Author Topic: Samantha Dawn Toole - age 6 - Murdered - October 2, 1993 - Saint John, NB  (Read 76571 times)

LanesEnd

  • Guest
amIam you might want to rethink that a little bit.  According to testimony at George Pitt's trial, it was revealed she supplied liquor to the children's underaged teenaged babysitters the evening previous to Samantha being found.  Also, she said the last time she saw Samantha alive she was asleep on the floor in her (Samantha's) bedroom.  She did not check on her further.  To me this speaks volumes regarding the type of mother she was. 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2010, 04:59:43 AM by LanesEnd »

jellybean

  • Member
  • Posts: 8176
  • Tired of Crime not doing their time
    • View Profile
I still say that her mother failed her by the company that she chose to keep on that day. The police failed her, the justice system failed her.  This is a case for The Fifth Estate. If they have an innocent man in jail for this crime, it wouldn't be the first time.  If innocent, why should he be doing someone else's time in jail.  This case should be reopened . (Neither does it surprise me as to the police attitude when they initially got the call. This happens even today.  Some of them have no shame. The choice of neighborhoods isn't always available to citizens of meager means, especially for a single Mom).
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 08:47:41 PM by jellybean »

LanesEnd

  • Guest
Thanks for this information LanesEnd..do you perhaps have a link you could provide regarding this negative testimony at George Pitt's trial?  If it's here somewhere, perhaps I have missed it.  If you would be so kind...

As Samantha's mother was not the one on trial for her murder, nor was she ever charged with neglect without a link to the actual testimony I find the prosecutor's claim more than dubious.  After all he works for the Crown and the police, correct?

And the Saint John city police were negligent and biased against Samantha's mother form the moment they got the call of a missing child. They ignored that call and made disparaging
comments as Samantha's and her mother lived in a not so affulent part of the city.   This is a matter of public record as it's all on tape.  They have never been brought to justice regarding this.

Insofar as George Pitt's conviction...the DNA on poor little Samantha's tiny remains,( her fists clutching seaweed) does not match this man who has spent years behind bars for her
murder and wrongly accused. 









amIam you might want to rethink that a little bit.  According to testimony at George Pitt's trial, it was revealed she supplied liquor to the children's underaged teenaged babysitters the evening previous to Samantha being found.  Also, she said the last time she saw Samantha alive she was asleep on the floor in her (Samantha's) bedroom.  She did not check on her further.  To me this speaks volumes regarding the type of mother she was. 

LanesEnd

  • Guest
Actually, amIam, this was not the Crown Prosecutor's claim.  It was her own testimony & that of witnesses.  Whether or not a link exists today I have no idea, but it was certainly public record at the time (June 1994 - Samantha died in October 1993).   Otherwise I would not be posting it here. 

Indeed many of us who actually did follow the trial felt she should have been charged with negligence and I still feel that way today.  Since she was not & since she was a prosecution witness, perhaps a deal was worked out?  I only say "perhaps" because I certainly would have no way of knowing if this was the case.

In my opinion, for what little it's worth, George Pitt did not kill Samantha.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2010, 02:53:13 PM by LanesEnd »

Woodland

  • Member
  • Posts: 818
    • View Profile
Sadly, this is a case where a child was brought into the world on a wing and prayer and lost, due to the neglect and or indifference of all adults around her.  Then LE let her down.

This situation has and will happen again.  What do we do about it?

amIam

  • Guest
LanesEnd, so I  gather Samantha's mother was a witness for the prosecution and George Pitt's defense managed to elicit her testimony as to providing the refreshments.  However the availability of refreshments  did not cause Samantha's murder.  Someone who was on the premises or close by raped and murdered this little girl.

As LE has/had obtained DNA from Samantha's remains ( but chose to keep this secret) and it has been further proven it is not that of the convicted George Pitt.  My question is; do you know or are you aware as to whether or not the others have ever been subjected to DNA testing??

I am not certain as to whether or not Samantha's mother should have been charged with negligence or if she struck some sort of deal.  There was ample food in the refrigerator, she left Samantha in the care of those of age.  What could she have been charged with?  Poor judgement?   I am not defending her other than stating George Pitt's comments that the only thing he was guilty of is have bad friends...


Actually, amIam, this was not the Crown Prosecutor's claim.  It was her own testimony & that of witnesses.  Whether or not a link exists today I have no idea, but it was certainly public record at the time (June 1994 - Samantha died in October 1993).   Otherwise I would not be posting it here. 

Indeed many of us who actually did follow the trial felt she should have been charged with negligence and I still feel that way today.  Since she was not & since she was a prosecution witness, perhaps a deal was worked out?   I only say "perhaps" because I certainly would have no way of knowing if this was the case.



In my opinion, for what little it's worth, George Pitt did not kill Samantha.

LanesEnd

  • Guest
amIam, I am not going to dignify with a reply your comments as to whether or not you believe Samantha's mother was negligent or whether or not you believe she left her children in the care of individuals competent to look after them properly (bearing in mind, by her own admission, she also provided these same underaged, teenaged individuals with liquor to keep them entertained while they were babysitting).   I leave that to the intelligence of others who may be reading this thread.

Whether or not any of this was a contributing factor in Samantha's death is not for me to say & I don't attempt to.  We shall probably never know.  What we do know, however, is that she certainly wasn`t very well supervised that unfortunate night.  If you think otherwise, I am not about to argue.

In an earlier post you had asked me if I was aware of any link to substantiate the points I was trying (not too well, in your view, apparently) to make.   I said I did not.    In fact, if I had looked a little closer, in these very pages an article by Gary Dimock, the Ottawa Citizen, dated July 31, 2004 does touch on some of what I had to say.  I guess you missed it, too.  At one time if my memory serves me correctly Gary had been a reporter with the Telegraph Journal so that may account for his interest in this case.  He may have even covered the Pitt trial but of that I`m not certain.

You had asked if I was aware whether or not others might be undergoing DNA testing in this case.  No. I am not.  One does not hear too much about the Pitt case these days.

Neither am I privy to information regarding the amount of food that was in the refrigerator at the time of Samantha`s death.

Regarding George Pitt`s comment that the only thing he was guilty of was having `bad friends, I can only say he would have been much better off with no friends at all.



« Last Edit: August 26, 2010, 05:11:00 PM by LanesEnd »

amIam

  • Guest
LanesEnd, sorry if I have have ruffled your feathers so to speak as this was not my intention.  I am just asking questions as you seem to be aware of the case as you have commented regarding those who have followed the crime..as you have stated.
It is my understanding, Samantha was not an only child and she resided with her sibling.  Samatha's mother have been negligent one would think, given the tragic circumstances surrounding her death and the admittance by her mother the young sibling would have been seized by CAS.
Insofar as requesting a link as to your claims; I felt or thought you had such knowledge that there must be a link I have yet to discover.


 

amIam, I am not going to dignify with a reply your comments as to whether or not you believe Samantha's mother was negligent or whether or not you believe she left her children in the care of individuals competent to look after them properly (bearing in mind, by her own admission, she also provided these same underaged, teenaged individuals with liquor to keep them entertained while they were babysitting).   I leave that to the intelligence of others who may be reading this thread.

Whether or not any of this was a contributing factor in Samantha's death is not for me to say & I don't attempt to.  We shall probably never know.  What we do know, however, is that she certainly wasn`t very well supervised that unfortunate night.  If you think otherwise, I am not about to argue.

In an earlier post you had asked me if I was aware of any link to substantiate the points I was trying (not too well, in your view, apparently) to make.   I said I did not.    In fact, if I had looked a little closer, in these very pages an article by Gary Dimock, the Ottawa Citizen, dated October 31, 2004 does touch on some of what I had to say.  I guess you missed it, too.  At one time if my memory serves me correctly Gary had been a reporter with the Telegraph Journal so that may account for his interest in this case.  He may have even covered the Pitt trial but of that I`m not certain.

You had asked if I was aware whether or not others might be undergoing DNA testing in this case.  No. I am not.  One does not hear too much about the Pitt case these days.

Neither am I privy to information regarding the amount of food that was in the refrigerator at the time of Samantha`s death.

Regarding George Pitt`s comment that the only thing he was guilty of was having `bad friends, I can only say he would have been much better off with no friends at all.





LanesEnd

  • Guest
Yes.  There was another younger child, a little girl about two at the time.  None of us could understand why Child Protection didn't become involved & perhaps they did for a time.  If so, it was not made public but then I wouldn`t expect that it would be.

Now, with that, I have no further interest in continuing this discussion because it's too late for Samantha & it isn't helping anyone else.

LanesEnd

  • Guest
I simply meant, amIam, that I had no further interest in discussing it with you because I find that pointless & an exercise in futility.


LanesEnd

  • Guest
My point precisely so let's keep it that way.

amIam

  • Guest
LanesEnd, I don't quite understand your logic regarding what I perceive to be personal attacks.  I am here on this thread for a reason, Samantha Dawn Toole.

I have queried you as to some of your statements, requested as to whether or not you have a link to post to back up same.  And you have responded toward me with hostility and sarcasm.

I realise you are new to this group, feeling your way around and as usual with most newbies are unable to understand the board re quotes and how they work. However I believe, or it my understanding ( however wrong I may be...) that issues we may have with other posters should be taken up offline and perhaps in  PM mode.  Just wondering if you are aware of that feature..

Personally, I don't really care which venue you choose..actually, publically this is far better..in my opinion.

I would truly like to know and have you elaborate regarding the "we" statement..who are
 "we?"

Woodland

  • Member
  • Posts: 818
    • View Profile
amIam - where did Lanesend make a 'we' statement?  You are in the habit of copying everthing you respond to, but did not this time when insisting on an answer.

Newbie?  From here, the personal attacks appear to be coming from you towards Lanesend, not the other way around.  Lanesend politely begged off from discussing this further with you, without hostility or sarcasm - let it go.

Do you have any more info on Samantha?  If so, please include links to your statements as you are demanding from others.  Thank-you.

lostlinganer

  • Member
  • Posts: 3823
  • Silence, in the face of injustice is complicity wi
    • View Profile
Quote
amIam - where did Lanesend make a 'we' statement?  You are in the habit of copying everthing you respond to, but did not this time when insisting on an answer.

Newbie?  From here, the personal attacks appear to be coming from you towards Lanesend, not the other way around.  Lanesend politely begged off from discussing this further with you, without hostility or sarcasm - let it go.

Do you have any more info on Samantha?  If so, please include links to your statements as you are demanding from others.  Thank-you.

Lanesend and amIam:  I am respectfully throwing in my 5 cents worth here.
You have both brought up some points from a different view I hadn't envisioned earlier on in this thread.  Now I am anxious to find the time to re-read and interpret it all again now. 

You are both right, but not necessarily so, depending on a person's own point of view - which is why I intend to re-read.  ....sounds stupid I know! - because it was many months and many topics ago since I had kinda "made up my mind" on the subject.  Now I can't remember exactly what my mind-set on this case was, because you have both skillfully re-argued the points, which seems to remind me "that's not what I thought back them; I seem to recall feeling that there should have been three people charged with this".  For goodness sake guys, don't take me to task on this before I get a chance to form my opinion again.  :)

You need to realize that this brainstorming is what brings lots of facts to light again.... maybe even for the good of the case.  So for what it's worth - not taking sides here!  :D  but, I did find Lanesend, you got a little inpatient first with:

Quote
amIam, I am not going to dignify with a reply your comments as to whether or not you believe Samantha's mother was negligent or whether or not you believe she left her children in the care of individuals competent to look after them properly (bearing in mind, by her own admission, she also provided these same underaged, teenaged individuals with liquor to keep them entertained while they were babysitting).   I leave that to the intelligence of others who may be reading this thread.

and it escalated from there.  nothing serious, although a little inclined to inpatient - turning to in-appropriately impatient. lol

Woodland; they are holding their own otherwise. 

amIam

  • Guest
My apologies as I should have quoted for the exact words used were " none of us"
I just wondered who these individuals are....

None of us could understand why Child Protection didn't become involved & perhaps they did for a time.

FYI, I am not attacking, I am asking questions, brains-storming, inquiring, etc.  Information on this dreadful case is scant on-line. There are very few links that I personally can find..just thought perhaps I had missed some.