Serial killer had hoped to "make it an even 50"

[TruthSeeker]

"I was gonna do one more – make it an even 50," Pickton told a jailhouse plant, an RCMP undercover officer who was slipped in with the accused after his arrest on Feb. 22, 2002, ...."I was going to shut it down. I was just plotting just the last one," Pickton continued – quoted by Prevett – adding that he believed he was now "nailed to the cross."
And: "I made my own grave by being sloppy."

The story is graphic and may be difficult to read.

The trial has only just begun. I cannot imagine what the families are going through. I cannot help myself from jumping to conclusions. And yet:


"This case will unfold slowly. The case is complicated. You will hear about other people in this case and their roles can be significant. Some may have, you may find, their own motives.
"Do not move quickly to conclusions."



http://www.thestar.com/article/173834

[Whoracle]

It's good to have goals.


Anyway sounds like he practically confessed, so why would it take long?

[a_unique_person]

I'm just wondering why it took so long to catch him? It was known for years that women were disappearing.

[LashL]

Yes, it's a pretty horrific case. It's been approximately five years now since the charges were laid, I believe. All told, he has been charged with 26 counts of murder. This trial is on 6 counts; the remaining 20 counts are to be tried later (if ever).

Despite the ugliness and horrific nature of the case, the accused is innocent until proven guilty and so far, not a single witness has been heard from and not a single piece of evidence has been received by the court. Those quotes are from the Crown attorney's opening statement, and as such, they are not evidence any more than the defence lawyer's opening statement is evidence, (the latter got a whole lot less press - gee, go figure).

He may well be entirely guilty of the offences with which he's been charged; he may well be entirely innocent of the offences with which he's been charged; and he may be somewhere in between those two extremes.

I trust that people here will keep open and skeptical minds about this matter just as they do about other, less sensational, less horrific matters.

[LashL]

It's good to have goals.


Anyway sounds like he practically confessed, so why would it take long?

False confessions are not uncommon, actually. And again, there has been no evidence presented as yet, just the opening statements of the lawyers, which are not "evidence".

Just saying.

[Piscivore]

A bit shy of objective reporting:
"All were sex-trade workers. All had plummeted to the bottom of a human cesspool inhabited by whores, drug addicts and vagrants."

[TruthSeeker]

Piscivore, that's my fault. Rosie DiManno is a columnist not a reporter. I just thought it was the single best summary of the story from today's paper.

LashL, I agree completely. One of the points of my OP was that it is very difficult (at least for me) to remember that he is "innocent until proven guilty". Perhaps it is the horrible nature of the crimes? Not sure. I was able to stay objective right up to the end with the Bernardo/Homolka case. This one is different and that's something I need to figure out in myself as the trial proceeds.

eta: an example: the title of this thread should have read "Accused serial killer..." I really must be on top of this.

[LashL]

Piscivore, that's my fault. Rosie DiManno is a columnist not a reporter. I just thought it was the single best summary of the story from today's paper.

LashL, I agree completely. One of the points of my OP was that it is very difficult (at least for me) to remember that he is "innocent until proven guilty". Perhaps it is the horrible nature of the crimes? Not sure. I was able to stay objective right up to the end with the Bernardo/Homolka case. This one is different and that's something I need to figure out in myself as the trial proceeds.

eta: an example: the title of this thread should have read "Accused serial killer..." I really must be on top of this.

Yeah, Rosie isn't exactly objective, about anything, ever. So perhaps that was a bad choice for summarizing the case to date. The Star isn't the best source for any coverage on court proceedings of any kind, actually, and never has been.

That said, I hear you on the underlying angst that most people feel and experience with cases such as this, and the Bernardo/Homolka case is a good reference in that regard. That was another tough case to deal with, too, in terms of maintaining one's sense of openmindedness and critical thinking.

I'm not sure, though, that I understand what you mean about being able to remain objective in the latter case and not the current case. Both are/were horrific, and arguably, at least based on what we know so far in the Pickton case, the Bernardo/Homolka case was even worse since the victims, Ms. Mahaffy and Ms. French, were held for lengthy periods of time and made to endure all manner of atrocities during their captivity.

I am not for one second dismissing the ugliness and the horror of this case, so please don't misunderstand me. I'm simply saying that everyone, and in particular skeptics, need to maintain our critical, logical and analytical thinking skills when everyone around us loses theirs.

ETA: eta: an example: the title of this thread should have read "Accused serial killer..." I really must be on top of this.


There you go. You're back on top of it already. That's what I was getting at with my initial post here, and I'm delighted to see that addition.

[TruthSeeker]

I meant something very personal.

Prior to Paul Bernardo's trial, despite the media coverage, I had not come to any conclusion about their guilt. Even during the trial, I was able to remain critical and open-minded (Although there were bans on reporting much of the evidence and I never went to any of the alternate sources for detail). Afterwards when the tapes were discovered, I came to my conclusion regarding the roles played by Bernardo and Homolka (I've posted about that previously).

In the Pickton case, I can't seem to be as open-minded. I'm not sure why. Time will tell, I hope.

[LashL]

I meant something very personal.

Prior to Paul Bernardo's trial, despite the media coverage, I had not come to any conclusion about their guilt. Even during the trial, I was able to remain critical and open-minded (Although there were bans on reporting much of the evidence and I never went to any of the alternate sources for detail). Afterwards when the tapes were discovered, I came to my conclusion regarding the roles played by Bernardo and Homolka (I've posted about that previously).

In the Pickton case, I can't seem to be as open-minded. I'm not sure why. Time will tell, I hope.

I'm sorry. I did not mean to delve into any personal areas at all, and had no idea that I may have been doing so. My apologies.

Before and during the Bernardo trial, I had what might be called inside information as a result of my work at the time, so there were no surprises for me as a result of the publication ban. The tapes - I assume you're talking about the tapes that the police failed to discover and then were subsequently retrieved by Bernardo's lawyer at the time, Ken Murray - were, in fact, an integral part of Bernardo's trial. Had the police discovered them earlier - and they should have - the contents of them would probably have precluded the deal that Karla Homolka made with the Crown. That was a terrible, terrible screwup, in my view, by the police.

But, you know, the Crown has to go with the evidence they have, and in my opinion, they weren't wrong to make the deal that they did at the time that they did, because that evidence (the tapes) was not available to them at the time. They really needed Karla's testimony to make their case against Bernardo at the time because, frankly, they had nothing on him until then. And the Crown had no real reason to doubt her at the time, particularly in light of the fact that he had beaten her up and she'd reported it and had the handy dandy photos to prove it, (and she was a damned fine actress).

As it turns out, they were wrong about Karla and the degree of her involvement, and I suspect that they wish they never made the deal, but they could hardly renege on it years after the fact for a myriad of very good reasons. (Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that Bernardo was the one who carried out the final act of killing Ms. Mahaffy and Ms. French, and I would not be at all surprised if it was Homolka who did - not that it would make any difference to his conviction and sentence, but it sure would to hers).

Anyway, I'm getting way off topic here, and again I apologize. My intent was simply to post a reminder that everyone, skeptics especially, should keep an open and critical mind, even about the most horrific of cases, because things are not always what they seem, no matter how sensational the press reports are, and no matter how horrific the facts appear to be on their face. And because "innocent until proven guilty" still matters. A lot.

As you can probably tell, I'm not immune to letting this kind of case get to me, either. It even makes me post off topic, go off on tangents, and post less than cogent and concise posts ;)

[Larry Barrieau]

It's absolutely Ok to make up ones mind on the available evidence and to change it when something new comes up.

So far he's guilty (not legally of course) until we can hear more evidence. Everything points to guilt. It may turn up that he's innocent but I highly doubt it as does everyone who read the story posted.

What is sad though is that when (ok, if) he's convicted he will live out a comfortable life sucking tax money from the family of his victims and the country in general.

[LashL]

It's absolutely Ok to make up ones mind on the available evidence and to change it when something new comes up.

So far he's guilty (not legally of course) until we can hear more evidence. Everything points to guilt. It may turn up that he's innocent but I highly doubt it as does everyone who read the story posted.

What is sad though is that when (ok, if) he's convicted he will live out a comfortable life sucking tax money from the family of his victims and the country in general.

I disagree. There has been no evidence presented yet, after all. There are very good reasons that we don't conduct "trials by media". He is innocent until proven guilty in court, not innocent until deemed guilty by virtue of media coverage. I find the whole "trial by media" thing - which is much more prevalent in the U.S. than it is in Canada, by the way - quite appalling. And I expect better of critical thinkers here than to fall into the trial by media trap.

[Admiral]

What is sad though is that when (ok, if) he's convicted he will live out a comfortable life sucking tax money from the family of his victims and the country in general.

Maximum security prison is "comfortable"?

OK, maybe compared to "Holiday Inn" rooms, but still...

[TruthSeeker]

Lashl, thank you for that excellent post about the Bernardo case. I hate the deal Homolka got but I understand why she got it. Although we will never know the truth, my hunch is that Karla was the actual killer. Of course, you are correct that the tapes were available during the trial. Late night posting is part of my excuse, and also for me, it wasn't until after the trial in a conversation with someone close to me who is friends with one of the victim's moms that I became fully aware of what was on those tapes (I was naive). So, my timeline is a bit off.

Larry, if he is convicted, he will probably end up in a very horrible place similar to Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen. I don't have time now, but later I will find an article describing the conditions.

[fuelair]

A bit shy of objective reporting:
"All were sex-trade workers. All had plummeted to the bottom of a human cesspool inhabited by whores, drug addicts and vagrants."

If they all had plummeted to the bottom, why didn't he go for the ones still floating on top - seems easier to me anyway?:jaw-dropp

[TruthSeeker]

I thought I'd provide this link to the CBC's more objective and extensive coverage:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/pickton/

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I'm just wondering why it took so long to catch him? It was known for years that women were disappearing.


This is likely because his victims were mostly sex-trade workers. This is a notoriously dangerous line of work. Many sex-trade workers have a nomadic existance, changing addresses often, meaning law enforcement isn't likely to suspect foul play just because no one has seen one of these individuals in a while. Also, many do not have strong relationships with their families, and so are less likely to be reported missing.

[fuelair]

Re: how long it took to catch him. With a reasonable capacity for planning and careful selection of victims, area enough to dispose of bodies so they cannot be easily located, a bit of knowledge of how investigations are/must be carried out and reasonable care it is quite possible for someone (since it has clearly happened a lot in the past) to carry out a series of killings and never get caught. To catch a killer you need to be able to connect him with the victim(s), find evidence that there were killings, find evidence tying the person to the killing of the victim(s). If the police don't have the manpower, time, funds, ability to do these, the person goes uncaught and/or unprosecuted and/or unconvicted.

Most who are caught are caught because they taunt or otherwise communicate their existence or do something else stupid.

[a_unique_person]

This is likely because his victims were mostly sex-trade workers. This is a notoriously dangerous line of work. Many sex-trade workers have a nomadic existance, changing addresses often, meaning law enforcement isn't likely to suspect foul play just because no one has seen one of these individuals in a while. Also, many do not have strong relationships with their families, and so are less likely to be reported missing.

I just noticed it was an interesting contrast to the serial killer in England, who targeted exactly the same type of victims.

[BPSCG]

Well, if he really wants to make it an even fifty, he'll certainly get the chance in prison. Of course, the general population he will encounter there might be a little more difficult to kill than a female prostitute.

I think he should go for it.

[Didaktylos]

I just noticed it was an interesting contrast to the serial killer in England, who targeted exactly the same type of victims.

I take it you're referring to the recent Ipswich murders rather than Peter Sutcliffe?