Alberta girl, 13, on trial for killing family:

[Praxius]

Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca

Trial starts for Medicine Hat girl accused of killing family

MEDICINE HAT, Alta. — A first-degree murder trial begins today for a 13-year-old girl accused of slaughtering her parents and little brother in a case that has stunned this unassuming southern Alberta city. The killings have drawn international attention to Medicine Hat, where rumours abound of what lay below the surface — a forbidden relationship and out-of-control preteen rebellion — all entwined in the Goth subculture. The accused was just 12 years old and in Grade 7 when her family members were found dead in their home in April 2006. Her brother was only eight. He was buried with his parents in Sudbury, Ont., where the family lived before moving to Alberta in the late 1990s. The girl, who cannot be identified under provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Her co-accused and boyfriend at the time of the incident, 24-year-old Jeremy Steinke, faces the same murder charges. He will be tried later as an adult and so faces a far stiffer possible penalty. The defence strategy for the girl remains largely unknown. The police have been tight-lipped about the case from the outset, even refusing to disclose how her three family members died. Their bodies were discovered on a Sunday afternoon after a young neighbourhood boy went to call on his eight-year-old friend. Through the window, he saw what he believed to be a body and ran to tell his mother, who called police. The next day, Steinke and the girl were arrested in Leader, Sask., about two hours east of Medicine Hat. They’ve been in custody since then. Two others, 19-year-old Kacy Lancaster and a 16-year-old girl, have been charged with accessory to murder for allegedly trying to help cover up the crime. Both cases are wending their way through the legal system. The fact that Steinke was more than a decade older than his co-accused is likely to be a factor in the trial. The two apparently met at a punk rock dance a short time before the killings. Friends said Steinke brushed off concerns about the age gap and said no one would stop him from seeing the girl. Around that time, the Roman Catholic schoolgirl abandoned her clean-cut look for a darker, Goth style featuring black clothes and heavy eyeliner and makeup. Steinke told friends that he was a 300-year-old werewolf who liked the taste of blood. The two also left an Internet trail, posting pictures and messages on websites such as VampireFreaks.com. The Youth Criminal Justice Act allows the prosecution to seek an adult sentence as long as the offender is 14 or older. In this case, since the accused was only 12 at the time of the killings, she cannot be given an adult sentence if convicted. The maximum penalty she could receive for first-degree murder is 10 years, with no more than six spent in custody. As an adult, Steinke faces a life sentence and a minimum of 25 years behind bars before becoming eligible for parole. A date for his trial hasn’t yet been set, but it’s not expected to begin before next year. In the meantime, his Calgary-based lawyer will be watching the case of his co-accused very closely — especially if Steinke is called to testify. "If he is, I certainly have a vested interest in what he’s going to say," said Alain Hepner. "If he’s called as a witness, he has to get in the witness stand and we’ll see what happens." Sanjeev Anand, a criminal law expert at the University of Alberta, says the case is unique for Canada. "I don’t remember in recent history, a person that young being charged with multiple murders." The girl’s trial is scheduled for five weeks. It will be a rare case of a juvenile facing a jury trial in Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench, rather than in youth court. Her Calgary-based lawyer, Tim Foster, opted to change her election from trial by judge alone earlier this year.

Friggin Goth Freaks and their double-age-older influence boyfriends....

oh and I doubt we'll get anymore information that this, because of this in the CBC link:

The first week of the teen's trial has been set aside for a voir dire, legal proceedings that examine the admissibility of evidence. Defence lawyer Tim Foster has applied to keep the public and the media out of the courtroom during this process. He has refused any interviews on the matter. Fred Kozak, a media lawyer hired by the CBC to argue against that exclusion in court on Monday, said it was the first time that he has heard of an application to ban the public and the media from such proceedings. "Our argument will be that the judicial system, including voir dires, have to be open and transparent and that publication bans have proven to be an effective mechanism that balance the fair trial rights of the accused with freedom of expression." The teenage girl, who cannot be identified under terms of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, has been in custody at the Calgary Young Offender Centre for more than a year.

What BS..... I'm sorry, but if someone goes out and slaughters their family and considdering the information already provided... this should be a public issue..... There are friends and family close to this incident who have a right to know what happened.

And I'm sorry, but I don't care if you're 12, 5 or 38..... if you "Slaughter" someone... you know wtf you are doing, and in this case in paticular, I seriously don't believe the child protection act should apply.

What do you think? With the information already provided.... do you feel she should be tried as an adult and this made public, or should this little princess be kept private and treated as a victim in this crime, so she can get all the loving help she can get? :rolleyes:

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Praxius What do you think? With the information already provided.... do you feel she should be tried as an adult and this made public, or should this little princess be kept private and treated as a victim in this crime, so she can get all the loving help she can get? :rolleyes:

Man, that is just frightening.


Personally, I happen to agree with Prax on this, these people obviously knew what they were getting into, and should make their way throught the justice system just like everybody else.

[Osborn F Enready]

I have no issue with media shut-out until the court case is over, since this is not a political case, but a private case.

I do think the trial findings should be public regardless, as well as the evidence and details, once the case is complete.

I don't know a lot about the court system in Canada, but I think the media often clouds cases with false facts, rumors and plain old false assumptions which spoil any hope of a fair trial by "unbiased" jurors, whether tried as an adult, or minor, or common man or celebrity.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Praxius Friggin Goth Freaks and their double-age-older influence boyfriends....

Ah, yes, the wonder of prejudice based on fashion choices. Black eyeliner makes you a homicidal maniac, does it?

Quote by: Praxius What BS..... I'm sorry, but if someone goes out and slaughters their family and considdering the information already provided... this should be a public issue..... There are friends and family close to this incident who have a right to know what happened. And I'm sorry, but I don't care if you're 12, 5 or 38..... if you "Slaughter" someone... you know wtf you are doing, and in this case in paticular, I seriously don't believe the child protection act should apply. What do you think? With the information already provided.... do you feel she should be tried as an adult and this made public, or should this little princess be kept private and treated as a victim in this crime, so she can get all the loving help she can get? :rolleyes:

So because a reporter used the word "slaughter" in an effort to make the story more viable as a shock-news item, the girl is unquestionably guilty and must be tried as an adult? Interesting take on the justice system.

No, she shouldn't be tried as an adult. She's not an adult. The presence of the 24-year-old boyfriend gives an obvious explanation for how this little girl could have committed a horrible crime: she was influenced by a grown man. She is not entirely responsible for her actions, because she didn't know any better -- and the violence of the crime doesn't change that, IMO. She should certainly be locked up, and probably examined for mental incompetency since she could be influenced so easily to kill, but she shouldn't be considered a heinous villain. Certainly not BEFORE the trial.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Praxius What do you think? With the information already provided.... do you feel she should be tried as an adult and this made public, or should this little princess be kept private and treated as a victim in this crime, so she can get all the loving help she can get? :rolleyes:

She should be publicly tried as an adult; she may be innocent to some degree, as the trial may prove as it goes on, but it seems from the article that she had some significant hand in it. Sometimes spoiling kids goes just too far.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I don't know a lot about the court system in Canada, but I think the media often clouds cases with false facts, rumors and plain old false assumptions which spoil any hope of a fair trial by "unbiased" jurors, whether tried as an adult, or minor, or common man or celebrity.

From all the news I watch, there are no biased opinions shot out, like on stations like CNN Headline, etc.... they report only what was said, what the lawyer's intentions are, what evidence is available for the case..... basically just information.....

A good example is the Pickton Trial in BC..... with the Pig Farmer accused of killing a crap load of prostitutes on his farm...... it started out to sound like he was an evil serial killer..... now as the evidence is being shown and expressed.... the information the media is giving out is starting to prove that he may have only been an associate..... someone who only supplied the "Dumping" grounds so to speak..... many witnesses are talking about other suspects and how the RCMP may have rushed their way to charge Pickton.

When I watch news in the US..... I have to sudder..... hell even CNN has a friggin propaganda trigger behind the show......

For example, they can't just say "China" ...... no.... they always have to refer to China as "Communist China" ~ like Duh......

There is a lot of fear mongering in your news...... I swear and I'm not trying to attack.... it's seriously disturbing how much they use your media to strike fear into what you don't know......

If I look at news from one country about one story, and then read the same story in your country..... it's got a totally different feel to it....

[Apeman81]

What parent let their 12 year old daughter attend a concert alone?

Could it be that they knew of the relationship with the 24 year old pedophile?

What parents let their 12 yr old daughter have unmonitored, unfettered access to the internet?

Whether or not the girl should be tried as an adult will bear out of the facts in the case as they are discovered/revealed.

What I pray all will come away with from this horrible situation is the recognition that parents are leaders and directors of children, not simply breeders and supporters of their every whim.

[Praxius]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Ah, yes, the wonder of prejudice based on fashion choices. Black eyeliner makes you a homicidal maniac, does it?

That wasn't ment to be serious Lighten up.

However this is the second reported person who was affiliated with the site VampireFreaks.com.... the individual who shot up Dawson College last year boasted about doing it all over the site..... I just find this a bit of a similarity.

So because a reporter used the word "slaughter" in an effort to make the story more viable as a shock-news item, the girl is unquestionably guilty and must be tried as an adult? Interesting take on the justice system.

Tell me something..... what do you classify as a Slaughter? In the last few cases where the term Slaughter was used..... most of the victims were chopped up, decapitated, slashed, etc..... when someone does that.... chances are I don't want these people to get back out in 6 months because they were a kid..... Nobody's gonna learn anything in 6 months..... well not enough of anything to make them think "Oh gee.... chopping those people up wasn't a good thing after all."

No, she shouldn't be tried as an adult. She's not an adult. The presence of the 24-year-old boyfriend gives an obvious explanation for how this little girl could have committed a horrible crime: she was influenced by a grown man. She is not entirely responsible for her actions, because she didn't know any better

Oh please... don't give me that "She didn't know any better" bs.... because so many here in Canada are so sick of that stupid defense.... it's one of the main reasons why the Canadian Youth Protection Act is being changed.... because way too many kids are getting away scott free with crimes any other person would be put away for......

and it's quite the epedimic here in Canada..... way too many of the children know the system.... they know they can commit a vicious crime, spend a few months in jail, and are out again......

Oh and guess what? As soon as they hit 18 years of age and are considdered an adult....... any criminal records they had as a youth are destroyed and cleared from their records..... isn't that lovely?

The kids here are not as stupid as you may think they are, and Citizens in Canada, including myself are becoming sick of the revolving door of justice for these kids.....

They get to do practically anything they want until they hit 18..... a few months in jail as a youth is more of a bragging right now a days then a lesson learned.

-- and the violence of the crime doesn't change that, IMO. She should certainly be locked up, and probably examined for mental incompetency since she could be influenced so easily to kill, but she shouldn't be considered a heinous villain. Certainly not BEFORE the trial.

I'm not trying to say she is absolutly guilty..... but if someone's entire family is killed in a horindous manner..... and there is enough evidence to charge someone.... then shouldn't the truth be revealed about what really happened?

If she's innocent, then shouldn't everybody know so nobody continues any ignorant hatred towards her.... and if she's guilty, then shouldn't people know they caught the criminal? This isn't just an isolated incident..... maybe it is.... but at this point, it isn't known..... so the saftey of the public must be met.

Personally, if I had an uncle, aunt and cousins killed by someone underage.... someone in my family, or out of the family but close to it..... I should have every right to know what happened...... keeping this private for her sake? Give me a break..... If she's guilty then she shouldn't have any rights to privacy..... if she's innocent, then she's got nothing to hide and should want her name cleared...... I know I would.

[Derach]

In the US there is a process by which evidence is admitted and circumstances of the crime are scrutinized to determine the appropriate paramaters for the trial including the punishment phase. Whether the defendant should be charged as an adult or not is one of the decisions the (presumably) neuteral judge appointed to the case would make based on the evidence procured and the reliability of the method the evidence was handled ... etc ... That process takes months. Unfortunately, each and every case are treated the same (at the expense of the taxpayers, usually) ... it is often the competency of the defense attorney (and DA's) that determines what evidence can be submitted to a jury for consideration of guilt ... and many trials are won/lost on what evidence gets presented. A judge can throw out a videotape of a murder because it was not procured 'by the book' and sometimes thats the only evidence a jury will convict (especially particularly brutal crimes ... too horrific to believe unless you see it) on ... and either incompetency on the judge's part, a flawed piece of legistlation, or brilliant attorney work puts guilty people back on the streets too often. The process is supposed to be free of media influence, but obviously it's not. I agree US media outlets and their zeal for competing for customers has made viewing the news a much more laborious task than it used to be. I find the only way to filter truth from the OpEd piece is to try to get both sides of the story, and usually the common ground represents a good idea of the facts in the case. But to only listen to Fox, or CNN, or MSNBC ... it is difficult to filter the fact from the opinion. Consider yourself fortunate if the Canadian media is more neuteral in its coverage. It shouldn't take work to discern the news from a news show.

What I'm saying is that in a utopian system, there's a presumption of innocence for all accused criminals pending the decision of a jury of peers based on credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed by the defendant. I don't know what the process is in Canada, but if citizens like Prax are part of the judiciary system, and facts are released that sway his opinion, that could seriously taint the integrity of a penal system based on a jury trial. What if new evidence emerges and the potential juror makes a prejudgment and ignores the subsequent finding, for instance. Maybe the evidence in this case is overwhelming ... if so, in the US there is theoritically a 'speedy' process to a fair trial upon which the obvious guilt of the defendant is established and a penalty imposed. There may be reason for the Canadian judiciary system to be concerned with 'all the facts' being released (like if they don't know what 'all the facts are' ... or how they were procured) prior to trial ... but in the course of the trial, and especially after ... ALL the evidence should be made public ... and I believe are in both countries. There is a precedent for judges imposing penalties on media outlets that release info on certain cases, especially when other investigations are ongoing ... I'm sure that's true in Canada, too ... if the situation warrants such measures. I'm not saying this does, but if there's a privacy concern, there is a process to stop the release of information pre-trial.

I don't see, though why they wouldn't want some media representation to get the facts out of the trial ... I would want to know what kind of defense they were putting on.

[Praxius]

Indeed....

But as another update on this case.... it looks like they'll be keeping it public after all:



CTV.ca | Reporters can remain at Medicine Hat murder trial

MEDICINE HAT, Alta. -- Reporters and other members of the public won't be banned from the courtroom during the first week of a 13-year-old girl's trial on charges that she murdered her parents and little brother. Justice Scott Brooker of Court of Queen's Bench in Medicine Hat says the defence failed to prove that a ban was needed during this week's hearing, which is being held to determine what evidence should be permitted at the trial itself. The defence had argued that allowing the public to hear some of the evidence while the jury was not there could lead to the information ending up on the Internet or reported by foreign media _ thereby prejudicing the girl's right to a fair trial. But the judge agreed with lawyers for several news outlets that the defence's concern was merely speculative. The girl, who cannot be identified because of her age, has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder. Her co-accused and boyfriend at the time, 24-year-old Jeremy Steinke, faces the same charges and goes to trial at a later date.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Praxius That wasn't ment to be serious Lighten up.

Consider the mood lightened.

Quote by: Praxius However this is the second reported person who was affiliated with the site VampireFreaks.com.... the individual who shot up Dawson College last year boasted about doing it all over the site..... I just find this a bit of a similarity.

And now we're right back to ridiculous overgeneralizations based on a subjective view of "weirdness." Tell me, how many people on that site are NOT homicidal maniacs? Coincidence?

I got no problem with you cracking jokes. Just don't think that one's funny. No big deal.

Quote by: Praxius Tell me something..... what do you classify as a Slaughter? In the last few cases where the term Slaughter was used..... most of the victims were chopped up, decapitated, slashed, etc..... when someone does that.... chances are I don't want these people to get back out in 6 months because they were a kid..... Nobody's gonna learn anything in 6 months..... well not enough of anything to make them think "Oh gee.... chopping those people up wasn't a good thing after all."

I think "slaughter" is a hyperbolic term intended to appeal to emotions -- kind of like you saying she's going to get out in six months, along with your interesting take on the thought process of a convicted murderer being released. Personally, I don't know anyone who honestly uses the term, "Oh gee," so I'm not going to take your characterization as realistic.

Of course you don't want this girl out in 6 months. Neither do I. But I don't think life imprisonment is necessarily the right way to go either, even if she did !!SLAUGHTER!!! everyone in the house. I'd recommend a psychiatric evaluation, depending on the findings of the court, of course.

Quote by: Praxius Oh please... don't give me that "She didn't know any better" bs.... because so many here in Canada are so sick of that stupid defense.... it's one of the main reasons why the Canadian Youth Protection Act is being changed.... because way too many kids are getting away scott free with crimes any other person would be put away for......

Because you know she DID know what she was doing? You know that she was aware of the consequences of her actions? Based on what -- you're sick of hearing about people who are found not to be mentally competent? Tell me, in what way do your rolling eyes count as a reasonable argument?

I don't know if she was aware of the implications, or how much she was influenced by her boyfriend. I know that 12-year-olds cannot be expected to make mature decisions, and cannot be expected to resist the blandishments of adults, especially not their grown-up boyfriends. Trying her as an adult is already making the assumption that she is solely responsible for the murders, and I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. That's all.

Quote by: Praxius and it's quite the epedimic here in Canada..... way too many of the children know the system.... they know they can commit a vicious crime, spend a few months in jail, and are out again...... Oh and guess what? As soon as they hit 18 years of age and are considdered an adult....... any criminal records they had as a youth are destroyed and cleared from their records..... isn't that lovely? The kids here are not as stupid as you may think they are, and Citizens in Canada, including myself are becoming sick of the revolving door of justice for these kids.....

Yes, yes, very sad how many Canadian youths are slaughtering their families simply because they know there's a revolving door on the prison. I hate when that happens. But hey, that's why I slaughtered my family -- because I grew up in Michael Dukakis's Massachusetts! Willie Horton was my god!

Kids everywhere are stupid. That's why they have parents. That's why they have schools. And that's why they have juvenile court. Now: is there evidence that this girl was the originator of the plan? Then yeah, try her as an adult. But if she was coerced or in any way manipulated into the act by her boyfriend, then it's his responsibility, not hers. At least, that should be the base assumption.

Quote by: Praxius They get to do practically anything they want until they hit 18..... a few months in jail as a youth is more of a bragging right now a days then a lesson learned. I'm not trying to say she is absolutly guilty..... but if someone's entire family is killed in a horindous manner..... and there is enough evidence to charge someone.... then shouldn't the truth be revealed about what really happened? If she's innocent, then shouldn't everybody know so nobody continues any ignorant hatred towards her.... and if she's guilty, then shouldn't people know they caught the criminal? This isn't just an isolated incident..... maybe it is.... but at this point, it isn't known..... so the saftey of the public must be met. Personally, if I had an uncle, aunt and cousins killed by someone underage.... someone in my family, or out of the family but close to it..... I should have every right to know what happened...... keeping this private for her sake? Give me a break..... If she's guilty then she shouldn't have any rights to privacy..... if she's innocent, then she's got nothing to hide and should want her name cleared...... I know I would.

She's innocent until proven guilty. She's a child until there is reasonable evidence that she acted with an adult's decision making ability. I can't speak to how this case will turn out, but the starting point should be juvenile court. As for the media being allowed in, I don't think the mass media should be allowed into any trial, anywhere; justice should not be a Roman freaking carnival. But hey, if you're going to allow it, there's no particular reason to prevent it in this case. But safety of the public? Dude, that's why she's in jail. What difference does it make if her face is on the evening news? If she gets off, she's innocent and you have no reason to know her appearance; if she's guilty and therefore dangerous, she's in jail. What public safety issue is there?

[Jubloz]

Well, the article was pretty biased against being gothic, so it's no surprise that the lawyer wants to avoid publicity from biases such as these swaying opinion. It's pretty disturbing that a girl so young might have done such a thing, though.

[Praxius]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint But safety of the public? Dude, that's why she's in jail. What difference does it make if her face is on the evening news? If she gets off, she's innocent and you have no reason to know her appearance; if she's guilty and therefore dangerous, she's in jail. What public safety issue is there?

The public safety I was referring towards, was IF they actually caught the right person in the first place...... is there still someone out there who may commit the crime again?

And about the Goth site and the ammount of crimes related.... I was loosly portraying an odd resembalance towards the site and crimes, not the Gothic Culture. If you checked the web site, there is a lot of things said by many there which could be considdered negative..... people venting out their frustrations of the world, who they hate, what they want to do to them all, etc..... some of these people like her (If she did do it) and buddy from Dawson College made their comments on there.... they pretty much laid out what exactly they were going to do, and nobody on the site really did anything.... no reporting.... nothing.... the signs were all there, and yet nothing was done until it was too late.

I'm just saying that a site such as this, sure doesn't help deter these people from finding an alternative solution to their frustrations, and if anything fuels it because there are people who are similarlly frustrated.

[TheColdTruth]

Yeah, because only gothic people kill people. You never hear of rednecks getting drunk and killing their entire family, no siree...

[Praxius]

Quote by: TheColdTruth Yeah, because only gothic people kill people. You never hear of rednecks getting drunk and killing their entire family, no siree...

I know, it's small potatos imo..... however the last few major muder incidences here in Canada involved people connected to certain Goth sites online, so I can see why some people want to point it out..... I imagine eventually the Goth culture will be attacked with laws somehow......

And speaking of this topic, the trial is now over, and she has been indeed found Guilty for the murders of her parents and her younger brother.... I've been lazy getting into the news as of late, but here's the scoop for those keeping track:

Alberta girl, 13, guilty of murders

MEDICINE HAT, Alta. - It took a jury about four hours to find a 13-year-old girl guilty on all three counts of first-degree murder in the brutal slaying of a family. The girl clasped her hand to her mouth, crying, as all three verdicts were read aloud yesterday. The girl, who cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was found guilty of killing Marc and Debra Richardson and their eight-year-old son, Jacob, who were violently stabbed to death in their suburban home on April 23, 2006. She is the youngest person found guilty of multiple homicide in Canadian history. Under the Act, the maximum sentence for first-degree murder is 10 years, but incarceration can be no longer than six years. Justice Scott Brooker charged the jury yesterday morning on the last day of the five-week trial, and they began deliberations at about 1 p.m. local time. By 5:15 p.m., they had their verdict. The girl, wearing her long brown hair in a ponytail and dressed in a white cardigan, stood as the jurors read their verdict, and remained standing as the judge declared her guilty on all three counts. One by one, the seven-man, five-woman jury filed out of the courtroom past her as she stood weeping in the prisoner's box. Her defence lawyer, Tim Foster, put his arm around her, comforting her as she cried. Crown prosecutor Stephanie Cleary asked for psychological and psychiatric assessments for a pre-sentence report. Mr. Foster agreed. The girl will be sent to the Alberta Hospital in Edmonton, the only place to assess adolescents, court heard. The pre-sentence report is expected Aug. 23. Outside court, Mr. Foster said it was too early to consider an appeal. "I'm disappointed, obviously. We tried hard, it's been a very lengthy five-week trial, we've put a lot of time and effort into it and a lot of hard work. The system worked the way it's supposed to. I'm not happy with the verdict, but that's what the jury's job is -- to make a decision," Mr. Foster said. Throughout the five-week trial, jurors were very attentive to the evidence, which was gruesome and emotional. Judge Brooker instructed the jury yesterday to focus on intent. In his charge to the jury, Judge Brooker said it was agreed the girl's 23-year-old boyfriend, Jeremy Allan Steinke, stabbed the family to death. He is charged with three counts of first-degree murder, but has not entered a plea. The girl, who was 12 and in Grade 7 at the time, had told people she hated the family and wanted her boyfriend to kill them. Friends testified they overheard the girl asking Mr. Steinke to kill the family, and that he had attempted to recruit their help. The Crown said the girl intentionally encouraged and persuaded Mr. Steinke to carry out the deadly plot, and that she helped him break into the house through an unlocked window. The jury was instructed that either aiding, abetting and counselling would warrant a guilty verdict. During the past four weeks, jurors have heard gruesome testimony, looked at autopsy photos and listened to the girl defend herself in the witness box. The pair were arrested the day after the killings with friends in Leader, Sask. Along with three girls, the couple was taken by police at gunpoint where they had been sleeping in a pickup truck at a school parking lot. Evidence presented to the jury included gruesome photographs of the crime scene that showed bodies, blood trails and blood-stained knives recovered from the Richardsons' home. Debra Richardson, 48, was found lying at the foot of a staircase in the same basement room as her husband. She had suffered 12 stab wounds and was "covered with a lot of blood from head to toe," testified Constable Gerald Sadlemyer of the Medicine Hat Police Service. Marc Richardson, 41, was found with his "head, neck and body covered with blood," and with a large blood stain on the crotch of his boxer shorts, Const. Sadlemyer said. He had been stabbed 24 times. Testifying in her own defence, the girl told a packed courtroom on July 3 she heard screaming and yelling as Mr. Steinke attacked Marc and Debra Richardson, and tried to comfort the frightened boy upstairs. She then said Mr. Steinke goaded her into stabbing eight-year-old Jacob as he begged for his life. Mr. Steinke then snatched the knife away from her and slashed the boy's throat, she testified.

Regret after the fact doesn't excuse the actions..... the only reason I see her sobbing her sorry ass off is because she got caught, her boyfriend didn't get all the blame as she tried to do, and now she's all sad she screwed up....

I'm personally glad she's been found guilty because the youth crime rate here in Canada has certainly increased in the last 4-6 years (Being attacked by a group of random teenagers myself a little over a year ago)

The amount of violence and crimes these kids have been doing laitly here in Canada has been checked and studied and most of these swarmings, beatings, robberies, shootings, and the sort, the majority of them have been connected to just getting a tough reputation in school....

The more crimes you commit, the cooler you are..... plain and simple, and the youths know that they can commit whatever crime they want, they won't ever serve any full sentances, and once they reach 18 years of age, any crimes they have commited as a youth are then locked away and wiped clean from their records...... does that make any sense to any of you?

I didn't see it above in the report, but in an earlier report the day they found her guilty, they even mentioned that although these crimes are very horrid and she killed her entire family..... her name has not been released to the public and when she gets out of youth jail at the age of 18, all of this is wiped clean off her record, and she gets to go on with her life as if this never happened..... anybody she dates, marrys, or whatever in the future will never know that she did this.....

Perhaps that's a good thing.... perhaps it's not.... What would you think if you started dating someone, or even marry someone that commited such a crime as above, but we're never told about it? Sure what you don't know might not kill you..... but do you think this would be kinda important to know before getting too involved with this person?

And if you found out.... how do you expect that to go over? Would she say something like "Oh, that happened a long time ago... I was going through a phase." ~ What happens if that phase decided to show it's head up again and you're on the chopping block later on?

Fear mongering? Not really.... just asking for opinions if you were in that kind of situation. Would it bother you, or would you not care?

[banko]

Well she was found guilty on 3 counts of 1st degree murder. I think that a person has to be seriously screwed up in order to kill their parents and brother, and I don't think you can point the finger at one single event or reason. I think there were probably a hundred factors that evolved over the course of several years in order for her to decide to commit these acts.

Also interesting that when she was testifying she basically blamed the boyfriend and said she was manipulated - jury didn't buy it I guess.

I am born and raised in Alberta and this was pretty much daily news here. And I am in agreement with most people I know here when I say that for her to walk away at 18 free and clear doesn't leave one feeling any sense of justice at all.

Oh crap coldtruth being an Albertan she was a redneck, and a goth to boot - no wonder she did it!!!! I also heard she was a wiccan so it just keeps getting worse doesn't it.

I wonder what a redneck goth listens to...perhaps really hardcore country music!

[Praxius]

Death Country, similar to Death Metal, but it all relates to pickup trucks and the dog dieing..... and they drive around in a Chrome Black Tractor with spikes.

But kids these days know more then what we knew at that age, much like we did compared to our parents..... they know how the system works, and if they don't they got plenty of friends to tell them how it works.... there are no decent penalties for youths to actually teach them a lesson... they get the equivilant to a high security detention after class.

This case even proves just how manipulative kids can be these days, ie: her trying to blame it entirely on her boyfriend, thinking her young innocence would protect her..... fok that... I say hang the biatch.... but that's just me.

And no I don't think justice is served if they get a criminal record like this wiped at the age of 18.... That just shows lack of responsibility, and if something like this is removed from their records as if it never happened.... then no.... no justice has been served to the family who was killed.

They say it's not mentally healthy to keep youths in jails for long periods of time because it could hurt their social skills and development when they enter back into society..... well it's either that or the slaps on the wrists we're handing out now.... which is only continuing to make things worse.

And if they have committed a serious crime, found guilty of it, then that already shows they're not fit to live in society in the first place, that their social skills are already screwed up..... allowing them to continue they way they do isn't gonna make it better.....

I see the problem is kids are not taught responsibility for their actions.... their either too young to understand, too young for this and that..... there are way too many excuses for kids these days, and they know it.

Perhaps once these idiots begin to see that they can face serious jail time for their actions, that their criminal records will not be cleared, and that they will have to pay for their crimes, then you might actually see some kids smartin the hell up.

I grew up understanding that if I did anything illegal I would goto jail..... I know now that I wouldn't have.... but my parents pushed it into my head at a young age..... don't do bad things or you goto jail....

It kept me out of jail and out of most trouble for most of my life, and although perhaps my parents lied to me about the details, it kept me in check until I knew what was really going on.

Now we got parents thinking their kids are so special and innocent, then they do something bad or illegal and they think there must be something wrong in school, or someone influenced them, or something else similar.... but never their precious child's fault..... they could never do that.

Then they'll goto get them checked, load them up with pills and perscriptions, label it a mental illness or something stupid, and then send them on their way.

Then they commit another crime, and when they goto trial.... oh it was the medication that altered my perception of reality so I'm not technically responsible for my actions......

There's so many dam loopholes it makes ya sick.

[ZNFYRH]

Well, another one bites the dust.

The only problem is that in 10 years she'll be out. Hopefully she'll be better by then.

As for the 24 year old with a thing for 12 year olds and stabbing Daddy in the crotch, he can rot for all I care. He's old enough to know better. The 12 year old still has time.