The Many Trials of Kelly Ellard

[fredr123]

CP loves tales of the Canadian justice system. Here's a great one.

You may recall the story of the murder of 14 year old Reena Virk who was murdered in 1997. We discussed one of her alleged killers' appeals here previously: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=62491

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments by counsel for one of the alleged killers, Kelly Ellard:

The country's highest court will hear arguments on Monday to determine whether the young woman who has been dubbed "Killer Kelly" by the local media should face an unprecedented fourth trial.


It is an extraordinary legal saga -- seven different defence lawyers, eight Crown attorneys and nine judges, a who's who of the legal community in B. C., have been involved in her three trials and two appeals. Three different juries deliberated for a total of 13 days. Two returned with guilty verdicts. There was a hung jury at the second trial in 2004.

Further articles on the latest in the saga of "Killer Kelly" can be found here:
http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=1508695 <--- includes a timeline of events
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n201215118

Supreme Court of Canada links for today's hearing:
Summary - http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/information...-eng.asp?32835
Respondent's factum - http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/factums-mem...d_Redacted.pdf

I lived in Victoria when that happened... IMO she's guilty as heck. As well as everyone else the either joined in or just watched.

Waste of time and money to do ANOTHER re-trial. Isn't there a limit?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Puxlut

I lived in Victoria when that happened... IMO she's guilty as heck. As well as everyone else the either joined in or just watched.

Waste of time and money to do ANOTHER re-trial. Isn't there a limit?

Couple questions (for discussion purposes and not me being a ######y jerk only):

1. On what are you basing your opinion that she's "guilty as heck"?

2. Who should blink first? Ellard? The Crown?

3. At what point would you stop fighting serious charges against you that you felt were unjust?

She's won at least twice on appeal. Well, won in the sense that the previous verdicts were set aside. At least one jury was hung and couldn't reach a verdict. Her legal aid was denied because the panel thought her appeal had no reasonable likelihood for success (that decision was appealed and her actual appeal was eventually successful).

On some levels, there are parallels here between Ellard and the Mountie from Pincher Creek. How many chances should the Crown get to get a conviction? If they don't get a verdict they like, do they keep fighting or chalk it up to the justice system at work?

[valo403]

Guilty or not, these appeals are completely justified. An appeal isn't based upon a simple dislike of the verdict, it's based on a legal error in the case. The fact that the Crown has twice presented cases that included severe enough legal errors to warrant a successful appeal is somewhat troubling.

I don't support Ellard in any way, but I do support her right to be convicted only through a legally proper trial.

[fredr123]

Read any of the factum? I've barely gone beyond the first page but a couple notes:

1. Ellard has already served 7 years in prison. That would have been the maximum period she would have served before she was eligible for parole had she not appealed.

2. The star witness admitted to lying 12 DOZEN times to police, in court, etc.

3. Gonna work "Janus-faced" into my vocabulary.

4. The Defence called an expert who conducted experiments on subjects similar in stature to Ellard to see how a person would react to doing the things she was alleged to have done after being immersed in the water as cold as the Gorge. Ellard allegedly had been up to her waste in the cold water when allegedly drowning Virk. Test subjects were barely able to speak whereas witnesses testifeid that Ellard wasn't even shivering.

[malcolmk14]

Kelly Ellard is kinda hot.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Read any of the factum? I've barely gone beyond the first page but a couple notes:

1. Ellard has already served 7 years in prison. That would have been the maximum period she would have served before she was eligible for parole had she not appealed.

2. The star witness admitted to lying 12 DOZEN times to police, in court, etc.

3. Gonna work "Janus-faced" into my vocabulary.

I would read the factum, but unfortunately I'm only 5 pages into a 30 page paper and I've got a couple finals coming up, so my priorities are currently elsewhere.

It's certainly not the slam dunk case that it's portrayed to be though, I wouldn't be surprised at all if she's not guilty of everything she's being accused of. That said, she's certainly not innocent either.

[urban1]

Ellard was 15 at the time the murder happened. She was arrested in 1997 and the first trial started in 1998. The legal process has no wbeen going on for 12 years.

Compare that to Glowatski who was convicted in 1999 and has been out on full parole since 2007.

This isnt the justice system working. I dont know what the right answer in this case is but a fourth trial isnt it. I wonder how the Virk family feels about all this. Im sure you want closure and punishment for those responsible but do you want to be constantly hearing your daughter's name and seeing her picture with all the details of her murder in the media over a decade after the murder.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

Kelly Ellard is kinda hot.

I google imaged her and................no, shes not really hot at all actually.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I google imaged her and................no, shes not really hot at all actually.

She's pretty hot in this picture http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=1508695

but yeah, maybe you're right. not so great in a couple other pictures i've found.

not to say i wouldn't....

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

She's pretty hot in this picture http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=1508695

but yeah, maybe you're right. not so great in a couple other pictures i've found.

not to say i wouldn't....

Yeah she looks decent there, but I need more than a side view to be sure.

and if none of my friends knew about it..............I probably would......

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

She's pretty hot in this picture http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=1508695

but yeah, maybe you're right. not so great in a couple other pictures i've found.

not to say i wouldn't....

That pic is from 2002. Seven years in prison since then can change what a woman looks like.

[Resolute 14]

Such a stupid thing. If it can be proven she was there, then she is guilty. That simple. Whether or not she was an active participant, she is just as responsible for Virk's death as anyone else who was there.

God, just go to the crown, offer a plea bargain for involuntary manslaughter or something, take the time served and move on. Let Virk's family move on as well.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Such a stupid thing. If it can be proven she was there, then she is guilty. That simple. Whether or not she was an active participant, she is just as responsible for Virk's death as anyone else who was there.

God, just go to the crown, offer a plea bargain for involuntary manslaughter or something, take the time served and move on. Let Virk's family move on as well.

What if Ellard had already tried to get the same deal the other teams got but the Crown said no way? Would that change your opinion?

Sounds like everyone started pointing the finger at Glowatski and Ellard as the two ultimately responsible for judo chopping, head smashing and ultimately drowning Virk. Glowatski accepts his fate, is convicted quickly, finds spirituality and is released. Ellard refuses to accept more responsibility than others and is being criticized for it by you?

Situations like this highlight some of the many problems with our justice system. I would hate to see the best advice for someone wrongly accused (not saying this is the case with Ellard) of a crime to be "plead out and move on with your life."

[valo403]

Originally Posted by fredr123

What if Ellard had already tried to get the same deal the other teams got but the Crown said no way? Would that change your opinion?

Sounds like everyone started pointing the finger at Glowatski and Ellard as the two ultimately responsible for judo chopping, head smashing and ultimately drowning Virk. Glowatski accepts his fate, is convicted quickly, finds spirituality and is released. Ellard refuses to accept more responsibility than others and is being criticized for it by you?

Situations like this highlight some of the many problems with our justice system. I would hate to see the best advice for someone wrongly accused (not saying this is the case with Ellard) of a crime to be "plead out and move on with your life."

I think this case actually highlights a number of positives of the justice system. It demonstrates that convictions won't be upheld where legal standards have not been reached. Had there not been defects with the case brought against Ellard the appeals would not have been successful.

While this case has dragged on for a long time, I'd much rather have a justice system that is focused on getting the job done correctly over simply getting the job done quickly.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by fredr123

What if Ellard had already tried to get the same deal the other teams got but the Crown said no way? Would that change your opinion?

I am going to go out on a limb and say that if Ellard tried to offer up a plea bargain back in the day and was rejected, it was because the crown felt it had a very strong case against her.

At any rate, she can fight all she wants, and that is her right. It won't change my view of her though. She was there, she is guilty.

[Clarkey]

Contrary to the saying 'you can't judge a book by its cover' I believe you can tell a lot by examining a persons facial expressions. Every photo or video I've seen of her shows her with a scowling evil look. She is a nasty person.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Contrary to the saying 'you can't judge a book by its cover' I believe you can tell a lot by examining a persons facial expressions. Every photo or video I've seen of her shows her with a scowling evil look. She is a nasty person.

I don't know about you, but I'd be scowling too if I was walking out of a court in which I'd just heard murder allegations read against me.

You're probably right about her, but not because of her facial expressions.

[urban1]

Supreme Court restores Ellard conviction in Virk case

Kirk Makin
Toronto — Globe and Mail Update, Friday, Jun. 12, 2009 10:11AM EDT

The Supreme Court of Canada has restored a B.C. woman's conviction in the swarming murder of 14-year-old Reena Virk, a case that horrified the country and led to a national debate about the scourge of youth bullying.

In an 8-1 ruling this morning, the court overturned a B.C. Court of Appeal decision that had invalidated Kelly Ellard's conviction following her third trial in the notorious case.

Ms. Ellard had earlier avoided being convicted based on a hung jury and a trial that was ruled invalid due to judicial errors. The Supreme Court appeal was a last-ditch attempt by the Crown to bring Ms. Ellard to justice.
Failure would likely have meant the end of the prosecution, since rarely, if ever, has the Crown pressed a prosecution to a fourth trial.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1179394/

[Resolute 14]

Glad to read this. Virk's family can finally begin to put this all behind them.