This past Independence Day weekend in the United States reminded me of another momentous July 4 that happened 25 years ago here in Canada.
Back in 1995 on that date, I attended the Paul Bernardo murder trial in downtown Toronto, one of the biggest and most famous trials in Canadian history.
This trial was a media sensation in Canada back in 1995, and I was there to cover it 鈥� but not as an accredited media member. Instead, I was there that day reporting as a student from the journalism program at the University of Western Ontario.
There were four of us who went up to Toronto to cover the trial that particular day as a J-school class assignment. Even though I filed my report on it, I never did get around to publishing my account of what happened that fateful day in any actual media outlet 鈥� until now.
Recently, I looked through a box of my old materials and came across my reporter鈥檚 notebook from the day that I covered the Bernardo trial. Looking through that notepad, the events and experience of attending Canada鈥檚 鈥渢rial of the century鈥� came back to life, all these many years later.
The backstory of what happened in the case can be summed up by the word 鈥渉orrific.鈥�
Bernardo had been dubbed the 鈥淪carborough Rapist鈥� and the 鈥渟choolgirl killer鈥� 鈥� the former because of a series of rapes in Scarborough and elsewhere in the late 1980s and early 90s, and the latter because of the killings of three teenagers in the 90s. It was the killings of Kristen French (of St. Catharines) and Leslie Mahaffy (of Burlington) that Bernardo was on trial for in 1995. The other teenager was Tammy Homolka, who died under murky circumstances after being drugged 鈥� initially, there were claims it was accidental.
I will not go into too much detail here on all of what happened 鈥� there are several books out there that tell the entire story. But I will touch on a major controversy that erupted, and it had to do with the involvement of Bernardo鈥檚 wife Karla Homolka in all three killings.
Prosecutors cut a deal with Homolka where she agreed to a 12-year manslaughter conviction in connection to the rapes and killings of French and Mahaffy, and the sentence included two years for her involvement with what happened with her sister Tammy. In exchange, the Crown got her testimony in the Bernardo case.
There was a huge outcry over this arrangement, dubbed the 鈥渄eal with the devil.鈥� A lot of people feel the prosecution let Karla off the hook lightly, and that she should have been convicted for murder and met the same fate as her husband eventually did.
July 4, 1995, was not just any day in the Bernardo trial; it was perhaps the most sensational one of the whole trial.
It was the first day for Homolka鈥檚 cross-examination, after she spent the previous several days on the stand as a Crown witness. This promised big fireworks, far bigger than what those Americans were planning south of the border.
I tried to do background research of the players in the case prior to my day in Toronto. In my notes I wrote down a 鈥済uide to the trial.鈥�
It mentions Bernardo, charged with 鈥渢wo counts of first-degree murder and seven other charges related to the sex slayings of Kristen French, 15, and Leslie Mahaffy, 14.鈥� It mentions Homolka, and also mentions Associate Chief Justice Patrick LeSage, Crown attorney Ray Houlahan, and Bernardo鈥檚 lawyer John Rosen.
Rosen. I remember clearly the way he carried himself in the courtroom. Before the jury entered he would just pace and stride around the court, with his arms crossed, looking like a guy ready to do battle. When he did do the cross examination, he had a booming voice.
Rosen鈥檚 job was to demolish Homolka and make her look complicit in the killings, and destroy the credibility of all she said about Bernardo the previous week. In my notes, I had written that Rosen鈥檚 鈥渟trategy is to show Karla鈥檚 adept at fooling people,鈥� and that he was 鈥渓ooking for contradictions.鈥�
For the group of us heading to Toronto, the day had begun very early at something like 3 a.m. in the morning.
We travelled the highway from London to Toronto. Once we got there, we had to cross our fingers and hope we were admitted into the courthouse. We didn鈥檛 have the media passes that the accredited media had, so we had to stand in line like everyone else from the public. The line was sure to be long. There was a huge public appetite for this trial, with ordinary people showing up as spectators in the court gallery every day.
Here鈥檚 what I wrote in my notes:
鈥淢ade it to TO in one piece. Camped out in front of the Court House waiting to get in. Dave and Mary have taken off for food so we鈥檙e here holding a place in line. When we got here we found a huge lineup of people waiting to get in; some have slept here all night. Seagulls are chirping, birds are frolicking. Lineup is a real motley crew, that鈥檚 the best way to describe it.鈥�
We noticed there was a police officer on the scene, looking around to make sure no one cut the line and that no one got mugged. I noticed the media booths that were set up not far away. Later, we noticed someone holding a 鈥淗ang Bernardo鈥� T-shirt.
We spent several hours killing time waiting to be allowed inside. At 8:53 a.m., the line started moving, and I wrote down that there was concern among the four of us that we might not all make it inside the courtroom and that we鈥檇 get split up.
Good news! As of 8:58 a.m. we had all made it, just under the wire before they closed the seating to the rest of the people in line. We were on the fifth floor with our tickets, waiting to go through security and then take our seats.
Once we entered the courtroom, there was more waiting. I remember marvelling at the scene of all the reporters sitting in several seats in the courtroom 鈥� all these big names I had recognized from the newspapers and TV stations.聽
Finally, at 9:59 a.m., Bernardo was 鈥渂rought in cuffed, wearing grey suit,鈥� and he sat in the prisoners box. The proceedings began in earnest when the court clerk, or perhaps it was someone else, stood up and said the words 鈥渙h yea, oh yea, oh yea ... God save the queen!鈥�
After some opening discussions between the lawyers and the judge, the cross examination of Homolka began. What follows is the account that I recorded in my notes as best as I could:
Defence lawyer Rosen led off by showing pictures to Karla of her sister Tammy.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 your sister Tammy lying on a gurney dead, isn鈥檛 it?鈥�
鈥渊别蝉.鈥�
鈥淵ou saw her on the floor of the bedroom ... That鈥檚 a picture you can鈥檛 possibly forget, is that right?鈥�
鈥淭hat鈥檚 correct.鈥�
鈥�... I would think those pictures, those nightmares, would have bothered your conscience every living moment.鈥�
鈥淵es it did.鈥�
Then Rosen showed another photo.
鈥淪ee that pretty girl on the left, who鈥檚 that?鈥�
鈥淟eslie Mahaffy.鈥�
鈥淵ou knew what happened to her on June 15, 1991, right?鈥�
鈥凌颈驳丑迟.鈥�
What happened, Rosen went on, was the dismembering of Mahaffy. Rosen then showed another photo, this time of Mahaffy鈥檚 torso.
鈥淵ou participated in that, didn鈥檛 you?鈥�
(Sob) 鈥渊别蝉.鈥�
Next, another photo.
鈥淲ho鈥檚 that?鈥� Rosen asked. Homolka confirmed it was Kristen French, alive, at 15 years old.
Then Rosen showed Homolka another photo. It was French, 鈥渄ead at the scene when dumped in a ditch, correct?鈥�
鈥渊别蝉.鈥�
Rosen again asked Karla if the photos bothered her conscience and kept her awake at night. Then shortly after, Rosen delved into what happened around the time that Karla left Bernardo.
He spoke of events during the latter part of 1992 when 鈥測our husband was punching you out the odd time.鈥� Rosen then went into an incident on the night of Jan. 4, 1993, in which Karla was assaulted and threatened. Karla ended up lodging a police complaint against Bernardo.
Rosen: 鈥淲hen the constable took the complaint about the domestic assault did you tell them about [Tammy, Leslie and Kristen]?鈥�
No, Karla responded: she was 鈥渢oo scared.鈥�
Later, Rosen asked if she called any police officer to talk about those three. 鈥淣o, I didn鈥檛.鈥�
鈥淲hat you did was have a heckuva time,鈥� Rosen retorted.
鈥淣o, I didn鈥檛 have a heckuva time,鈥� said Homolka.
Rosen then brought up an interview Homolka had done under oath where she had stated 鈥渁s soon as I left him in the hospital ... I felt I was 17 years old again ... I forgot Tammy, I forgot Leslie and Kristen, I went out and had a great time.鈥�
鈥淎nd that鈥檚 what you did,鈥� Rosen said.
鈥淚 did not have a great time,鈥� Karla responded on the stand. 鈥淚 had nightmares, I tried to make myself forget.鈥� Homolka said she was always 鈥渨atching my back.鈥�
Rosen turned to Karla鈥檚 efforts to get a lawyer. Initially, she went to Virginia Workman.
鈥淵our lawyer was Virginia Workman, right? And you saw Virginia Workman on your dad鈥檚 birthday, Jan. 25, 1993, isn鈥檛 that right?鈥�
鈥凌颈驳丑迟.鈥� She explained she was a matrimonial lawyer.
鈥淏ut you didn鈥檛 say anything鈥� about Kristen, Leslie or Tammy, asked Rosen.
鈥淚 didn鈥檛 do that because I was terrified of Paul,鈥� Homolka replied.
鈥淚 was obviously not thinking straight or else none of this would have happened.鈥�
Later Rosen asked several questions about her encounter with another lawyer, George Walker, and about trying to obtain blanket immunity. Rosen tried to show that Homolka knew more about the concept of blanket immunity than she was letting on.
鈥淵ou know what it is, you know it鈥檚 pretty good,鈥� Rosen said.
鈥淚 went to him and told him to do the best he could for me.鈥�
Rosen delved into the plea agreement Homolka eventually made with the Crown, and the negotiations that went on.
鈥淎s part of the deal you were never charged with murder 鈥� charged with manslaughter, no sexual assault, no dismemberment of Leslie鈥檚 body.鈥�
鈥淚 wasn鈥檛 involved in the dismemberment of Leslie Mahaffy,鈥� Karla then responded, but she admitted 鈥渉elping throw her over.鈥�
I had written down that Rosen strode by and glanced at the jurors, and shook the plea bargain agreement in front of them. Very theatrical stuff. He lampooned Homolka for her jail sentence.
鈥淟ong sentence isn鈥檛 it?鈥� Rosen then asked when Homolka was eligible for day parole, and Homolka responded 鈥渁 year and a half.鈥�
鈥淓xcuse me?鈥� said Rosen.
鈥淎 year and a half,鈥� she replied. It turned out Homolka was eligible for day parole Jan. 6, 1997.
Those exchanges gave you an idea about the tension in that crowded Toronto courtroom that morning.
But the theatrics didn鈥檛 last. The afternoon session was far less riveting: a series of exhibits and cards were presented as evidence and Homolka was asked about those.
The long day was starting to get to all of us in our group. I remember dozing off in my seat at one point, only for a guard to come over to say to me 鈥渘o sleeping in the courtroom!鈥�
Finally around 3 p.m. one of my tired-looking colleagues passed me a note that read 鈥渓et鈥檚 go.鈥� I wrote back 鈥淥K.鈥�
We filed out, and headed back in the car to London, Ont., to file our stories.
I cannot tell you what happened to the finished story that I eventually typed and handed in. I am guessing it is in a box somewhere, but I did find a first draft that I had written down in my notebook.
It鈥檚 cringeworthy. 鈥淐ross examination began on Karla Homolka before a packed courtroom yesterday in the Paul Bernardo trial,鈥� I wrote in the first paragraph. I should have cut to the chase and said Rosen had spent the day grilling Homolka.
I hope this wasn鈥檛 the final version that I handed in to the instructors, because it鈥檚 unreadable. But my notes and notebook from the trial 鈥� they鈥檙e gold. Awesome stuff.
Looking back 25 years later, I can鈥檛 believe how time has passed. It is amazing to think that my very first big trial as a reporter 鈥� a lowly student reporter 鈥� was one of the biggest cases Canada has ever had, in Toronto no less. Just a couple of months or so before, I was still living in Saskatchewan.
What a way to get experience in covering trials. It turned out to be good preparation for the media circus that accompanied the Curt Dagenais murder trial in 2009 in Saskatoon, and the Gerald Stanley trial in Battleford in 2018, as well as the other court cases in between that I have covered.
What I should emphasize is that my Bernardo trial experience was of one momentous day. I did not attend day in and day out, week after week, like some reporters had to do. Moreover, I didn鈥檛 really follow the case obsessively, either before or after. I probably should have, but the subject matter repulsed me. It was too much, with teenagers being sexually assaulted, killed and dismembered. I鈥檝e heard stories of reporters getting 鈥淧TSD鈥� from covering this case, having to live through the gory details of what they heard for weeks on end during the trial.
Covering the Bernardo trial was quite an experience, but from my vantage point one day of it was enough.
