• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • someone
    August 05, 2014 - 20:38

    whats wrong with the world

  • Corporate Psycho
    August 05, 2014 - 19:32

    There is no justice.

  • Review?
    August 05, 2014 - 14:59

    This was a painful case to listen to for many reasons. However the sacrifices and efforts of all involved may not be wasted. Many questions are raised. Some might be: (A) What are the stats of fatal drowning scenes? How many are present to witness? Who attempts a rescue? How many times does the attempted rescuer also become a victim? Are the stas different when parents are present for their child’s drowning? Many people drown each year. I had two uncles drown as teenagers. One from a swamped boat - no one in the boat or on the nearby shore could swim. The other a swimming fatality - the water was deeper than estimated. An attempt by my aunt to save her younger brother almost made her a victim. Exactly how unusual was this case? (B) The second thing was that the motive was never clear to me. In many social distress cases in "blended" or temporary relationships or even conventional marriages the paternity of the child is questioned by the father with or without any basis. The latest series of Novels by Jeffery Archer starts with such a predicament leading to assaults, murders, accidental killings and it is only up to vol 3! The timeline is only up 1960, so paternity is based on witnesses appearances and colour blindness. On a lighter side (if there is one) The Jackie Gleason character in “Smokey and the Bandit” trailer says to his stereotypical not so smart “Jethro Bodine” son “….ain’t NO WAY, boy, that YOU came from MY loins…”. The irony was that it may have been the most identifying trait! With modern science a named father should be obliged to either accept a paternity test and the mother or her family taking no offence OR sign document of unconditional acceptance of the child with an escape clause (on responsibility) if the child is later discovered not to be theirs. (C) The third thing is the Mr. Big concept. Unless the suspect has a significant a criminal record what is the point in “corrupting” the victim of the sting? Then they lowered the suspect in this case to “poor”, uneducated probably low IQ (although never? Tested) yet it took a major “Mr. Big” operation to take him down. Then he managed to endure prison, negotiate with lawyers and three levels of court! Whatever is or is not in this case in the summer water is not just dangerous but often outright lethal and has taken many victims with that same pond, river ocean being the only suspect. Fact.

  • Virginia Waters
    August 05, 2014 - 14:25

    To put things in perspective, Mr. Hart has been found not guilty of the murder of his children; that does not mean he has been found innocent. The courts have decided - correctly no doubt - that the methods used to extract a confession from Hart were not acceptable and/or that the confession itself might not have been genuine. Absent the convictions for murder, Hart could easily have been convicted of negligence causing death, failure to provide the necessities of life, or some other relevant charge under the criminal code of Canada. So any miscarriage of justice here is, at best, one of degree. We needn't be concerned, as some have suggested, that Hart would be awarded any appreciable sum were he to sue the crown. Hopefully Hart can be successfully re-integrated into society and resume a normal life - as normal as it can be under the circumstances. But there is a potential conundrum from a public policy perspective should Hart once again find himself a father. Notwithstanding that the murder convictions were vacated, would our child protection services division of government be satisfied to have children remain in his personal care? Interesting question.

    • Sally
      August 07, 2014 - 17:59

      Virginia Waters has summed up my sentiments far more eloquently than I am able. One of my biggest unanswered questions is similar...where was CYFS when those darling baby girls were left in his "care?" Same old, same old story. They have to work within their jurisdiction..."emotional abuse" is very difficult to prove...apparently so must physical...their jurisdiction needs dramatic changes...not a simple department shake-up. A Minister is not appointed to that position long enough to accomplish anything. Clyde Jackman, Paul Davis, Charlene Johnson--she was responsible for the creation & delivery of a pamphlet to thousands of NL parents explaining ways to "play" with their children. From personal frustration with CYFS, I would argue that those resources could have been much better spent elsewhere? The recent "atrocities " in Harbour Grace might be one example...