be extra careful with locking doors, windows and to keep an eye for suspicious activity, afterall they had no leads, no suspects. Each woman that was attact had an unlocked door or window that was used as an entry point for RW. He went into each resident prior to his victim arriving home to check to make sure they were living alone, then left and returned later. If the public was WARNED, perhaps these women would have locked up their houses, preventing RW from scouting out the house to ensure his next attack.
    I've read Appleby's book and I'm just at the beginning of the Camouflaged book. Police were dealing with a very sophisticated criminal. We have a young mother attacked in a remote cabin where she reports that a man took pictures of her, and then another woman nearby claiming that she too was attacked by a picture taking man, but she thought her husband was behind it. She also made comments about ghosts and spirits visiting her. Police probably didn't know what to believe or not to believe in her report. The murders were some distance away. When we look at the cluster of attacks and home invasions today, it makes sense, but hindsight is 20/20. It took time to piece it together.

    If there had been a warning, it would have been in Ottawa where there were multiple underwear thefts. That probably wouldn't have helped in the area where the women were attacked and murdered. After the first murder, people in the area should automatically have been more careful. Other than making sure that the murder was reported on the news, what more could be done? One murder isn't enough to suggest that a serial murderer is on the loose ...and one murder should result in people being more careful anyway. Two attacks in Cozy Cove and a murder several miles away isn't enough to make a connection between the three attacks. After the fourth attack, Williams was arrested, so we know that a connection was made at the same time that the case was solved.

  50. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FL~Dr. Robert Williams pleads guilty to child porn charges
    By Missizzy in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-28-2011, 01:21 AM
  2. GUILTY Russell Williams, 82 add'l charges - PLEADS GUILTY #5 & stripped of Mil.Rank
    By Salem in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 974
    Last Post: 04-27-2011, 01:22 PM
  3. OPP charge Col. Williams, 82 add'l charges - PLEADS GUILTY #4
    By Salem in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 637
    Last Post: 10-22-2010, 11:12 AM
  4. OPP charge Col. Williams, 82 add'l charges - PLEADS GUILTY #3
    By Salem in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 830
    Last Post: 10-19-2010, 07:41 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-23-2009, 10:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •