Concerns over father raised....

[dle]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#214998

Words just can't express the sadness this story brings to me.....

Judge Victoria Gray I'm sure, will be feeling devastated and huge regret in the pit of her stomach.

Hopefully, other Judges will sit up and take notice of this and from now on, if you aren't sure, ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. Not like she didn't have enough evidence to know this guy probably shouldn't be around his kids but she took pity on him and took away the restraining order after 2 months. RIP little ones.....it's too late for you, but let this be a lesson to all other Judges and lawyers....sometimes bad people are just bad people and there is NO rehabilitating them. You can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

[Cactusflower]

'Sadness' doesn't even begin to describe how I felt when I read this story. Our 'namby-pamby' justice system needs a complete overhaul. If this miserable excuse for a human being manages to live, he'll likely go before a judge who will deem him 'not criminally responsible' and we'll have another Alan Schoenborn in our system. The ex-spouses of those killers should not be subjected to the fear that the murderers of their children will be running around loose in a couple of years. It's only a matter of time before they kill again.

Same goes for that Rutland murderer.

[my5cents]

'Sadness' doesn't even begin to describe how I felt when I read this story. Our 'namby-pamby' justice system needs a complete overhaul. If this miserable excuse for a human being manages to live, he'll likely go before a judge who will deem him 'not criminally responsible' and we'll have another Alan Schoenborn in our system. The ex-spouses of those killers should not be subjected to the fear that the murderers of their children will be running around loose in a couple of years. It's only a matter of time before they kill again.

Same goes for that Rutland murderer.

I wonder if the judge will think about this. Oh, wait, judges were lawyers..... nope just doing her job.

As for both fathers,,, ah sorry, "former" fathers, they will get the usual life with no chance of parole for 10 years, or..... you know, for a guy to kill his children, he'd have to be crazy.... ya,,,, crazy...... Not guilty by reason of mental defect. A year or two in a nice mental hospital, an easily fooled psychiatrist convinced they are cured, and out...

Or we could "unofficially" bring back the death penalty by putting both in gen pop.

Gotta love Canada's court system (notice I didn't say "justice" system.

[Cactusflower]

'Sadness' doesn't even begin to describe how I felt when I read this story. Our 'namby-pamby' justice system needs a complete overhaul. If this miserable excuse for a human being manages to live, he'll likely go before a judge who will deem him 'not criminally responsible' and we'll have another Alan Schoenborn in our system. The ex-spouses of those killers should not be subjected to the fear that the murderers of their children will be running around loose in a couple of years. It's only a matter of time before they kill again.

Same goes for that Rutland murderer.

I wonder if the judge will think about this. Oh, wait, judges were lawyers..... nope just doing her job.

As for both fathers,,, ah sorry, "former" fathers, they will get the usual life with no chance of parole for 10 years, or..... you know, for a guy to kill his children, he'd have to be crazy.... ya,,,, crazy...... Not guilty by reason of mental defect. A year or two in a nice mental hospital, an easily fooled psychiatrist convinced they are cured, and out...

Or we could "unofficially" bring back the death penalty by putting both in gen pop.

Gotta love Canada's court system (notice I didn't say "justice" system.

I 'liked' your comment despite the fact that I disagree with the part that says, "for a guy to kill his children, he'd have to be crazy". My opinion? He could also be simply cruel and vindictive. Both these monsters were having a custody battle with their spouses. The judge should take that into consideration before assuming the guy is crazy.

And why on earth, after all the previous evidence against that Victoria guy, was he ever allowed near his children again?

[my5cents]

I 'liked' your comment despite the fact that I disagree with the part that says, "for a guy to kill his children, he'd have to be crazy". My opinion? He could also be simply cruel and vindictive. Both these monsters were having a custody battle with their spouses. The judge should take that into consideration before assuming the guy is crazy.

And why on earth, after all the previous evidence against that Victoria guy, was he ever allowed near his children again?

My comment, ".....he'd have to be crazy", was in jest.

I actually don't care if he's crazy, sane, angry,,,, he needs to be dead. A fair trial, and nice lethal injection. Thus no problem with subsequent appeals, parole hearing, future acts of violence once out on parole, and a savings of $100,000 a year in costs keeping him in prison, no problems at all.

[gordon_as]

And why on earth, after all the previous evidence against that Victoria guy, was he ever allowed near his children again?

Because the judges hear these kinds of allegations on a daily basis. It's hard to tell when they are true , or when they are just one parent trying to discredit the other. The family court system is very adversarial , and custody disputes often turn pretty ugly. Making false accusations against the other side is a good way to improve your position , and anybody who says that lawyers don't perpetuate that conduct is out of touch with reality.
If there was evidence of serious misconduct , he likely would not be getting any visitation.

[GordonH]

Hopefully the judge will give this selfish bas 50 years behind bars (25 years x2) with absolutely no chance parole.

[Cactusflower]

And why on earth, after all the previous evidence against that Victoria guy, was he ever allowed near his children again?

Because the judges hear these kinds of allegations on a daily basis. It's hard to tell when they are true , or when they are just one parent trying to discredit the other. The family court system is very adversarial , and custody disputes often turn pretty ugly. Making false accusations against the other side is a good way to improve your position , and anybody who says that lawyers don't perpetuate that conduct is out of touch with reality.
If there was evidence of serious misconduct , he likely would not be getting any visitation.

Maybe, but it turned out that the allegations must have been true. I think the judges should err on the side of caution when they hear stuff like that, especially since some of the allegations were made by someone other than the mother of the children. To do otherwise is putting themselves in a position where, if they have a conscience at all, they will be losing an awful lot of sleep in the future.

[gordon_as]

Maybe, but it turned out that the allegations must have been true. I think the judges should err on the side of caution when they hear stuff like that, especially since some of the allegations were made by someone other than the mother of the children. To do otherwise is putting themselves in a position where, if they have a conscience at all, they will be losing an awful lot of sleep in the future.

Like I said earlier , they hear these kinds of allegations every day. More often than not , they are not accurate. If they were to accept every accusation as truth , the courts would become a free for all. It's bad enough as it is. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if a father made allegations about a mother , you wouldn't think the judge should take the kids away automatically

From the Castanet story :
"The father has displayed poor judgment in dealing with the children," wrote Justice Victoria Gray.
"That has included saying negative things to the girls about the mother, the touching which led to the (Ministry of Children and Family Development) investigation and his present arrangement of sometimes sleeping together with one or the other of the girls.

I am pretty sure that if anyone had suggested that the father was violent enough , or unstable enough to present an imminent danger to the children , he would not have been left in a position to do so. Unfortunately , judges are not psychics.

[Chyren]

Accusations are not facts. An investigation into the accusations provide evidence for or against.

If evidence was not presented then the courts do not hold any value in accusations. If they didn't then innocent people would be put in jail all the time.

That being said this is a horrible situation for the family and my heart goes out to them.

[GordonH]

Father committed a double homicide, he should be found guilty & sentenced to 25 years x2. With no chance of parole..... period.
Anything short of that would be pure bs.

[my5cents]

Father committed a double homicide, he should be found guilty & sentenced to 25 years x2. With no chance of parole..... period.
Anything short of that would be pure bs.

I don't think we'll see life with no chance of parole. That would actually entail a second type of hearing where a judge must find he his dangerous offender.

??? If you kill even, one, person, who is defenseless, wouldn't that make you... a dangerous offender ? ???

He's actually not likely to kill again, because he just kills children that are his own, when he's mad. Since he hasn't got any more to kill, no problems,,, right ?

Seriously I think in the VERY LEAST he should be sentenced to life with no chance of parole for 25 years on each murder to run consecutively. ie 50 years before he can apply. The murderer, Andrew Berry, is reported to be 43 years old, so 43+50=93.

So considering his life expectancy, he's likely not going to make the parole hearing in 2111. Also if any of the inmates get hold of him in that 50 years, his life expectancy will be even shorter.

[OldIslander]

Maybe, but it turned out that the allegations must have been true. I think the judges should err on the side of caution when they hear stuff like that, especially since some of the allegations were made by someone other than the mother of the children. To do otherwise is putting themselves in a position where, if they have a conscience at all, they will be losing an awful lot of sleep in the future.

Nailed it....!

[OldIslander]

The evolving story of the Oak Bay murders is terrible and tragic on many levels. Not one to drink much anymore, I sat up late with a glass of Laphroaig, thinking about it. We are so incredibly blessed to have successful, grown kids and now a passel of happy, healthy grandchildren. I tried to imagine the horror of something like this happening in our family.

I’m not sure my considerably better half would survive it. Her life revolves around our grandkids – indeed our house now seems much too quiet and sterile when they’re not here. To lose any of those grandkids under circumstances like the Oak Bay story, would be so devastating, I just can’t imagine the scope of the insidious, permanent damage that would done to our family.

With leaky eyes, I sat there for maybe the thousandth time, understanding how incredibly lucky we are. I hope that the family of the lost girls are getting all the professional assistance that they undoubtedly require.

We’re not a religious family either, but the following phrase came to mind... ‘there but for the grace of God...’

[davis123]

Because the judges hear these kinds of allegations on a daily basis. It's hard to tell when they are true , or when they are just one parent trying to discredit the other. The family court system is very adversarial , and custody disputes often turn pretty ugly. Making false accusations against the other side is a good way to improve your position , and anybody who says that lawyers don't perpetuate that conduct is out of touch with reality.
If there was evidence of serious misconduct , he likely would not be getting any visitation.

That is exactly the problem, there can be evidence of serious misconduct and some judges are still giving joint custody. The judge hears the allegation, looks at the proof you supplied and then makes a decision within a few minutes. There needs to be more done to investigate allegations that will impact the children if ignored. I know it would be extremely costly but if there is proof to support your allegation then the judge should err on the side of caution until that allegation is investigated thoroughly and force that family to have interviews with child and family services or a mental health physician.

I provided ample proof that showed my ex was an abusive alcoholic that had numerous drunk driving convictions, assault charge, sworn affidavits from our older children that stated he was an abusive father and they didn't want to live with him, a letter from Child and Family services and a mental health physician that stated the ridiculous shenanigans my ex was doing, the judge gave us joint custody.