Man charged with criminal negligence causing death; didn`t intervene in wife`s suicide

Gentle man who stood silent during wife`s suicide to be sentenced May 13th 

Crown seeks jail for man who wouldn`t intervene in wife`s suicide 

Described as mild-mannered, gentle and soft spoken, a man who did nothing while his wife took her own life is pleading for leniency.

Peter Fonteece, 47, is seeking three years probation in addition to time served after pleading guilty to criminal negligence causing death. 

His 38-year-old wife Yanisa died in February 2009 after ingesting upwards of 40 sleeping pills while he stood by silently at her request.

He spoke briefly at a sentencing hearing today in Thunder Bay, Ont., where he told court he and his wife never thought they were committing a criminal act.

The Crown is seeking a nine month jail sentence in addition to the time he served in pre-trial custody.

A sentencing decision is expected May 13.

The couple left Waterloo, Ont., for hopes of a better life when their car heater stopped working in Thunder Bay.

Yanisa Fonteece, who had recently lost her job and was struggling with the abuse she suffered as a child, had spoken of suicide in the past. She decided the heater breakdown that was the last straw and decided to commit suicide. 

She checked into a Super 8 Motel, swallowed between 40 and 60 Sleep EZ tablets and consumed several alcoholic beverages. After that, she laid down in bed where she choked on vomit and died.

Her legally blind husband, who also had a difficult childhood, tried three times to kill himself but was unsuccessful, after his wife was already dead. 

He called 911 when he was sure his wife was dead and she had started to decompose.

An additional charge of assisted suicide was withdrawn as the Crown agreed his lack of action was more a matter of omission rather than commission.

The Crown is compelled to seek a jail term in a rare and sad case involving a man who stood by while his severely depressed wife took her own life.

His failure to call for help after his wife Yanisa popped upwards of 40 sleeping pills in a Thunder Bay, Ont., motel room warrants a jail term.

“His spouse died, and while he could have done something to have prevented this, he didn’t``

“The Crown feels it has to ask for something.”

The body of 38-year-old Yanisa Fonteece was discovered in a Super 8 Motel room on Feb. 6, 2009 after her husband phoned 911.

Her husband couldn’t work due to a lifelong vision impairment and they decided to move out West in search of a better life and opportunities when the heater in their car broke, forcing them to stop in Thunder Bay.

Yanisa who told her husband she was going to kill herself and that he should wait until she was dead before calling the authorities. He tried three times to take his own life but was unsuccessful, and summoned authorities when her body began to smell and feel cold.

Fonteece pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death in December.

Crown noted the circumstances of the offence would “doubtless engender some sympathy for the accused,” but that a spouse is duty-bound to provide the necessities of life under the Criminal Code.

Cases like this are not common. 

Crown could find just one similar example involving a Northwest Territories man who got drunk and watched his suicidal wife hang herself in their bathroom.

Ian Kirby was sentenced to 20 months in 2004 on top of the eight months he spent in pre-trial custody.

In that case the Crown was seeking a three to four year sentence, while the defence felt the accused “has been punished enough.”

Fonteece spent more than 60 days in pre-trial custody but was released last April.

A pre-sentencing report to be submitted in court Wednesday will show he’s been doing well at a Thunder Bay facility run by the John Howard Society.

Fonteece has obeyed all his bail conditions and gotten involved in a number of different community volunteer programs.

I dont believe that this man should be sentenced to a prison term. He was depressed and so was his wife and was experiencing distress at the time. He has now taken steps to improve himself, by becoming involved in volunteer programs. I feel that he is remorseful and should not be sentenced to a prison term, but a term of probation instead, with conditions including therapy of some sort for his depression and career counselling. 

Teen convicted for breaking curfew, one of her many setbacks

Conviction for breaking curfew is one of latest of teen`s many setbacks

Teen pleads guilty to driving stolen SUV in fatal crash

Accused hummer teen has criminal brothers 

Teen in SUV scared straight, says lawyer

Teen accused in fatal crash ordered to stay in prison 

Ankle bracelets working: Crown

- The 18-year-old is notorious for laughing and telling police she "didn't care" after she was a passenger in a stolen Chevrolet Avalanche that killed a Winnipeg cabbie in March 2008.

- Antonio Lanzellotti died of massive injuries suffered in the March 2008 incident on Portage Avenue and Maryland Street which shocked and angered Winnipeggers.

- The truck went through a red light at Portage Avenue and Maryland Street and struck cabbie Antonio Lanzellotti's car, killing him.

- The group of teens drew the ire of local residents when they began deliberately smashing the vehicles into each other. They scattered in two of the vehicles when police showed up. Both vehicles then raced down Portage Avenue, ending when the SUV smashed into the unsuspecting Lanzellotti, killing him instantly.

- The teen has had a tough transition to adult jail after being arrested for violating her 9 p.m. curfew on Dec. 30.

- The teen said she begged a friend for a ride home.

- "We slid into the snowbank and he stalled," the teen told the court, saying she had a cigarette with her friend to thank him for driving her home and that`s when officers found her.

- The teen who turned 18 last year, is losing her hair and has had trouble getting medical help for her kidney problems in jail.

- The young woman has spent 57 days in the Portage Correctional Centre, an antiquated jail near Portage la Prairie.

- Her family does not have a car and she's been socially isolated while trying to cope with the suicides of three of her friends.

- "She's had a number of setbacks," said defence, who said the jail time has been a "learning experience" for her client.

- Crown attorney Mick Makar said the teen has run into trouble repeatedly by failing to comply with conditions of a two-year probation order from June 2008.

- She was the first female to be forced to wear an electronic-monitoring bracelet as part of Manitoba's auto theft strategy.

- Teen has had constant breaches of court orders and her Internet postings about the crash involving the stolen truck.

- Since October, she's been charged with multiple breaches in connection with at least four incidents.

- Judge found the teen guilty of failing to abide by her curfew, one of her probation conditions under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

- He stayed a charge of failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour on December 30, another condition of her sentence.

- The judge also warned her to start obeying court orders.

- The young woman has a loving, supportive family and plans to further her education past Grade 9 level, court heard.

- She was sentenced to 25 days in custody, which she's already served as part of her time at the Portage jail.

Three men convicted in fatal stabbing outside club

Three men convicted in slaying outside bar; lawyers likely to appeal 

- Three men were convicted by a jury Friday for their roles in a deadly stabbing in a case that is likely headed for the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Glen Sherman Monkman was found guilty of second-degree murder, while co-accused Norris Ponce and Carlos Tavares were found guilty of manslaughter. All three had originally been charged with first-degree murder.

- Monkman faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years, while Ponce and Tavares have a much wider range of potential penalties. They will be sentenced March 4. The men then have 30 days to file an appeal of the case, which lawyers said Friday will likely be done.

- Jurors began deliberations Thursday afternoon and reached their verdict around 1 p.m. Friday.

- Ming Hong Huynh, 24, was knifed outside Club Desire on Bannatyne Avenue in April 2006. The main issue was whether jurors believed the evidence provided by Danny Simao, who claims he overheard a plan to kill Huynh while inside a car with the three accused.

- The verdicts of these men is contradictory. They believed Simao`s testimony for them to convict Tavares and Ponce, by believing that they were involved from what Simao claimed and that they drove the getaway SUV and threw the knife into the river.

- But they didn`t believe Simao`s testimony for the conviction of Monkman, because if they had, he would have been found guilty of first degree murder, since Simao claimed he was planning the killing in the SUV. 

- You cannot believe one part of a witness`s testimony and not another part. He was completely unreliable and lacked credibility and should not have been believed at all. 

- Simao lives in Ontario but was visiting his cousin, Tavares, and partying with the accused on the night of the fatal stabbing, court was told. He claims the three men discussed an attack on Huynh before the group's arrival outside Club Desire, and then dumped the murder weapon in a river after they fled the stabbing. No murder weapon was ever recovered. The Crown argued the accused planned the attack on Huynh as revenge for another stabbing that happened at a wedding social in March 2006.

- Monkman has admitted stabbing Huynh four times in the chest and cheek with a small knife while horrified bystanders watched but claims he should only be found guilty of manslaughter based on the fact he was provoked.

- Ponce was accused of distracting Huynh on the street before Monkman stabbed him. Tavares was accused of driving a getaway car, a cream-coloured Lincoln Navigator, away from the stabbing. Lawyers for both said there was no credible evidence linking them to the attack and they should be acquitted entirely.

- Defence lawyers said Simao has changed his story repeatedly about what he saw and heard the night of the stabbing. They say Simao's bizarre behaviour in court -- which included repeated bouts of vomiting and retching -- are a good indicator he was lying.

- "Someone who was providing honest and credible evidence wouldn't react like that," said Ponce`s lawyer Ian Garber

- Monkman's lawyer, Jeff Nichols, claims Simao is a "100 per cent untrustworthy" witness whose evidence should be rejected.

- Crown attorney Carla Dewar told jurors Simao's illness throughout more than two weeks of testimony is due to pre-existing health conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome and a bleeding ulcer. She claims the accused hatched a plan to hurt Huynh that was "executed perfectly.``

- Dewar said there are multiple sources of evidence to suggest the men were connected to the attack, like the Lincoln Navigator rented by Tavares and eyewitness accounts of the stabbing. Police later traced the Lincoln Navigator to a Selkirk Avenue garage, and forensic tests traced Monkman's blood to the inside of the vehicle.

- Before the attack, court heard Huynh was wandering around shirtless outside the club. His girlfriend testified Huynh used steroids and cocaine. The Red River College business administration student was intoxicated and looking to fight when he got into a fight with an Asian man alleged to be Ponce. 

- Earlier in the night, he had been seen acting aggressively towards other people at the club and was intent on picking a fight with somebody.
- Monkman claimed that he killed the victim because he was provoked by him, which is believable. 
- I truly believe that Ponce and Tavares had nothing to do with the alleged planning of this killing and that they should not have been found guilty of manslaughter. 
- Their should be a separate offence for parties to an offence, but I don`t feel they should have been guilty of manslaughter because neither of them killed anybody. 

Winnipeg is on a murder free streak!

Winnipeg is on a murder free streak 

- Winnipeg may be on the verge of setting a modern-day homicide record.

- Winnipeg has gone murder-free during the opening eight weeks of 2010 and is two days from surviving the first two months of the year without one, as of press time Friday.

- If this weekend comes to pass without one, it would be the first time in a long time there hasn’t been a homicide reported in the city before March 1 and may be the longest Winnipeg has gone before recording the year’s first, although no records are kept for such a thing.

- “That number varies but it appears that in recent history the furthest in a year before we’ve had a homicide has been about five weeks,” a Winnipeg police spokeswoman said.

- It’s good news and good fortune for a city that repeatedly finds itself near the top of Statistics Canada’s per capita murder rankings and is dragged through the mud for it.

- So far in 2010, no family has had to endure the pain and grief of losing a loved one to violence.

- It isn’t an indicator of what lies ahead, police and observers say.

- “When you have small numbers of anything they tend to fluctuate,” said U of M professor and criminologist Rick Linden. “To me, it’s just that we’ve been lucky so far.”

- Police say anything can happen and cite 2004 as proof.

- There were no homicides in January 2004 but the year ended up as Winnipeg’s deadliest, with 34 slayings in the following 11 months.

- And 2010 hasn’t been violence-free. Several people have been attacked and seriously injured, leading to attempted murder charges in some cases.

- Winnipeg’s last homicide was Dec. 11, about 11 weeks ago.

- The city has gone homicide-free for long spurts within a calendar year several times.

- “We have experienced extended periods of time between homicides and there appears to be no rhyme or specific factors which are known to cause that,” the police spokeswoman said.

- In 2009, for example, more than 10 weeks passed between the city’s sixth and seventh homicide victims. The year (2009) ended with 29, one of the highest counts on record.

- By this time in 2009, six people had been slain.

- Homicide rates and occurrences are extremely difficult to predict, police said.

- The lull has given the homicide unit more time for unsolved cases or other work.

- In recent years Winnipeg has averaged 24 homicides a year, with higher totals — 27 to 29 — in the last three.

- With all crimes counted, the crime rate in 2010 so far has increased by 1% compared to this time in 2009.

- Robberies have decreased 11% since last year at this time

- Sexual assaults have also decreased by 22%

- Shootings have increased by 120% as their have been 11 so far in 2010 and were only 5 at this time in 2009.

- Attempted theft of motor vehicles have increased by 12% but actual motor vehicle theft has decreased by 20%

- Commercial break and enters have also decreased by 7% since 2009, however, other break and enters have increased by 30% and residential break and enters have remained the stable.

Witness Danny Simao changed his story repeatedly in murder trial

Witness changed his story 

- Danny Simao lied on the witness stand, changed his story several times and may have exaggerated an illness to evade the punishing probing of defence lawyers, Justice Brenda Keyser told jurors Thursday.

- “Common sense tells you that there is good reason to look at Danny Simao’s evidence with the greatest care and caution,” said Keyser, delivering her final instructions to jurors before they began deliberating the fates of Glen Monkman, Norris Ponce and Carlos Tavares.

- Monkman was convicted of second-degree murder while Ponce and Tavares were convicted of manslaughter in the stabbing death of Minh Hong Huynh.

- Huynh, 24, was stabbed in the face and chest following an altercation outside a Main Street nightclub in April 30, 2006.

- Simao provided the only testimony connecting Ponce and Tavares to a plan to kill Huynh. Simao claimed Tavares said Huynh had stabbed him at a wedding social some months earlier and Monkman was recruited to kill him.

- Keyser said Simao’s version of events changed every time he told it, from his first statement to police a year after the killing, to his testimony at a preliminary hearing and his testimony at trial.

- She said Simao “lied outright” when he denied ever selling marijuana, despite wiretap evidence suggesting otherwise.

- “While those lies do not involve the specifics of his testimony in this case, they should give you cause for concern because if he would lie on that issue, could he be lying on other matters?” Keyser said.

- Simao’s testimony led prosecutors to consider charging him with perjury.

- He told jurors he had no reason to lie but also claimed police threatened him with arrest if he did not co-operate.

- Simao’s testimony was interrupted by frequent bouts of vomiting, which he blamed on irritable bowel syndrome and acid reflux.

- “He has some medical issues that lead to (vomiting) but sometimes it appeared that his illness flared up when cross-examination of his testimony was particularly intense,” Keyser said.

Three men convicted in nightclub murder
- A jury has convicted three men in the fatal stabbing of Minh Hong Huynh outside a Main Street nightclub nearly four years ago.
- Jurors convicted 38-year-old Glen Sherman Monkman of second-degree murder and co-accused Carlos Tavares, 30, and Norris Ponce, 31, of manslaughter.
- Jurors began their deliberations Thursday afternoon and reached a verdict shortly after 1 p.m. Friday.
- All three accused appeared red-eyed and tense as they awaited the arrival of the jury.
- Monkman offered a resigned shrug when he heard the verdict. He admitted stabbing Huynh but argued he was guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
- The victim was high on cocaine and on steroids according to his girlfriend when he started picking fights with several people outside the nightclub, including a man believed to be Ponce. Witnesses said that’s when Monkman intervened and stabbed Huynh.
- All three accused started the trial seven weeks ago charged with first-degree murder. Last week after the Crown closed its case, Justice Brenda Keyser ruled Tavares and Ponce were to face the reduced charge of second-degree murder.
- The 3 accused will likely be seen at a later date at the Manitoba Court of Appeal
- The verdict suggests jurors accepted much of star Crown witness Danny Simao’s testimony, despite warnings from Keyser that his evidence was to be examined with extreme caution.
- David Guttman, Tavares’ lawyer, said none of Simao’s evidence was corroborated by witnesses at the murder scene.
- “He’s a classic dirtbag. He will say whatever he thinks he needs to say.”
- The Crown alleged Monkman stabbed Huynh with the support of Tavares and Ponce, believing Huynh was responsible for stabbing Tavares at a wedding social.
- Simao, Tavares’ cousin, spent several hours prior to the killing drinking with the three accused at a comedy club and Osborne Village bar. Simao testified the three accused plotted Huynh’s death after learning of his presence at Club Desire.
- Simao testified he was in line at a hot dog cart outside the nightclub when he saw Monkman and Ponce confront Huynh and appear to punch him.
- He was frequently ill on the witness stand, resulting in frequent and lengthy adjournments. Simao said he suffers from irritable bowel syndrome and acid reflux and is prone to vomiting when under stress.
- In their closing submissions to jurors, defence lawyers painted Simao as a “fabricator” who lied on the witness stand to protect his own interests.
- The men will be sentenced March 4. Monkman is facing a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years and but could also be as much as 25 years.
- It`s hard to say how Ponce and Tavares will be sentenced, but I sure hope they are sentenced lightly, as they should not have been convicted at all in my opinion.  

I don`t agree with the verdicts but you can read about that in my previous post. I also think that anyone who is considered to be a party to an offence, as is aiding or abetting, should not be charged with murder or manslaughter itself, because they did not do the act. I feel that their should be a separate offence for these type of people to be charged with, that is less serious. 

And the Verdict Is......

Jury reaches verdict in murder trial

Three men, Glen Monkman, Carlos Tavares and Norris Ponce, have been on trial for 7 weeks in the fatal stabbing of Ming Huynh, on April 30, 2006 at Club Desire in Winnipeg. 

At 1:30 pm today, jurors had come to a verdict.

The jury found Glen Sherman Monkman not guilty of first degree murder, but GUILTY of second degree murder. 

Both Carlos Tavares and Norris Ponce were found not guilty of second degree murder but GUILTY of manslaughter. 

I believe I just witnessed a wrongful conviction, on the part of Tavares and Ponce. 

By convicting Monkman, the jurors clearly accepted the testimony of Danny Simao, who was unreliable, untrustworthy and completely uncredible. His memory was extremely poor and their were inconsistencies in his police statement, preliminary hearing and the trial. He provided different information to each of these sources. The jury was urged by lawyers and the Judge NOT to consider Simao's testimony because he was such a poor witness. Simao claimed that he was with all 3 accused on the day of the murder and that he overheard them planning an attack on the victim, en route to Club Desire. He said that the men were whispering and that he wasn't really paying attention, so how can we be sure, that he heard right? He even admitted himself, that he is better at what he sees than what he hears. He wasn't good at either. He then claimed that one of the accused, threw a bloody knife off a bridge and into the river, after fleeing the scene. His description of the knife and whether their was blood on it, differed throughout the trial.  I believe that Monkman was provoked by the victim, as he was acting aggressively throughout the evening towards others. I believe that Monkman did in fact stab the victim, because he admitted to doing that in court, but only because he was provoked to do so. It could have even been self defence. I thought that he should be convicted of manslaughter, as his lawyer suggested, because their definitely was a doubt raised by his lawyer, as to whether he was provoked or not. If their is a doubt, he cannot be convicted of second degree murder, according to the law. 


In the case of Tavares and Ponce, I completely disagree with their convictions of manslaughter. They were not involved and should have been acquitted of any wrongdoing. By convicting them of manslaughter, it implies that they had no insights as to the attack, but were parties to the offence. I feel as if I have just witnessed a wrongful conviction-- a terrible mistake. Lawyers raised a large doubt as to whether both these men were involved, and therefore, they should not have been convicted at all. The Crown MUST prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and they did not do that. Their was a doubt as to whether Tavares and Ponce had knowledge that Monkman was going to cause harm or death to an individual. Ponce had had an altercation with the victim before he was stabbed, on a street corner. The victim was acting aggressively and moving towards Ponce, as Ponce backed away. No punches were thrown and Ponce did not once, try to fight or provoke the victim. Ponce then disappeared and was not present while the stabbing took place, but left with the 2 other accused in the SUV. Tavares was the one driving the SUV. He was also not present when the stabbing took place and may have no knowledge that it was even going to happen. 


You cannot even consider Simao's testimony, because he is so uncredible-- yet, the jury accepted and believed his testimony? What happened there?


During trial, I had talked with Ponce multiple times while waiting outside the courtroom. He expressed to me, that he was not guilty and couldn't believe he was actually going through all this ordeal of trial. He has no previous record and this was his first charge. He expressed to me, his dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system because he shouldn't have even been in that position of being charged in the first place. He told me that Simao was lying, and it was clear to me, that he was. This man is NOT dangerous and not a risk to the public safety. He was a genuinely kind and funny person. He expressed to me numerous times, how scared and nervous he was. We talked about wrongful convictions and how many are from Manitoba and how prosecutors and police tamper with and suppress evidence. He didn't want to be the next wrongfully convicted person in Canada, but told me that if he was, I should write an article about his case, and I am doing that now, to honour his wishes. It is clear to me, that Ponce had no knowledge that Monkman was going to cause anybody harm, was not aggressive in any way at the club and was not even present when the murder took place. 


During the verdict today, Ian Garber, Ponce's lawyer, argued that Ponce should not be taken into custody. Crown is obviously opposed to that recommendation. Ponce has been free on bail for the past 19 months (1 year and 7 months) and had already served approximately one year in prison before being granted bail. His lawyer argued that he was not a risk to the public and not dangerous because their have been no issues with his bail whatsoever. He has always come to court early, has had no breaches of his curfew, has abstained from alcohol, has lived in the same place and has diligently reported to an officer frequently. 


I completely agreed with his lawyer, that he should not be taken into custody. Unfortunately, the Judge disagreed and ordered that he be taken into custody until his sentencing date. I felt sympathy towards Ponce. He expressed to me, his fears about returning to prison and how horrible it was and I just felt terrible for him, when he was placed in handcuffs and led out of the courtroom by sherrifs officers. Tavares and Monkman have already been in custody up until this point and will remain there. Before Ponce was placed in handcuffs, he gave his watch to his mom, who was sitting in the gallery. Before court, Ponce was extremely nervous and gave his mom one final hug, before heading in to hear his fate. What happened here, is an injustice and is such a sad thing to witness. I feel sympathy towards Tavares' and Ponce's parents and siblings, who were also present in court. Tavares appeared to bclose with his mom as every day during trial, he would whisper to her "I love you," when he came in and out of court and would blow her a kiss. Ponce even told me that he feels horrible for what happened to the victim in this case, and he wishes it hadn't happened, but he didn't do it and wasn't involved. He said he doesn't agree with murder and especially expressed his distaste for murders of children. He told me that he didn't like how the media articles were portraying him. He said it was distorted how they portrayed him as a killer and in a negative light, and didn't want to be seen as such. This man has a heart and is not a bad person. He was trying to be optimistic about what was going to happen. He also told me, "I'm 31, I've never been charged with anything, why would I want to do this and screw up my life?"    

Sentencing date is set for Thursday, March 4th. With a second degree murder conviction, Monkman faces life in prison with parole eligibility set anywhere between 10 and 25 years. The jury chose not to make a recommendation as to the number of years he must serve before his parole eligibility. I just hope that Ponce or Tavares are sentenced to a lengthy period in custody. Because Ponce was successful during his bail and was deemed not a danger to society, why should he be placed in prison now? I feel he could be successful without having to be in prison.  

Crown seeks 8 year prison sentence for man who physically and sexually abused children

Jail dad for years of abuse: Crown

- Crown is seeking an 8 year prison sentence for 68 year old retired high school teacher convicted of physically and sexually assaulting his own children.
- He was convicted earlier this winter and a sentencing hearing will take place next month. 
- His lawyers claim that the 33 months (2 years and 9 months) he has already spent in custody is more than enough of a penalty and that he should be released immediately from jail.
- His crimes took place in the late 1980's and early 1990's on two separate Manitoba native reserves but weren't revealed or known about, until one of his children went to the RCMP in 2002. 
- The girl, who was 16 at the time, feared her father might have given her HIV but the tests came back negative. 
- The man was found guilty by a Court of Queen's Bench Judge of sexually abusing the girl between 1989 and 1993 starting when she was only 3 years old!
- He was also convicted of repeatedly assaulting her and her brother in the same time period when the boy was only 5 years old. 
- He would beat them and spank them frequently. 

- The man has two other older boys who claimed they were never assaulted and actually supported their father at trial.

- But several former teachers, neighbours and child-welfare officials testified that all four children have displayed extreme "sexualized behaviour" throughout their lives, which included inappropriate incidents towards other children at school and in the community.

- This could be a result of the abuse they suffered from their early years.

- They list a number of disturbing incidents including graphic drawings, sexually explicit language, exposing their genitals in the classroom, masturbating in public, as well as frequently running around their home and yard naked.

- During the time that these incidents were happening, the father was employed as a teacher and had been since 1976. 

- He had married the sister of one of his former students and they had 4 children together but the relationship was dysfunctional. The mother was "low functioning" and battled alcohol abuse which led to her often leaving the home for prolonged periods of time. 

- Child and Family Services finally intervened in the early 1990s. The four children were ultimately removed from the home and placed in permanent foster care.

- The man repeatedly denied any knowledge of why his children were "acting out" and claiming that their was no inappropriate behaviour displayed in the home. 

- He speculated "they must have learned these things from other kids... and from watching the dogs in the community," court was told. 

- RCMP also began an investigation but it ended without charges. It wouldn't be reopened until the girl came forward in 2002 with her shocking claims.

- Charges were laid against the man in 2005 after a lengthy investigation. 

- The man stood trial for the charges in 2008 but was adjourned on several ocassions and finally concluded in November 2009. 

- The Judge said it was complex and difficult case. 

- She noted how conflicted the man's children were to testify against him, with his now 23-year-old daughter often waving and smiling at her father in court while giving damning evidence against him.

- "She began her evidence by saying she 'came to tell the truth and get this over with so I can forgive my father,' " said Suche in her written verdict. She rejected the accused's testimony, saying he "lacked credibility" and appeared to have tried to influence his children to change their stories by writing them several letters since his arrest.

I understand that this man has already been in custody for almost 3 years but I feel that the appropriate sentence for him now, is another 3 years in custody, to demonstrate denunciation and retribution of this type of abuse on children. These children did not have the right to be subjected to such abuse. The father knew that his behaviour was wrong, yet continued to abuse his children for 4 consecutive years.  

In police interview, Kociuk denied rape but now admits it

Accused killer denies rape allegations

"I'm a robber, not a rapist."

Accused couldn't believe DNA linked him to the 1984 killing

- DNA evidence proving he had sex with her, accused killer Robert Kociuk remained adamant he didn't know Beverley Dyke, jurors heard Thursday.

- "It's not mine.... Impossible," Kociuk told police during an April 2005 interview at Millhaven Institution, where Kociuk was serving time for robbery.
- "That's impossible. It's not mine. It can't be mine," a visibly stunned Kociuk told homicide detectives in a 2005 videotaped interview
- Semen taken from the 48-year-old victim had been matched to a DNA sample from Kociuk, thanks to advancements in modern technology. But Kociuk repeatedly denied even knowing Dyke during his interview.
- "I think you guys got your wires crossed here. I don't know this lady," he said. Kociuk claimed he saw a television documentary that stated the U.S. attorney general "makes mistakes over 90 per cent... 95 per cent of the time."
- "Why would I have anything to worry about?" he asked.

- "I'm a bank robber, not a (rapist)," Kociuk told police in a videotaped interview played for jurors.

- "It's not nice for anybody to go through anything like that," he said. "I have very strong thoughts about sex offenders. I certainly don't want to be accused of being one."
- “I didn’t have one night stands,” he said. “I wasn’t a jump-in-the-sack kind of guy ... I didn’t go around chasing women.”

- "It's very difficult to attack this kind of science," Det. Sgt. Al Bradbury told Kociuk. "It's been proven."

- Police arrested Kociuk for robbing a bank the same day Dyke's body was discovered. Police who had been following Kociuk spotted him a day earlier in the vicinity of the murder scene. When questioned about the killing, Kociuk told police he was in the area waiting for a man to deliver a gun.

- Kociuk provided a second DNA sample to police following his April 2005 interview. Winnipeg police arrested him the following November.

- On the day he was arrested, Kociuk said the only woman he had sex with at the time of Dyke's death was his girlfriend.

- "I didn't have one night stands," he said. "I wasn't a jump-in-the-sack kind of guy... I didn't go around chasing women."

- Kociuk denied a suggestion he had his girlfriend's car burned following his robbery arrest to destroy any evidence connecting him to the murder.

- "Why would I be worried about it when it's an impossibility you have my DNA in the first place?" he said.

Kociuk appeared calm and sombre for much of the interview but showed flashes of anger when police continued to press him for answers.

- "We're getting into some heavy s... here and I'm not supposed to talk about it," he said. "You people are notorious for manipulating things and twisting them to your favor."

- Kociuk has since conceded having sex with Dyke but denies killing her.
- Kociuk has changed his original story and is now admitting he had consensual sex with the woman but denies killing her. An autopsy revealed Dyke was raped and stabbed 13 times. Her partially nude body was found in a wooded area near the city's airport.
- The murder case against Kociuk is complicated by the fact someone else previously admitted to the slaying. Leonard White -- who was killed in 1999-- made the admission during a 1988 interview at a penitentiary in Prince Albert, Sask. where he was serving an 8 year sentence for aggravated assault.
- Police discounted his claim, saying they believe he falsely confessed in an attempt to stay in prison with his gay lover. Police testified last week White had a history of making false confessions whenever his eligibility for parole was upcoming and only knew facts about Dyke's case that had already been revealed publicly through the media.
- Police always look for if a suspect knows more about the murder case, than was reported.
- White claimed another man named "Ricky Morris" raped Dyke, but police said exhaustive police efforts could find no evidence such a person even existed.
- Kociuk was initially interviewed as a potential suspect because he was seen by police in the area where the killing occurred on the day before Dyke's body was found by a jogger. Kociuk had been under police surveillance for armed robbery and claimed he was meeting someone to buy a gun for his next heist.
- The heist indeed took place two days later at a bank-- the same day that Dyke's body was discovered.
- Does that mean Kociuk is telling the truth?
"Wrong guy. I do holdups. You guys know. I don't do murder," Kociuk told detectives at the time.

History of Audrey Cooper murder

Young killer released from jail 

June 25, 2009

- Teen girl left prison after serving the maximum penalty allowed under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. 

- Was age 12 when she participated in the killing of Audrey Cooper. 

- She was randomly targetted, beaten until unrecognizable, stripped and urinated on by a group of teens. 

- Suffered 64 separate injuries, including liver laceration, 7 broken ribs, swelling that shut her eyes and bleeding on the brain causing fatal trauma. 

- 4 teens were arrested-- one 12 yr old girl, two 14 yr old girls and a 15 yr old boy. The three besides the 12 yr old girl, are set to stand trial this year sometime. 

- Girl had spent 32 months in custody without bail. 

- Normally youth get pre trial credit at 1.5 to 1 ratio, which would give her 48 months

- Under the YCJA, the maximum sentence for manslaughter is 3 years custody and supervision. 

- Judge assigned 7.5 months pre-trial custody as credit and the rest of the 3 yr sentence with 28.5 months of community supervision.

- Was ordered to live at local youth group home with 24 hours supervision until she turned 18

- Was warned that if she breached conditions of supervision order, she could be sent back to prison. 

- Judge hopes that it will provide her with care, support and guidance that she hasn`t had previously. 

- The girl has been a constant source of trouble at the Manitoba Youth Centre, including numerous run-ins with staff. In one incident, she threatened to stab someone in the eye with a syringe

- similar outbursts won't be tolerated on the outside.

- Teen girl grew up in a climate of abuse, abandonment and neglect and was even taught how to snort cocaine by her mother. She now aspires to change her life and one day become a nurse, working closely with newborn babies.

- On the night of the slaying, the girl and her friends had been roaming the core area, apparently bored and looking for people to beat up and rob, court was told. They focused on Cooper, who was standing alone outside her Spence Street home after picking up groceries at a nearby convenience store. The group asked her for a cigarette, then jumped her when she said she didn't have one.

Did 12 year old killer have a fighting chance 

- "It's appropriate for the court to ask to what degree is it fair to expect someone to know how to behave when no one has taught them. Where was this accused to learn pro-social behaviour? Where were her roles models?" asked the Crown

- We heard how the girl, now 15, has grown up in an environment of abuse, neglect and abandonment. Her mother taught her how to smoke crack cocaine at a very young age. Her family has a 20-year history with Child and Family Services.

- "She was raised in an environment without rules, structure or consequences. Her street cred is all that matters. She feels like she must react to any disrespect, real or imagined``

- Audrey Cooper did nothing to disrespect this girl and her friends, which allegedly included two 14-year-old girls and a 15-year-old boy. Cooper was simply standing alone outside her house when she was jumped without any warning or provocation.

- It's obvious there was no guidance or supervision for any of these youths - consider the fact they were roaming the streets, bored and apparently looking for trouble, at 2:45 in the morning.

- But does that mean society ought to look at them any differently? Should we all accept some blame for how these kids turned out?

- While discussing this case on CJOB radio Wednesday morning, host Richard Cloutier wondered aloud whether the parents of this girl should be charged for essentially being an accessory to the crime their daughter committed?

- I don't believe a horrible upbringing should ever be an excuse to commit a crime. That's a slap in the face to people who had a less-than-stellar childhood but persevered and made something positive of their lives.

- However, I'm not blind to the reality that we have children in our community growing up in the kind of environments we wouldn't wish upon our worst enemy.

So is it any surprise when we end up hearing stories like this?

We know Audrey Cooper never had a fighting chance on that fateful night. But what about the 12-year-old girl who helped end her life?

I feel that many factors led to this girl participating in this crime such as neglect, abuse, poverty, lack of options, drug addicted parents, gang life, bad influence from peer group, etc. I feel that in order to prevent her from committing another crime, we need to take away these factors that can contribute to, encourage and facilitate crime. 

Judge not ready to release young killer; concerned about lack of supports 

- April 30, 2009

- The girl has admitted to her role in a slaying that shocked even hardened police investigators -- a woman randomly targeted for death, beaten until she was unrecognizable, stripped and then urinated on by a group of laughing teens who tossed loose change on her body as they fled the scene

- A local youth rehabilitation centre has agreed to provide a bed for the girl once she is released from jail, with hopes of keeping her under close supervision until she's 18

- Cooper tried to flee but was quickly caught and knocked to the ground. Her killers took turns jumping on her stomach and head while delivering a flurry of kicks and punches, court was told.

- Cooper was then stripped naked as her attackers went through her pockets looking for money. They found some loose change and tossed it on the unconscious woman while laughing and calling her degrading names, court was told.

Only 12 years old and already a killer 

- Feb. 25, 2009

- "Audrey Cooper was someone who just happened to be standing in her yard when the accused walked by. It could have literally been anyone. This is obviously very chilling," said Crown

- "She was the victim of a thorough, prolonged and vicious beating, practically from one end of her body to the other,"

- the beating lasted about 10 minutes.

- She was rushed to hospital but attempts to revive her were unsuccessful.

- All four accused were charged with second-degree murder.

- The Crown decided to reduce the charge to manslaughter and cut a deal with the youngest girl after she agreed to testify against her co-accused, who are set to go on trial in May. The Crown will seek an adult sentence if they are convicted.

- However, the 12-year-old girl can only be sentenced as a youth because federal law stipulates only those older than 14 can be raised to adult court.

- The Crown is seeking the maximum sentence of three years in custody and supervision

- A pre-sentencing report shows the girl was abused, abandoned and neglected. She was taught how to snort cocaine by her mother, court was told. She also has strong ties to gangs.

- "She was raised in an environment without rules, structure of consequences. Her street cred is all that matters. She feels like she must react to any disrespect, real or imagined,"

- "It's appropriate for the court to ask to what degree is it fair to expect someone to know how to behave when no one has taught them. Where was this accused to learn pro-social behaviour? Where were her roles models?"

Sentencing hearing underway for girl involved in beating death 

Jury to decide on Monkman, Ponce and Tavares murder trial

Murder trial goes to jury 

Jurors to decide fate of murder suspects

Murder-trial jury deliberations resume today

- The fate of three men charged with a deadly stabbing outside a downtown Winnipeg bar now rests in the hands of a jury.
- Jurors spent the night sequestered in a hotel and will resume weighing the evidence this morning.

- Deliberations began Thursday afternoon into the high-profile homicide case following seven weeks of evidence.

- The judge gave her charge to the jury in the morning and jurors began deliberating by early afternoon. 

- Glen Sherman Monkman has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder, while Norris Ponce and Carlos Tavares pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.

- Ming Huynh aged 24 was stabbed outside Club Desire in April 30, 2006

- The key issue for jurors is whether they believe the testimony of the Crown’s star witness, Danny Simao, who claims he overheard a plan to kill Huynh while inside a car with the three accused

- Monkman’s lawyer, Jeff Nichols, claims Simao is a "100 per cent untrustworthy" witness whose evidence should be rejected.

- Danny was partying with his cousin, Carlos, one of the accused, on the night of the stabbing. 

- He claims that the men discussed an attack on the victim in the vehicle on the way to the club and then dumped the murder weapon in a river after they fled the stabbing. 

- No murder weapon was ever recovered. The Crown argued the accused planned the attack on Huynh as revenge for another stabbing that happened at a wedding social in March 2006.

- Monkman has admitted stabbing Huynh four times in the chest and cheek with a small knife while bystanders watched but claims he should only be found guilty of manslaughter based on the fact he was provoked. 

- Ponce is accused of distracting Huynh on the street before Monkman stabbed him. Tavares is accused of driving a getaway car, a cream-coloured Lincoln Navigator, away from the stabbing.

- Lawyers say their is no credible evidence linking them to the attack and should be acquitted. 

- Simao has changed his story repeatedly about what he saw and heard the night of the stabbing. They say Simao’s bizarre behaviour in court – which included repeated bouts of vomiting and retching – are a good indicator he was lying.

- "Someone who was providing honest and credible evidence wouldn’t react like that," Ponce’s lawyer, Ian Garber, said Tuesday in his final submission to the jury. "You don’t get any points for being sick and throwing up."

- Crown says he was sick due to pre-existing health conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome and a bleeding ulcer and that testifying took a toll on him. 

- "I urge you to make sure they don’t get away with (murder)," she said. Dewar said there are multiple sources of evidence to suggest the men were connected to the attack, like the Lincoln Navigator rented by Tavares and eyewitness accounts of the stabbing. Police later traced the Lincoln Navigator to a Selkirk Avenue garage, and forensic tests traced Monkman’s blood to the inside of the vehicle.

- Huynh used steroids and cocaine and was wandering and pacing shirtless outside the club that night. 

- He was aggressive and attempted to fight with many people that night. 

- He was intoxicated and looking to fight when he got into a fight with an Asian man alleged to be Ponce. 

I believe that Ponce and Tavares should be acquitted. Their is really no evidence that links them to the killing, besides the fact that they were at the club at that time. Neither of them were present when the killing took place and it could be argued, that they didn't find out about it until afterwords. Danny's testimony is completely unreliable, uncredible and a complete lie and should not even be considered. 

I believe Monkman should be found guilty of manslaughter because the victim was aggressive and definitely provoking others that night, so it is believable that he also provoked Monkman, which caused him to lose control. If convicted of manslaughter, I feel Monkman should be sentenced to between 6-9 years in prison. Their is no evidence that this killing was planned and/or intentional, therefore, Monkman cannot be found guilty of first or second degree murder. 

Teen girl with role in killing gets another chance at freedom

Young killer gets chance at freedom

Killer teen allowed to live in group home again

Runaway killer deserves fourth chance: Judge

- One of the youngest killers in Winnipeg will be getting another chance at freedom.
- The 16-year-old girl -- who was 12 when she participated in the October 2006 killing of Audrey Cooper -- was released from jail Thursday afternoon despite recently running away from her court-ordered treatment centre.
- She had previously been convicted of manslaughter last summer and received the maximum sentence of 3 years custody and supervision under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
- She was arrested and taken into custody last October after she repeatedly ran away from a group home for troubled youth.
- Rejected Crown's argument to have her held behind bars until she turns 18 but warned this will be her final chance.
- Her probation officer believes she has learned her lesson.

- She is willing to attempt to make it work
- At the hearing yesterday, Crown argued that the girl showed no respect for court orders and should serve the remainder of her sentence in custody at the MB Youth Centre.
- The Judge ruled that the girl be released from custody and live at the group home, where she can get the help she needs.
- He said, “I believe the four months in custody are sufficient to show her what will happen if she does it again"
- Earlier this month, two now 17-year-old girls pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for their parts in the killing. A sentencing date is expected to be set next month.
- The maximum youth sentence for second-degree murder is seven years, of which three years or more must be served under community supervision.
- The girls have already spent nearly 31/2 years in custody.
- A now 18-year-old male co-accused is set to stand trial in June.

- The teen was sentenced last year to the maximum three-year sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for her role in Cooper’s death. Queen's Bench Justice assigned her seven 1/2 months of pre-trial custody as credit, then filled out the rest of the term with 28 1/2 months of community supervision, which takes the girl to her 18th birthday.

- She was ordered to live at a local group home under 24-hour supervision until she is no longer a youth. She was warned that any breaches means the rest of her sentence could be converted to jail time.

- She fled the facility and escaped on three different occasions, the final time happening in October when she was caught hiding in a closet at her parent’s home, court was told. She has spent the past four months in custody.

- This was a breach of her court ordered conditions. 

- Defence told court the group home is supporting her release from jail and has a bed available for her. They plan to tighten supervision of his client and limit her contact with her family, who raised her in a climate of abuse and neglect which included being taught how to snort cocaine by her mother.

- Cooper was beaten until she was unrecognizable, stripped and then urinated on by a group of laughing teens who tossed loose change on her body as they fled. She was chosen randomly. 

- Suffered 64 separate injuries in the unprovoked attack, including seven broken ribs, a lacerated liver, swelling that shut both of her eyes and bleeding on the brain. Police arrested four suspects -- the 12-year-old girl, two 14-year-old girls and a 15-year-old boy. Three of the suspects remain before the courts.
- A report prepared for the 16-year-old girl’s sentencing last summer described her as “remorseless” and “entrenched” in the gang lifestyle.
- Court heard the girl’s mother and father — both residential school survivors — provided her with no parental guidance and that her mother showed her how to smoke crack. 

It's a horrible tragedy that this 34 year old woman was killed. But they key word in this case, is that this teen played a ROLE in the killing, but did not directly kill this woman, as the headline of this newspaper story suggests. I believe that with tighter supervision, this girl can obey the rules and be rehabilitated and helped through the treatment centre. I have sympathy towards her as she was raised in an abusive and neglected family life, where her mom demonstrated to her how to use cocaine. With such a family life, it's no wonder that this girl started hanging out with the deviant crowd of teens that obviously had a poor influence on this teen girl. 

She is not dangerous and did not attempt to even commit an offence when she fled. She was hiding. By being in prison, she would just be exposed to more pro criminal teens with their attitudes and behaviours, which is not trying to remove her from the lifestyle in which facilitated this incident in the first place. She needs to removed from pro criminal people (who are in prison) and placed in the group home, where she can get help, meet new people and try to change the conditions of her lifestyle to become more positive (not abusive). 

From the comments on the WFP website, people are outraged and are wanting capital punishment and life sentences. This will not fix anything and is inhumane and barbaric. This teen needs help, not more pro criminal people surrounding her. They have good reason to be upset though, because the media is probably the only source of their criminal justice system knowledge and many media articles display bias in favour of a certain side leading individuals to believe a certain idea. They also only report on when the system malfunctions, such as someone getting a shot at freedom and not when everything works out fine, which is the majority of the time.

I agree that these teens should have known the difference between right and wrong, but I believe that this 12 year old girl, could have been influenced or pressured by the others, and may not have known.    

Woman claims she was forced to break the law

From singer to bank robber; woman claims she was forced to break the law

- She aspired to become a singing star in her home country of Belize, releasing her first CD at the age of 19 with the promise of more to come.

- "I love you," a tearful Emelda Marie Cuddy said to more than 30 supporters who filled a provincial court Wednesday for her emotionally charged sentencing hearing. Cuddy, 26, blew a kiss to everyone as she was led away in handcuffs to begin serving a four-and-a-half year prison term.

- Cuddy was arrested in December 2007 while trying to cross the U.S. border in Pembina while on her way to see a Green Bay Packers football game. A search revealed an outstanding warrant for her arrest based on an ongoing police investigation.

- She admits she was the woman behind the mask who held up six credit unions in Winnipeg between July and December 2007. Although she was never seen to have a weapon, Cuddy would threaten bank staff with violence -- in one case claiming she would return to kill a pregnant teller if her demands weren't complied with, court was told.

- Received more than $35,000 in cash during the robberies. There were no physical injuries.

- Once-promising life took a troubling turn when she began hanging out at several Winnipeg bars and "got caught up with the wrong crowd." He told court she met several people who had ties to the gang and criminal underworld and may have "pressured" Cuddy into committing crimes.

- In her final robbery, bank staff observed Cuddy crying as she stood in line, waiting to be called to the counter where she would produce a threatening note demanding cash.

- "I don't want to do this," she sobbed to her victim.

- Experimenting with drugs but was not committing crimes to feed an addiction

- She has now been ordered to repay all of the stolen money. No explanation was given to court about where it ended up.

- Cuddy is a Canadian citizen who has been in the country for many years and previously studied business administration at Brandon University.

- She also used to work in a bank as a teller, which gave her inside knowledge she applied when planning her robberies

- Cuddy went by the name of Marie Reimer when she released her first CD, called Maria, in 2003.

- Cuddy predicted big things for her career in a Belize TV interview. 

- She chose the name Maria because it is a name that could go both ways, whether she decided to make Spanish music or English.

- "You can still be a productive, contributing member of society," Finlayson said. "But today, you must pay for the crimes you committed."

I believe that this is one of those cases where the defendant did not rob the banks to support a drug addiction or because she wanted to harm anybody. She had a different type of intent than most criminals and that should be considered. She had no previous record, expressed extreme and sincere remorse, was under financial pressures and became associated with the "wrong people" who did drugs. This woman promised to never re-offend and I think that she realizes the harm she has caused to the victims of the robberies and I believe her. 

I don't agree with this woman's sentence of 4 and a half years. I feel that prison should be reserved for those people are dangerous and violent and who have a high to moderate risk of re-offending. I dont believe that this woman fits any of these criteria. She committed the bank robberies for different reasons than most other criminals would and I dont believe that prison will help her, but could possibly harm her. She will have to be sent to Edmonton Women's Prison where she is far from her family and friends and is immersed in pro-criminal attitudes, values and behaviours of the women in prison.

I believe that this woman should have received a 2 year conditional sentence combined with a fine with conditions of abstaining from drugs/alcohol, not going to banks, etc. I believe she can be rehabilitated and that serving her time in the community would help her to become a better person and to truly take responsibility for her actions. She made a mistake by becoming involved with the wrong crowd and had and still has a big future and dreams that she should be allowed to pursue. 

This sentence is NOT appropriate, in my opinon and is far too harsh for this woman.   

This is the comment I posted on the Winnipeg Free Press: I completely disagree with this sentence.

This woman did not possess the intent that most criminals do, when they rob a bank. She didn't want to do it, but was under financial pressures and was influenced by the "wrong group of people."

She has no previous record, expressed sincere and extreme remorse and just made a mistake by becoming associated and involved with the "wrong group of people" who did drugs and who may have pressured her into committing these crimes.

I believe she truly realizes the harm she has caused these victims.

I feel that prison should be reserved for those people are dangerous and violent and who have a high to moderate risk of re-offending. I don't believe that this woman fits any of these criteria. I think prison could harm her rather than help her.

I think she should have gotten a conditional sentence because I support rehabilitation and believe that this woman just made a mistake and will not re-offend.  

Crown seeks custody for young killer after escape and Defence seeks another chance at freedom

Crown seeks custody for young killer after escape

- A 16 year old girl, who was 12 when she participated in the killing of Audrey Cooper in October 2006, was recently caught hiding inside a closet in her parents' home after running away from her court-ordered treatment.
- Crown is seeking to have her kept behind bars until she turns 18. 
- Defence wants his client to be given another chance at freedom. 
- Queen's Bench Judge is expected to rule on the case today.

- Cooper was a random target. She was beaten until she was unrecognizable, stripped and then urinated on by a group of laughing teens who tossed loose change on her body as they fled.

- The 34 year old suffered 64 separate injuries in the unprovoked attack, including seven broken ribs, a lacerated liver, swelling that shut both of her eyes and bleeding on the brain. Police arrested four suspects -- the 12-year-old girl, two 14-year-old girls and a 15-year-old boy. Three of the suspects remain before the courts.

- The teen girl was sentenced last year to the maximum 3 year sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

- She received 7 and a half months pre-trial custody as credit with the remaining 28 and a half months of her sentence served under community supervision, which would lead up to her 18th birthday.

- She was ordered to live at a local group home under 24-hour supervision until she is no longer a youth. She was warned that any breaches means the rest of her sentence could be converted to jail time.

- Defence said that the facility is supporting her release from custody. His client grew up in a climate of abuse and neglect and was even taught how to snort cocaine by her mother.

I think that this teen should be given another chance at freedom. I agree with the Defence in that she comes from a difficult background of abuse and neglect and should be given another chance at rehabilitation. These factors could have been part of the cause of the crime she helped to commit. She was probably influenced by the teens she was with and her background probably lead to her gravitate towards those "type" of peers, who shared similar circumstances. She did not do anything dangerous after she escaped and I support rehabilitation and feel she should continue to serve her time in the community with conditions.  

Bank teller turned bank robber sentenced to 4 1/2 years prison

Ex-teller apologizes for terror in heists 

- A former bank teller turned bank robber apologized in court yesterday for the terror she inflicted on her victims. 

- “It pains me in my heart to think of the tellers and victims involved,” Emelda Cuddy told a judge before being sentenced to 4 and a half years in prison. “I promise I will never reoffend or commit any crimes again."

- The 26 year old woman plead guilty to 6 credit union robberies between July and December 2007 where she obtained $31,000 cash. 

- The show of support “speaks volumes of the person that lays deep inside you,” said Judge Rob Finlayson. “... But today you must pay for the crimes you have committed.”

- Defence lawyer John Corona said Cuddy “started hanging out with the wrong crowd” in the spring of 2007 and began using drugs with people she met in the Corydon Avenue bar scene.

- “She became associated with gangsters and the subject of extreme financial pressures." 

- Cuddy did not rob the banks to support a drug habit.

- Cuddy typically disguised herself with sunglasses and a hoodie before handing a teller a note saying she had a gun and demanding money.

- “I.P. (Indian Posse) is watching outside,” she wrote in one note. “I have two minutes to get $8,000 or I will shoot two people.”

- Staff at the last bank Cuddy robbed said she was visibly upset and crying and said she “didn’t want to do it but needed the $5,000.”

- “She was a teller, she knew how traumatic and scary it must have been for these tellers to be robbed."

- “This has had a significant impact on her psyche. The level of remorse is genuine.”

- Cuddy was arrested the following day trying to cross the border into North Dakota.

- Crown recommended Cuddy be sentenced to six years in prison and said Cuddy used her knowledge of banking to her advantage — including specialized instructions in her robbery notes — and was careful not to leave any fingerprints. 

- Defence said Cuddy was under “extraordinary pressures” and had never been in trouble with the law. 

- At the time Cuddy committed her first bank robbery, she was facing fraud and theft charges in connection with $29,000 she pilfered from the Entegra Credit Union.

-Those charged were stayed by the Judge because the money had been repaid.

I believe that this is one of those cases where the defendant did not rob the banks to support a drug addiction or because she wanted to harm anybody. She had a different type of intent than most criminals and that should be considered. She had no previous record, expressed extreme and sincere remorse, was under financial pressures and became associated with the "wrong people" who did drugs. This woman promised to never re-offend and I think that she realizes the harm she has caused to the victims of the robberies and I believe her. 

I don't agree with this woman's sentence of 4 and a half years. I feel that prison should be reserved for those people are dangerous and violent and who have a high to moderate risk of re-offending. I dont believe that this woman fits any of these criteria. She committed the bank robberies for different reasons than most other criminals would and I dont believe that prison will help her, but could possibly harm her. She will have to be sent to Edmonton Women's Prison where she is far from her family and friends and is immersed in pro-criminal attitudes, values and behaviours of the women in prison.

I believe that this woman should have received a 2 year conditional sentence combined with a fine with conditions of abstaining from drugs/alcohol, not going to banks, etc. I believe she can be rehabilitated and that serving her time in the community would help her to become a better person and to truly take responsibility for her actions. 


This sentence is NOT appropriate, in my opinon and is far too harsh for this woman.