Maclean's exclusive: Russell Williams offers a defence -

Maclean’s exclusive: Russell Williams offers a defence

As the lawsuits against him pile up, the ex-colonel says he should not be forced to pay at least one of his victims


Behind those Eyes

Review all Maclean’s stories tagged ‘Russell Williams’

On the morning he was sentenced to life in prison, serial predator Russell Williams stood up in court and spoke to his victims. Tears in his eyes, his voice barely a whisper, the ex-colonel said he was “indescribably ashamed” of his “despicable crimes”–two murders, two sexual assaults, and dozens of perverse home invasions–and that he truly understood the depths of the “profound, desperate pain” he inflicted. “There are those who will find it impossible to accept,” he continued, Kleenex in hand. “But the fact is, I very deeply regret what I have done and the harm that I know I have caused.”

Nearly two years later, at the same Belleville, Ont., courthouse, Williams has delivered another message to one of those victims: I should not have to pay for that pain.

Laurie Massicotte–who was ambushed in her living-room, stripped naked with a knife, and ordered to pose for Williams’s camera–is one of numerous plaintiffs now suing the disgraced former commander of CFB Trenton. (The family of Jessica Lloyd, who was raped and strangled inside Williams’s cottage, and another sexual assault victim who can only be identified as Jane Doe, have also filed civil lawsuits). In her claim, which seeks $7 million in damages, Massicotte says the events of that “horrific” night have left her mentally scarred, suicidal, dependent on alcohol, and “unable to properly and normally function within society.”

But in a stunning statement of defence–the first to be filed in any of the lawsuits–Williams “denies”  Massicotte is “entitled to the relief claimed” and puts her “to the strict proof thereof.” Although he does admit he “assaulted” her in the early morning hours of Sept. 30, 2009, he insists he “has no knowledge” of most of her detailed allegations, including the fact she feared for her life, suffered “humiliation and indignity,” and now requires “extensive therapy and medical attention.”

“The Defendant, Williams, submits that [Massicotte’s] action should be dismissed with costs,” concludes the two-page statement of defence, obtained by Maclean’s. In other words, Williams not only wants a judge to toss the case out of court, but to order his victim to pay his legal bills on the lawsuit.


Massicotte, who still lives just down the road from Williams’s empty lakefront cottage, was served with his statement of defence two weeks ago. “I despise him,” she tells Maclean’s. “What the heck am I supposed to do now?”

A gifted pilot and respected leader, Williams was a rising military star, an elite officer who ferried prime ministers and the Queen and was awarded the top job at Canada’s largest and busiest air force base. But when he assumed command of CFB Trenton in July 2009, the colonel was already a depraved stalker who had broken into dozens of homes and stolen hundreds of bras, panties, bathing suits and other “trophies” from women’s bedrooms. By the time police cornered him in February 2010, Williams’s crime spree had escalated from fetish burglaries to sexual assault to the brutal murders of two women: Marie-France Comeau, a 38-year-old corporal stationed at his base; and Lloyd, 27, of Belleville.
Devil in the detailsIn October 2010, eight months after his videotaped confession, Williams pleaded guilty to all 88 charges, including the attack on Laurie Massicotte. According to the agreed statement of facts, the cornerstone of his plea, Williams struck her repeatedly, blindfolded her with a pillowcase, and spent hours “fondling” and photographing her. “Don’t make me get you into position,” he warned his captive at one point. In his weepy address to the court, Williams specifically acknowledged how he caused Massicotte to “suffer terribly.” Though not enough, he says now, to warrant any of his money.

In his new court filing, Williams also comes to the defence of his much-maligned wife, Mary Elizabeth Harriman. Like Jane Doe and the Lloyds, Massicotte’s lawsuit also targets her, alleging Harriman “fraudulently” acquired her husband’s share of their $700,000 Ottawa townhouse in the weeks after his arrest in a “secret” deal to shield his assets from lawsuits. Harriman, a senior executive at the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, denies any wrongdoing, insisting she paid “good and due consideration” for the property. Her husband echoes her side of the story, saying the real estate deal was made in “good faith.”

“Following his arrest and charges, he and his wife, Mary Elizabeth Harriman, executed a domestic contract, the purpose of which was to provide Harriman with financial security as a result of their longstanding relationship and marriage,” it reads. “The Defendant, Williams, denies that there was any fraudulent intent behind the conveyance in order to defeat the Plaintiffs’ or any other creditor’s claims.”

Harriman has filed for divorce, but their pending separation is still before the courts. June 1 was their 21st wedding anniversary.

The fact that her husband even submitted a statement of defence seems almost as shocking as his actual crimes. He confessed and pleaded guilty, after all; there is no denying what he did. But the timing of his filing–and the particular plaintiff–may point to something more procedural than sinister.

By law, the target of a civil case is obligated to file a statement of defence within a certain timeframe, unless a judge declares otherwise or a plaintiff consents to an extension while negotiations unfold. Jane Doe filed her $2.45-million lawsuit more than two years ago; the Lloyds launched their $4-million claim in January. Yet neither has been served with a statement of defence from Williams, suggesting some level of closed-door discussions regarding their cases–but not Massicotte’s.

Michael Pretsell, a Belleville lawyer who represents both Jane Doe and Jessica Lloyd’s family, would not say whether his clients have granted Williams permission to postpone his defence. But he did point out that in any lawsuit, such a delay “would only happen in a consent scenario.” When asked if his clients are pursuing an out-of-court settlement, Pretsell repeated what he has said many times before: “In any kind of case, we are required by the rules of professional conduct to try to seek common ground, and that happens on every file. But I’m not commenting on what’s going on with this one.”

Massicotte, on the other hand, does not have a lawyer. She is representing herself. (Her three adult daughters, who are also named as plaintiffs, do not have lawyers, either.) That may have played some role in Williams’s decision to file a statement of defence in her case, but that’s not clear. His Ottawa lawyer, Pasquale Santini, declined to speak to Maclean’s.

Susan Vella, a Toronto lawyer who specializes in civil litigation stemming from sexual assault, said she is not at all shocked that Williams filed a statement of defence, despite his guilty plea. “If I were a member of the public, I probably would be befuddled,” she says. “ ‘How can this be if he has been convicted?’ But as a lawyer, I’m not surprised. He might have all kinds of reasons for filing a statement of defence: to have some control over when the judgment is going to be issued, for example, or some input into what the amount is going to be.”


In the end, if the case does reach trial, it will be up to Massicotte to prove the harm she has endured and the damages she deserves. “There are a lot of variables,” Vella says. “It is not like one rape equals $100,000, for example. It really depends on the duration, the severity, the frequency, the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim, the age of the victim, what were the actual harms, etc. Was it someone who healed relatively quickly or someone who suffered catastrophic harm? There are a lot of variables, and hence there is not a set number. But there certainly is, in the case law, a range that you can put on it.”

In 2008, for instance, one of Vella’s clients was awarded $150,000 after a Toronto police constable fondled her and tried to kiss her during a traffic stop. In another landmark case, a B.C. woman who endured a decade of childhood abuse at the hands of her uncle was awarded $325,000. “If [Massicotte] isn’t a lawyer herself, she may not be aware of how strong a position she is in,” Vella says. “Somebody should be helping her out.”

Lawyers aside, something else separates Massicotte from the other plaintiffs: she is the only victim who is also suing the Ontario government for the alleged negligence of the provincial police. In fact, the bulk of her statement of claim is aimed at the OPP investigators who searched for her attacker, not the attacker himself.
Massicotte says the police should have alerted her Tweed, Ont., neighbourhood as soon as Jane Doe was assaulted on Sept. 17, 2009. It wasn’t until Laurie was targeted, 12 days later, that police issued a public warning. Massicotte also claims that a detective personally apologized to her for keeping the previous incident under wraps.

Her claim also criticizes the authorities for leaving her partially naked and bound during the early hours of the investigation, for referring to her over the police radio as “crazy,” and for not testing her with a rape kit or examining her body for DNA. One officer, her statement of claim alleges, told a neighbour that she was “faking the attack.”

In her most damning allegation, Massicotte accuses the OPP of initially glossing over her neighbour as a potential suspect because of his high-ranking position at the base. Investigators “could have detained Williams much sooner,” she claims.

Like Williams, the Ontario attorney-general’s office is also asking that its portion of Massicotte’s lawsuit be dismissed. In a statement of defence filed just four days before the ex-colonel’s, the province says although it “recognizes the extremely distressing experience that Ms. Massicotte endured as one of Williams’ victims,” the investigation was “thorough and reasonable” and the OPP “acted at all times honestly, in good faith and in accordance with their public duties as police officers.”

Prepared by two Crown lawyers, Kim Twohig and Jeremy Glick, the statement insists Massicotte “specifically agreed to remain loosely bound and covered in the blanket to allow the police forensic identification unit to attend on scene to collect and record potentially useful evidence,” and that “at no time during the course of the initial investigation did the plaintiff object to remaining in that condition.” The government also denies that any officer “improperly” disclosed information or suggested Massicotte was “copycatting the earlier attack” on Jane Doe. “At all times throughout the course of the investigation and after, the OPP treated the plaintiff with consideration and respect.”

“Ontario denies that any OPP officer apologized to the plaintiff for having failed to warn her, and states that even if such an apology were made, it was not an admission of liability,” the defence statement continues. “Ontario denies that it owed a duty to warn in the circumstances of this case.”

Back on Cosy Cove Lane, three doors down from Williams’s former home, Laurie Massicotte isn’t sure what to think. She says she doesn’t want to settle with any of her defendants because she needs to know the “truth” about what happened. “I won’t leave this alone,” she says. But nearly three years after her brush with Russell Williams, and no resolution in sight, her life continues to spiral. Massicotte has no job, her savings have disappeared, and her unpaid bills are piling up. “They’re ready to shut off my phone and my cable,” she says. “I’ll tell you, in the next day or so, I have to go to welfare to get some money. I have maxed out everything.”

But money, she insists, is not the motivation behind her fight. “It’s about justice,” she says. “This is just the process we have to go through.”

And that includes being targeted, yet again, by the man who broke into her home. “The only person he has defended against is me,” she says. “Why? You have to ask that same question.”


Review all Maclean’s stories tagged ‘Russell Williams’


Maclean’s exclusive: Russell Williams offers a defence

  1. Not to take anything away from the pain Ms. Massicotte has suffered or the horror of Williams’ crimes – but the terms and phrases used in the statement of defence are pretty much boilerplate.
    A statement of claim is basically a series of bald assertions of damages with a dollar figure attached to it. At that stage in a legal proceeding, there’s very little evidentiary support for the damages claimed. We know Williams assaulted Massicotte because he was convicted – but we don’t know what damages she’s suffered as a result. While it might seem obvious that she has suffered mental trauma to you or me, a lawyer defending a claim can’t admit those damages on the basis of an assumption – so they require the claimant to prove their damages by bringing evidence. However, just because something is denied in the statement of defence doesn’t mean it’s not going to be admitted at some point in the proceeding – once the evidence to support the claim comes out.
    Remember Russell Williams himself isn’t the only one who stands to lose if the lawsuit is successful. At the very least, a successful claimant could go after the assets of his spouse.

    • Even if the claimant went after the assets of the spouse, in all likelihood the spouse doesn’t have 7 million dollars but the Ontario taxpayers do should the claimant be successful in suing the the OPP. I would also say that the claimant’s inability to work, loss of her savings, her home and in all probility ongoing intensive care by a mental health professional for PTSD will show quite clearly that she continues to suffer mental trauma as a result of the attack. Further, her children suing indicates they have suffered as a result of this attack as the claimant has not been capable of being a loving and supportive mother to them due to her mental trauma. I would guess that the publicity of this case will bring offers from lawyers offering to work on behalf of the claimant for a percentage of the award. I would also guess that this claimant will receive some donations so she can keep her home and her head above water….and rightly so.

      • Again, I don’t doubt that she’s suffered.
        I’m just saying that the terms in the defence are standard boilerplate at this stage in a legal proceeding.
        You also have to remember that when the plaintiff issues a statement of claim, their own lawyer doesn’t necessarily have all the facts either – and may not know what can be proven. So the ‘standard’ statement of claim will claim the maximum possible damages for anything and everything that could possibly be compensable.
        Where both parties are working from incomplete facts, they have to be as broad as possible (plaintiff claims everything possible, defendant denies everything possible) so that they don’t end up getting burned later if the evidence ends up being different than they assumed.

        • If I am correct in reading this, this is still in the filing stages, hence seeking discovery and therefore evidentiary proceedings haven’t begun, but as this proceeds foward then the litigation and possibly trial proceedings will beging and then the precedent may be set?

          • It’s at the stage where both sides have filed their pleadings. No discovery will have taken place at that point. I’m not sure what you mean by a precedent being set.

          • Sorry, will gladly explain. I am from NY originally and currently reside in Texas. When a lower court makes a ruling in an unusual case, a percedence is set for future rulings on similar cases that may come before the court. Since our law systems are similar I was asking more than telling if this would be the case once the proceedings are completed and a ruling is made.

          • Yes, if a trial court issued a decision it would be a valid precedent. However, its still early to say if it will get that far – and I don’t see any particularly interesting or contested points of law being raised at this point. It appears to be straight up proof of damages, which is already well covered in the existing jurisprudence.

          • @Godless_Lawyer:disqus One of the things we have been screaming about here in the US has been the accessive damages recovered by lawsuits such as these. The US Supreme court recently handed down a decision nulifying and excessive amount awarded to the EPA by a lower court. The decision was based on a formula already in place though this formula did not account for the additional damages nor the time span for the recovery of these damages. In this case I am curious as to whether jurisprudence exists regarding a general public warning of crimes relating to women or children, if there a privacy policy in place regarding victims rights to privacy and whether or not Ms. Massicote is even in a position to make her claim. Is she able to name the source who reportedly spoke to the neighbor, Did Williams concede he committed the crime and affirm her description of events and is he or the OPP responsible for the claim of $7 million based on the facts of the criminal actions and her earning loss and can the damage she suffered be directly related to the crime or was she already at an emotional disadvantage before it took place? Hence my question of precedents being set. He is high profile, and I can safely assume with his military background he is not lacking visitors while he is prison. Because of this some may assume she is being railroaded, others have termed her “crazy” what do you think?

          • I don’t know all the details of Ms. Massicotte’s claim, but there have been successful claims against police forces in Canada for failure to warn. The most famous such case was Jane Doe v. Board of Commissioners of Police for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The plaintiff (using the pseudonym Jane Doe) sued the Toronto police after she was assaulted by serial rapist Paul Callow in her home. It was found that the police had known of rapes committed in the area, and the likelyhood that further rapes would occur but chose not to warn vulnerable members of the public – in part because it was felt that the women might panic and ‘scare off’ the target of their investigation.

          • Now that makes sense thank you for replying.

  2. Laurie Masicotte needs to hire a lawyer pronto, and sounds like Suzanne Vella would know how to handle this case. This is not something to take on oneself, and the fact he’s dealing with the others, who have lawyers, shows his counsel is taking advantage of the lawyerless claimant.

    • Lawyers are so expensive that most people can’t hire them. Look at the number of self-represented parties in family court. According to a researcher at either Queen’s or McMaster (sorry, I don’t remember which school she was from offhand), the percentage is close to 85%.

      • Sure, but in this article, Massicotte herself says she does not know what to do next, and also we are told that the other claimants, who are paying lawyers, are getting more attention, not being blown off. She is suing for a swack of cash, and don’t lawyers get paid a sum from that cash that is awarded? I understand what you are saying, but if she wants to be taken seriously in this very serious case, she better be willing to pay for the best help she can afford. Or be stuck telling MacLeans reporters her troubles and never getting anywhere with her case.

        • It’s illegal in Canada for lawyers to get paid contingency fees.

          • Good info….however, they can do pro-bono work can they not?

          • Absolutely incorrect. Lawyers can and do enter into contingency fee contracts with clients, especially in motor vehicle cases. Don’t know where you got your totally incorrect ‘info’ from.

          • Lawyers in Ontario have been allowed to work on a contingency fee basis for a little over a decade. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that contingency fees should be allowed in 2001, and the Solicitors Act was amended in 2002.

          • Is it illegal to base a contract on possible outcomes or to forgive a debt. As I have stated above, their are victims rights attorneys that would undoubtedly take the case just for the publicity it will offer their foundations.

          • WRONG !!!!!

      • However there are victims service organizations that under the circumstances and because of the high profile case would be willing to take this case either pro-bono or retrospectively she has to be willing to take the aid that has been undoubtedly offered her.

    • Echo!

  3. Lets not forget Jones is suing Masacott so she will need to have enough to pay him off.Oh wait williams did not even mention the Jones lawsuit among the others. Maybe he has already settled that one!

    • You tell em Cosy Dweller! You almost got sued in this mess….

  4. Go after every everything you can get Suzanne. This piece of shite and wife are the most disgusting people in Canada. I feel sick to my stomach that his lawyers are protecting his wife, she knew. She KNEW something, or else she is just as much a freak as he is.

    • And you know that she KNEW SOMETHING how?
      BTW, the wife will have her own lawyers. Williams lawyers act solely for him.

    • hope you are single SLUG!

  5. The colonel’s wife is also a victim in this case. It appears we have a lynch mob mentality here. Think of what your circumstance would be if you discovered that your spouse had committed such serious crimes. of course she wants to protect her livlihood and financial security. She has that right and is right to do so.

    • I don’t feel she is guilty of anything except chosing one lousy a-hole for a spouse. Ted Bundy also had a girlfriend and she had no idea what he was up to. These serial rapists and murderers rarely reveal themselves to those closest to them.
      I am not sure why people are ready to blame the spouse but not his parents and siblings. I don’t blame them either but it would seem that by the time Russell met his wife his deviant personality was likely already formed. He is a pathological liar. He could not have achieved what he did professionally unless was true. Why would he be bother being honest in his personal life? We have seen this over and over in serial murderers like BTK. Why would Russell be any different.

      • Eperts will tell there are always signs. Psychologists will say the behavior of this man a doting husband with a wife who was as busy as he was, though closer to their home base. No noted arguments or disagreements, complacent in their lives. He turning into a sexual predator that eventually turned into a murderous rage. This does not happen overnight nor is it so far fetched, because most civilized societies like things clean and neat. How often do we willingly tread into the balmy ugly side of human nature?

        • Williams must have received a blood transfusion from Bernardo when they were in college together. Through the back door so to speak

    • How is she a victim?

      She came out of the whole thing well. She divorced the ‘colonel’ ASAP, got a sweet deal. Did not wait for the lawsuits to settle.
      She is NOT a victim. That does not imply she is or was an accomplice.

      Lets make that clear.

      • Too some degree I concur.

      • agreed

    • To really,
      Of course Williams wife is a victim. Her life is ruined by knowing that everything her husband ever said to her was a lie. She has probably been found ‘guilty’ by association to Williams by her neighbors, fellow employees, but mostly by the public. Your opinion demonstrates this.
      How did she come out of this ‘well’? Her whole life has been completely turned upside down. How must she feel knowing she was the wife of a murderer and rapist. Does she just shrug that off and forget about it.
      If it is shown in civil court that Russ transferred assets to her in an attempt to defraud creditors such as the victim’s families, she will lose the amount transferred to her. She can’t lose the assets which were solely in her name all along such as her half of the house and shouldn’t have to lose them.
      While obviously not a victim to the same degree as the murdered victims and other victims of Russ, she is very definitely a victim here.

      • No she did not become a victim her career is intact, her marriage was not much of one, they lived separate lives. Her accomplishments are not questioned and she went into hiding prior to the news frenzy that ensued. She had to have had some forwarning of somekind.

    • This is not lynch mob mentality, but Mary Elizabeth Harriman is obligated through the benefits of her marriage and her career while married to accept some of the financial responsibility of her spouse’s actions while married to her. I am sure she didn’t say hey commit those heinous acts, but she may have full well had suspicions or should have and that makes her partially culpable.

      • B.S. !

  6. Before anyone feels sorry for Massicotte, she has had four lawyers and wasted thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of their time being a prima donna who courts the media, rather than listening to her counsel. Each one of them has dumped her without ever receiving a dime. I have never met a bigger train wreck in my life than this woman.

    • I think it is a mistake to start your comment with “before anyone feels sorry for Massicotte”. I am trying to discern the difference between a “prima donna” and a woman who has been raped and tortured and wants justice. I wonder how you or any other victim would act differently IF they were treated as she contends she was by the OPP. I am guessing that “her counsel” all advised her to keep quiet and seek some sort of settlement. I am also guessing that in their minds she should have behaved more politically correct and savy. A “train wreck” you say? No doubt you haven’t met many people who have been raped and tourtured by a sociopathic murderer who was posing as one of the countries most influential and upstanding citizens. How do victims of those kind of monsters usually act?

      • Firstly she was not raped by Colonel Russell Williams.
        Secondly I know three of her lawyers and also why they no longer represent her.
        Thirdly, I myself worked on her behalf for 16 months and therefor when I say ‘train wreck’ I am referring to something I personally understand.

        I wish her well….. but don’t expect she will be successful in her claim.

        • Dat you, Russell Williams? She must have had some pretty good lawyers if all three gossiped about her. You are pretty cold, I must say.

          • I am hardly cold. I spent 16 months and over 3000 hours of my life working on her behalf. I never took a dime and have thousands and of dollars out of pocket in her efforts.

            All the lawyers who ‘excused themselves’ from her file were fine men. Four of those lawyers ‘excused themselves’ from her file prior to even filing a Statement of Claim on her behalf.

            There was no ‘gossip’.

            There were endless emails. Emails sent by Ms Massicotte to everyone under the sun, criticizing other victims and their families, threatening the safety of minor children of those working on her behalf, claiming everything under the sun, and eventually destroying any hope she has of being successful.
            I myself have 685 of those emails. CC’d to everyone from OPP Inspector Chris Nicholas to lawyers not even remotely associated with her case, lawyers for the opposition, media people everywhere, authors etc.
            Basically like a kid jumping up and down screaming ‘pay attention to me’….. and when people did pay attention, she would use and abuse their generosity and then turn on them for no reason.

            No matter how many people put out their hands to feed this woman, she bit every single one of them.

            I said, I wish her well, but without evidence of wrongdoing by the OPP, she has a basic sexual assault damage. No different than any other person.

          • I take you at your word because you clearly have inside information, but while you wish her well, you are harming her by putting this here in a public forum. And I don`t see how that is okay from a legal perspective. Maybe some of her trainwreckedness stems from being sexually assaulted and left tied up to be photographed by the police. It`s pretty hard for any woman not to feel extreme empathy for her situation. And even train wrecks deserve some kind of justice.

          • I totally agree with you except that I am not doing any more harm to Laurie Massicotte than she has not already done to herself.

            From a legal perspective, there is nothing I have said that the ‘other side’ doesn’t already know by her own hand.

            Were I wanting or wishing her harm, I would publish the emails.
            I am simply commenting on the article by MF. Believe me, I feel comfortable in saying ‘no one’ has done more for Laurie than I…… and I have said I wish her well.
            Were she to throw her Blackberry in Stoco lake and stop destroying the efforts of others on her behalf, she might have a chance at a successful action,…. but I don’t see that happening.

          • Frankly Ms. Massicotte has damaged her own position publicly already by posting emails on a public forum to a public servant. Which makes the material relevant and accessible by access to information act which came into force 1983 and has since been reviewed and updated.

          • My moniter is now dark brown

          • No, he is not claiming he is an attorney, but he did say he worked on her behalf and I can see and hear what her claim is. I have also worked in a field that requires I can assess a client in order to get them to be productive and go foward and find closure, and I do see what he is saying in her body language in the interview and in her responses, There is also typical behavior associated with using addicts that is streamline. He is right her abuse was no less or more than the other victims who suffered physical assault, unless of course she had a pre-existing condition that has lent way to her being further disadvantaged, but an attorney would have to send her in this direction and she would have to recognize her own disability prior to the occurrence and be prepared to talk about it and take it to a believable reasonable level.

        • you are so full of shyt my moniter turned brown

      • She was not raped. He did not and she admitted this, rape her. He defiled her, and degraded her, but did not actually rape her. There are others who were actually penetrated and brutalized, one with her infant in the next room, I don’t see any articles about them as detailed as this. Massicotte is most definately a victim, but I believe she is looking for absolution of somekind. She needs counseling and help but how will $7 Million cure her ills or help her heal?

      • He can’t help it. Unemployment and welfare receivers turn into slugs

  7. Laurie,
    He has filed a frivolous or vexatious Defence. The Courts will not give him much room. He probably wants an opportunity to conduct an Examination for Discovery just for something to do. I don’t think a Judge would allow him to personally conduct the Examination.
    You should apply for Legal Aid, which in these circumstances should be made available to you. Perhaps a lawyer would be willing to act for you pro bono.
    Williams Defence to your case is BS.

    • Williams may not have much room to stand but the OPP(?) may. Was there a reasonable expectation by the public to be forwarned of a possible crime committed in a nearby location? Is there a practice in place of public warning? Did someone make such blanket statements to other residents regarding Massicotte? Since she is bringing the suit she has the burdon of proof. Again, Williams response is key, if the OPP sides with Williams or response in a similar manner what does it do for public opinion. As for the dismissal of the case only parts of the file have been called into question not the entire claim.

  8. In her case the charge was sexual assault with a conviction and a 10 year sentence. This indicates serious damage was done by the length of the sentence, plus the fact he had a knife. Williams has no choice but to file a defence since she apparently has refused to negociate a settlement. The big fish is the OPP for failing to warn residents. Her suit will likely hinge on whether police have a legal obligation to issue a public warning when a violent crime is commited or do they do so at the discretion of the investigators. If no legal obligation exists she may run into a legal brick wall. She will have no difficulty proving she was harmed but Williams ability to pay will be limited with three other lawsuits pending and settlements being negociated. She is in a strategic position with the OPP and being victim number two with no warning.

  9. I have several questions that are not answered here but some of which can be assumed by the previous events as they have unfolded. Williams is shielding her. He is attacking because Massicotte dared to involve his only ally. Mary Elizabeth had to have been aware something wasn’t right, though she is innocent of the crimes committed. In every case of high profile men that have gone wrong there is the innocent wife (most times), pursuing her own interest. Mary Elizabeth is highly educated career oriented older than her husband, self supporting and successful. She posed no threat to him and knowing the male ideal there is no way she was able to fulfill his physical needs with their schedules. Their quality time, not quantity time tells a story in itself, he easily manipulated the situation to his advantage, she was easily manipulated because she wanted to be, Sandusky and Clinton two american cases with high profile figures. The reporting and the investigation have left things out that the public should be made aware of. Take a really good look at the victims and then take a look at the successful figures involved in perpetuating the crimes, Mary Elizabeth is no more a vicitim than is Williams though I daresay there are those who would disagree with me. Massicotte may be asking too much in financial restitution, however a good attorney should take the case pro-bono with a final percentage to cover cost and time. I believe Harriman did indeed make the move to shiled her assests shared by her husband it would make financial sense, I believe lack of representation and the the ally angle has prompted Williams response, I also think Massicotte is looking for restitution in an excessive way to continue seeking ways to justify her mental state and abuse of alcohol as most addicts will. There are many victims who have faired far worse with less of an impact…The Central park Jogger for example. Elizabeth Smart and so on. This case is not a case of restitution but a landmark case for accountability. Let us see how this plays out.

  10. Give RW a day pass to visit the Base in Trenton. Shouldn’t take long to round up enough people to discuss his future and who received what level of hurt by his cowardly actions.

  11. Any assets Williams has should be confiscated, including his pension. Then portioned out to his victims. The wife has suffered enough. Leave her alone with the horror she must feel