Patricia O'Byrne kept in jail

petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,294
11,384
113
Low Earth Orbit
JLM said:
With an ankle bracelet?
Click to expand...
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
IdRatherBeSkiing said:
Who said I think they should be out on bail? Lets fix that problem too!
Click to expand...

Yep, these are the guys who should occupy jails, not the likes of Mrs. O'Byrne- no wonder our country is broke, warehousing non violent people. It only takes a little imagination to figure out less costly means of punishment. Has anyone researched Mrs. O'Byrne's situation before she vanished. Perhaps there was a REASON! :smile:
 
IdRatherBeSkiing

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,607
2,359
113
Toronto, ON
JLM said:
Yep, these are the guys who should occupy jails, not the likes of Mrs. O'Byrne- no wonder our country is broke, warehousing non violent people. It only takes a little imagination to figure out less costly means of punishment. Has anyone researched Mrs. O'Byrne's situation before she vanished. Perhaps there was a REASON! :smile:
Click to expand...

I assume there would be something pretty significant for a 1993 court to award custody away from the mother.
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
IdRatherBeSkiing said:
I assume there would be something pretty significant for a 1993 court to award custody away from the mother.
Click to expand...

I agree, like perhaps being slightly less qualified than the father, or perhaps financial issues or maybe she is a potential axe murderer BUT LET'S FIND OUT! :smile:
 
IdRatherBeSkiing

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,607
2,359
113
Toronto, ON
JLM said:
I agree, like perhaps being slightly less qualified than the father, or perhaps financial issues or maybe she is a potential axe murderer BUT LET'S FIND OUT! :smile:
Click to expand...

The courts today are still slightly biased toward the mother. In 1993 it was a stronger bias. I doubt it would be slightly less qualified. If the 2 were qualified, it would have been a joint custody with mother as primary. If father was more qualified, he would have been the primary in a joint arrangement. For the father to get sole custody ... pretty significant.

I have no objection to finding out. Please report back when you do so. :)
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
IdRatherBeSkiing said:
The courts today are still slightly biased toward the mother. In 1993 it was a stronger bias. I doubt it would be slightly less qualified. If the 2 were qualified, it would have been a joint custody with mother as primary. If father was more qualified, he would have been the primary in a joint arrangement. For the father to get sole custody ... pretty significant.

I have no objection to finding out. Please report back when you do so. :)
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're right but being unqualified isn't a criminal offense- the bottom line is there is very little respect for the law in this country because of the sh*t you can almost depend on happening, like the four Vancouver airport thugs being loose on full pay. :roll:
 
IdRatherBeSkiing

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,607
2,359
113
Toronto, ON
JLM said:
Perhaps you're right but being unqualified isn't a criminal offense- the bottom line is there is very little respect for the law in this country because of the sh*t you can almost depend on happening, like the four Vancouver airport thugs being loose on full pay. :roll:
Click to expand...

Given some the people who are called qualifed, I don't think it unreasonable to assume that to be unqualified in the eyes of the court, there had to be some illegal or dangerous activity. Her subsequent actions clearly also showed she had little respect for the law which supports that assertion.
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
IdRatherBeSkiing said:
Given some the people who are called qualifed, I don't think it unreasonable to assume that to be unqualified in the eyes of the court, there had to be some illegal or dangerous activity. Her subsequent actions clearly also showed she had little respect for the law which supports that assertion.
Click to expand...

Well, whatever "dangerous activity" there was doesn't appear to have harmed the daughter in almost 20 years. :smile:

Hey Karrie- this is a good discussion for you...............JUMP IN. :lol:
 
IdRatherBeSkiing

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,607
2,359
113
Toronto, ON
JLM said:
Well, whatever "dangerous activity" there was doesn't appear to have harmed the daughter in almost 20 years. :smile:
Click to expand...

Aside from keeping her from her father.

And perhaps the experience, however illegal, may have been just the kick she needed to turn her life around.

As always, I assume the judge in the case today has more information than we do and has denied bail on that info. Of course, assuming judges know WTF they are doing can sometimes be a bad assumption.

My guess when she goes to trial and gets sentenced, with the time served she may not have much additional jail time. So I am not really that upset about it. She would do her year or 2 then rather than now.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
If it had been a guy who took a child on the run for 20 years there would be a mob lined up to roast him on a spit. The double standard in regard to abuse, child abduction and sentencing is a bloody farce.

Let her rot in Jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom