Don't worry ...

An update to this post.

cuz according to the defence ....

"there’s no evidence supporting the view that McCallum is a sexual sadist"

That's what the defence qua.. errr .. I mean... shrink contends.

You be the judge.... Is this sadism ?

McCallum’s first victim, when he was 19, was a 15-year-old girl he raped after beating her to the point that two of her teeth were punched out and her cheekbone and nose were fractured. Satterberg said McCallum denies finding violence sexually exciting, however.

He also suggested there were other factors that caused him to become sexually excited on that occasion.

“I believe she became naked at some point,” he told the court, and “he thought he was teaching her a lesson.”

Ahhh ... the old "blame the victim" defence... I thought these guys weren't allowed to use that one anymore ??


He also disputed Richardson’s suggestion that McCallum’s second victim, a 55-year-old grandmother and cancer survivor, was subjected to gratuitous violence and rejected the Crown’s characterization of her rape as “brutal.”

Emergency services found the woman afterward with blood running down her legs and she required surgery to repair a laceration to her vagina.

Richardson then asked him about McCallum’s third victim, a 47-year-old woman with cerebral palsy who was attacked by McCallum just two months after the 55-year-old.

She was ambushed at 2 a.m., returning from the laundry room of her apartment building.

Her clothes were literally torn off. She was suffocated with a pillow, then gagged with the pillow case and sodomized.

Satterberg disputed Richardson’s contention – and Dr. Bradford’s – that the suffocation and sodomy both pointed to sexual sadism.

He suggested that the anal sex might simply reflect the behaviour of a former convict or, given that McCallum doesn’t have a pattern of forcing anal intercourse, it could have been accidental.


Too bad we don't have a three strikes law.