Jump to content

Murderer On Day Parole Murders A 22 Year Old Companion

Recommended Posts

Actually surprised this hasn't been brought up on Lyla yet.  Parolee (already convicted of murdering his wife) murdered a 22 year old companion.  Seems appropriate for the news forum.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/murder-day-parole-eustachio-gallese-1.5439020

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6470101/investigation-ordered-into-parolee-accused-of-killing-woman-in-quebec-city/

 

RG

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  You had already brought it up on the screening thread.

 It's not the kind of news story main outlet show interest in unless there's another layer to it. If it wasn't for the failure of the parole board, I'm not sure this would have got a lot of attention. It's a sad reminder of the risks associated with this line of work. But like with other similar tragedies, most of the general population will close their eyes.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greenteal said:

  You had already brought it up on the screening thread.

 It's not the kind of news story main outlet show interest in unless there's another layer to it. If it wasn't for the failure of the parole board, I'm not sure this would have got a lot of attention. It's a sad reminder of the risks associated with this line of work. But like with other similar tragedies, most of the general population will close their eyes.

I know I brought it up on the screening thread which was on the New Brunswick forum...maybe not all Lyla members read the New Brunswick forum so I reposted these links here

Considering how much attention has been and still is shown on Twitter over this I was surprised at the lack of attention paid on Lyla (a escort recommendation board)  to this

As for general population closing their eyes maybe, but Lyla is a community of clients and companions, not the general population

No regrets or apologies for bringing this up again.  It's not bringing it up that would be akin to closing your eyes.

RG

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, roamingguy said:

No regrets or apologies for bringing this up again.  It's not bringing it up that would be akin to closing your eyes.

  I'm not closing my eyes and send my deepest sympathies to her family.

  Not everyone cope with this kind of situation the same way. And certainly not in higher risk occupations.

  R.I.P. Marylène

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s time for the Liberal government to revisit C-36 and review. It’s an outrage that Trudeau let the law stand to begin with. It will be interesting to read the decision concerning the London agency court case coming in February .

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2020 at 5:27 PM, Greenteal said:

  You had already brought it up on the screening thread.

 It's not the kind of news story main outlet show interest in unless there's another layer to it. If it wasn't for the failure of the parole board, I'm not sure this would have got a lot of attention. It's a sad reminder of the risks associated with this line of work. But like with other similar tragedies, most of the general population will close their eyes.

It also says in the article that he was banned from the place she worked, yet she met him at a hotel. I think it's kinda messed up all around. Why should she go see someone who is banned for abuse of your coworkers... in a hotel... alone. Was there even a screening process? Yes, its shitty, but this is also why we screen people!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SarahAlexxx said:

It also says in the article that he was banned from the place she worked, yet she met him at a hotel. I think it's kinda messed up all around. Why should she go see someone who is banned for abuse of your coworkers... in a hotel... alone. Was there even a screening process? Yes, its shitty, but this is also why we screen people!

     I agree. But screening relies on honesty from both parties. And when people do business in the shadow under different names, it's not always effective. Many mistakes caused that tragedy and sadly she's the one who paid with her life.

     Until most facets of the industry become decriminalized, things won't change. The law should prosecute modern day slave traders, not businesses between consenting adults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Greenteal said:

     I agree. But screening relies on honesty from both parties. And when people do business in the shadow under different names, it's not always effective. Many mistakes caused that tragedy and sadly she's the one who paid with her life.

     Until most facets of the industry become decriminalized, things won't change. The law should prosecute modern day slave traders, not businesses between consenting adults.

Absolutely agree. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Greenteal said:

     I agree. But screening relies on honesty from both parties. And when people do business in the shadow under different names, it's not always effective. Many mistakes caused that tragedy and sadly she's the one who paid with her life.

     Until most facets of the industry become decriminalized, things won't change. The law should prosecute modern day slave traders, not businesses between consenting adults.

Unfortunately, safety is not the main focus of the government in current enforcement:

"The Crown's position is that prostitution laws aren't meant to protect sex-trade workers, but rather criminalize those who buy sexual services and therefore decrease demand for the work."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-ontario-charter-challenge-prostitution-laws-c-36-1.5103551

 

Anyone heard of the timelines for a decision? Last I heard was back in April of 2019... and thought we were going to hear back before year-end.

 

-cbs

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 9:38 PM, clearbluesky15 said:

Unfortunately, safety is not the main focus of the government in current enforcement:

"The Crown's position is that prostitution laws aren't meant to protect sex-trade workers, but rather criminalize those who buy sexual services and therefore decrease demand for the work."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-ontario-charter-challenge-prostitution-laws-c-36-1.5103551

 

Anyone heard of the timelines for a decision? Last I heard was back in April of 2019... and thought we were going to hear back before year-end.

 

-cbs

As far as I’m aware, it’s been pushed back to sometime this month. The judge needed more time to consider a decision. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2020 at 11:10 AM, SarahAlexxx said:

It also says in the article that he was banned from the place she worked, yet she met him at a hotel. I think it's kinda messed up all around. Why should she go see someone who is banned for abuse of your coworkers... in a hotel... alone. Was there even a screening process? Yes, its shitty, but this is also why we screen people!

You have no way of knowing the background details.  This could have happened to anyone, screening or no screening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mature Angela said:

You have no way of knowing the background details.  This could have happened to anyone, screening or no screening.

Of course there's always going to be stuff hidden, of course. But, if she worked for an agency that he is banned from why didn't she ask her agency to get more info on him before meeting him at a hotel? I understand that not every little piece of info can be divulged, but they could have told her that he was banned and why... with that info, she could have choose to not see him. 

I completely agree with everything, they shouldn't have let him out on parole after the initial sentence, but they did. That's on them. They have shown to be disrespectful of SPs. All of that is absolutely backed. All I'm saying is that with a little more information to HER via her agency and if the athorities would have kept better control of him, this could have been stopped. 

Edited by SarahAlexxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SarahAlexxx said:

Of course there's always going to be stuff hidden, of course. But, if she worked for an agency that he is banned from why didn't she ask her agency to get more info on him before meeting him at a hotel? I understand that not every little piece of info can be divulged, but they could have told her that he was banned and why... with that info, she could have choose to not see him. 

I completely agree with everything, they shouldn't have let him out on parole after the initial sentence, but they did. That's on them. They have shown to be disrespectful of SPs. All of that is absolutely backed. All I'm saying is that with a little more information to HER via her agency and if the athorities would have kept better control of him, this could have been stopped. 

We don’t know if she even realized it was the same guy. For God’s sake, a girl is dead. The only one to blame is the guy who murdered her. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2020 at 5:11 PM, katie said:

That Monster should be 6 Feet Under! 😡

He should have been six feet under after the first murder. There are lots of people who deserve to either die in jail or be executed, but this country is soft on crime and they don't get the punishment they deserve. We get the country we vote for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mature Angela said:

We don’t know if she even realized it was the same guy. For God’s sake, a girl is dead. The only one to blame is the guy who murdered her. 

I'm well aware she may not have known. For Gods Sake, people die everyday. Let's try to stop it from happening to begin with. So, because of this.. I'm just saying to other SPs to remember to screen as much as you can. It could happen to anyone regardless of screening. But, proper screening helps alot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jigglerz said:

He should have been six feet under after the first murder. There are lots of people who deserve to either die in jail or be executed, but this country is soft on crime and they don't get the punishment they deserve. We get the country we vote for.

Yeah, I dont know why they let him out to begin with. That's the real shit behind all this. Absolutely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screening No Matter how you do it.. Is "Never Fool Proof".. Yes, it Surely Helps.. But Never Fool Proof .. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are numerous concerning and tragic aspects to this event and murder. There is also a connection to a bigger picture that affects all sex workers and their clients: Bill C-36 (whatever the overly long name of the law is) is still the law of the land and it makes things more dangerous for everyone engaging in the sex trade, especially the ladies. Not holding my breath for the minority Liberals to tackle any changes to that legislation and worse still we've got Peter McKay, a proponent and supporter of that legislation, as a front runner for leader of the Conservatives.

I don't think C-36 was a primary factor leading to this young woman's murder but it sure doesn't set an approach of support, caution and respect for sex workers. Can't blame all this on C-36 but I think things may have had a better cfhance of turning out differently had it not been in place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×