Unknown to Karla Homolka, her boss, Richer Lapointe - who ratted her out to the media - secretly tape recorded their conversations with a digital recorder hidden in an empty paint can as she worked taking inventory and mixing paint in his Rona hardware store.

What Lapointe did is illegal. And even though he told the two Toronto Sun reporters who broke the Karla story about taping Homolka, the tabloid did not divulge these facts in its big 11-page Karla scoop yesterday.

Did Lapointe also give The Sun access to those illegal tapes? The Sun hasn't revealed that crucial detail, either. But it flatly denies paying any money to Lapointe for the scoop. So does Lapointe, who in another strange twist was arraigned this morning on various charges, including sexual assault, assault, break and enter, and using threatening behavior to obtain sexual services.

Despite a publication ban preventing media from reporting any details that could lead to the identification of the alleged victim, earlier media reports said it's his ex-wife, who police - in yet another weird twist - have also charged for trying to murder Lapointe.

And this is the guy The Sun depended on as its sole source of information for 11 pages of innuendo, speculation, and highly suspect facts about whether or not Karla breached her court-imposed restrictions.

Did nobody in The Sun newsroom ask the basic first-year journalism questions, "Can this Lapointe guy be trusted? Is he credible? What do we know about him? Before we go off half-cocked, shouldn't we check him out?"

Like I said yesterday, even Karla Homolka should not be fair game for unfair journalism.

Yet a Sun editorial today demands that Karla be tossed back in jail for two years for breaching her court-imposed restrictions - allegations based solely on Lapointe's say-so.

What the hell ever happened to Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

What I'd like to know is whether The Sun also knew that Lapointe himself had been arrested and charged last week, which prompted police to call Homolka on Friday and tell her he was not a suitable employer for her. In response, Homolka immediately quit her job at the hardware store.

Yet none of this was mentioned in any of The Sun scoops.

Now under considerable scrutiny himself, Lapointe claims that by ratting out Karla, he wasn't seeking fame or fortune, just "doing his duty" as a good citizen in order to "protect her."

"I'm protecting her. ... I gotta protect her because I took her on my hand," he said. "She always told me I was her angel. I told her, `You don't owe me anything.'"

Ya-ya...sure-sure.

Lapointe still denies he asked Quebec's TVA network for $35,000 for his exclusive Karla story. They turned him down, but they confirmed Lapointe's demand for the money.

Lapointe also says that before The Sun story broke, he called Homolka's lawyer, Sylvie Bourdelais, and suggested they hold a joint news conference. He said he told Homolka that by making a public act of contrition, "it'll free the devil from you."

This guy gets weirder all the time...yet The Sun's still struggling to prop up his credibility - as well as its own.

Today, The Little Paper That Could - as it fondly refers to itself - is desperately doing its best to put on a brave face and plug gaping holes in its own credibility after a tsunami of criticism from readers and other news media outlets over how it handled yesterday's photo and story splash about Karla.

"Don't shoot the messenger," pleads preemo Sun columnist Linda Williams.

To which I reply: Then make damn sure the message is accurate.

Says Williams in her column, "Who's the criminal here anyway? Karla Homolka? Or Toronto Sun reporters Alan Cairns and Brodie Fenlon -- and their source for yesterday's exclusive story, Richer Lapointe? Judging from some of the public reaction to their stories yesterday, you'd think it was Lapointe."

Well, Linda, the last time I checked, if a private citizen secretly tape records someone  in an attempt to entrap them into incriminating themselves, the tape is usually inadmissible in court. Publishing or broadcasting any content of those taped conversations which defames, slanders or libels the victim of those tapes is against the law.

Does that answer your question, Sunshine?

I have worked for Richer Lapointe in the past and can only assert that he is a professionnal bullshitter. In the store where I worked alongside him, he was the general manager and it was only after his termination of contract that the truth was revealed...every single employee had been filmed or taped without their consent, we found a CCTV camera hidden in the ceiling of the store and the monitor hidden under a box in his office. Tape recorders were found around the store as well. He's just a poor little man trying to dig up crap on anybody he meets and is probably just looking to get his face on TV. I guess luckily for him (in a sense) he got to hire an ex-convict and realised that he could bullshit the country and feel like he's a big man. Credible? This man has ZERO credibility. Just let him make a fool of himself and watch him sink.

I'm not 100% sure but if I'm not mistaken it is legal to tape a conversation in Canada, as long as one of the parties is aware. In this case LaPointe was aware. It is illegally though for you to tape a conversation that you are not a party to. Now whether or not these tapes can be used against her in a court of law, that I don't know.

Taping anyone without their consent and trying to use it in a court of law in Canada is illegal. It is legal if the party being taped is aware. The person taping is always aware...so that wouldnt make sense that one of the parties must be aware.

Well the idea that "one party" be aware of the taping is true in the United States. That is to prevent the Feds from taping the Mob without a warrant. Otherwise someone could put a bug in the phone and nobody talking on either end of the phone would be aware that it was being taped. However, in order to tape someone and use it in court, you must either have a warrant, or they must know you are taping.