This case was not a small, obscure case. This was actually a huge to-do in Canada. I waited for Barbara Kay to write about it in the National Post, because she is my favorite Canadian writer. She just defends men, and I really really like that.
Excerpt:
He just couldn’t leave well enough alone. Judge Alfred Stong, I mean, who presided over the Elaine Campione murder trial. Two days ago the jury brought in a decision of first-degree murder and a 25-year sentence against Elaine Campione, who freely confessed to drowning her two little girls in a bathtub, and who freely stated in a videotape that her motivation was hatred for, and revenge against her husband Leo.
The trial was over, But Judge Stong added comments after the verdict announcement suggesting that if had the power to overturn the jury’s verdict, he would. He said, “It is more than disconcerting to think that if Campione had not been so abused, so used and discarded as a person, her two daughters could still be alive…” Judge Stong was determined that even if it is Campione that gets locked up, Canadians would know that the real villain, morally speaking, is Leo Campione, the father of the dead girls (even though his alleged abusiveness was entirely based on his wife’s allegations and never proved), and it is actually the “discarded” Elaine Campione who is the victim.
Judge Stong felt such personal animus against the grieving father that he wanted to deny Mr. Campione and his parents their opportunity to read a victim-impact statement, standard practice even with mandatory- sentencing cases. He only relented under strong pressure from the prosecutor, who reminded the judge that the murdered girls had been “an extremely important part of [Mr. Campione’s] life.”
The judge’s attitude is shameful. But what can you expect from someone who has been trained – literally, judges take structured learning programs steeped in feminist myths and misandric conspiracy theories – that women are never abusive or violent unless they have been driven to it by an abusive male. Judge Stong just could not get it into his head – he alluded to the “unimaginable facts of this case” – that a woman could kill her children without a motivation involving a controlling male that somehow drove her to the act.
Why did it not occur to the judge to blame the CAS? The CAS was well aware of Elaine Campione’s quixotic and alarming history. They knew that Campione had exhibited many signs of psychosis, that she had been hospitalized in psychiatric wards, believed people were out to kill her and kidnap her children, and exhibiting such bizarre and/or negligent behaviours toward her girls that mother-substitutes, including her own mother, had to be constantly parachuted into her household if it was to function at all.
Yet the CAS decided the mother was the “safe parent.” Mr. Campione fought like a tiger and indebted himself trying to wrest control of the children from a woman he knew to be unstable and a potential risk to them, but nobody listened to him. Why? Because everyone licenced to deal with family issues on behalf of the state – social service agencies, police, lawyers and judges – are trained in the same mythology about women as Judge Stong was. They are all singing from the same hymn book: trust the woman, suspect the man, even when the evidence screams not to.
Let a man raise his hand once to a woman (or not, but simply be accused of doing so), and he will be whisked out of his children’s lives for a year at least. You can be sure that if the father of these children had exhibited one-hundredth of the myriad clues to Elaine Campione’s potential risk to her children’s safety, the CAS would have eaten him for breakfast.
The “system” didn’t fail Elaine Campione. The system failed those two little girls by enabling a woman’s psychosis at the expense of her children. There is nothing “unimaginable” in this case at all. It has all happened before.
Indeed. It happens all the time. Women murder their husbands and then plead that they were abused, with no evidence of abuse and no charges pressed at any point in the past. They spend a few months in therapy and then they are back on the street, perhaps with full custody of their children, (who swore in court there was no abuse committed by the father).
I feel so strange when I read Barbara Kay. Everyone else is always trying to shift the blame off of women and onto men, but not Barbara Kay. She must have had a lot of brothers and and a good father and made good decisions about boyfriends. Too bad there is only one Barbara Kay.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
The problem here is not women vs men. It’s modern feminism vs men. And this is Barbara Kay’s point too, if you read the article correctly. Feminism casts women as victims of men, even in the absence of evidence. Note that the lousy judge is a man – a feminist man. I deal with them all the time…
LikeLike
You’re right! If I didn’t say that, I should have been more clear. I’ll fix it later.
LikeLike
Thanks. :)
LikeLike
Mary, I’m just curious. You’ve said you don’t live in the US. Which country are you living in and in what sense do you regularly deal with lousy judges?
LikeLike
@McS: I live in South Africa. I deal not so much with lousy judges per se as feminist men, some of whom are South African, some of whom are not.
LikeLike
I always like how feminist women will take the side of feminist men, even when those feminist men abuse women… only conservative women of course, i.e. Sharon Angel, Harry Reid and the Hags from the View, being just one example.
LikeLike
A great story.
LikeLike
I have only just heard of this story today and I am not willing to condem either parent, yet. I do not condone her actions, not one bit. There were plenty of choices she could have made. She made the most horrific one possible.
My problem with your story and your comments on what you believe is that you say the allegations she made towards her husband were not proven in court. So, to you, that means they never happened? Also, the judge made comments that you didn’t agree with because…..why? Because he is a man that truly believed the allegations against the father. This is a judge. I don’t know anything about him, don’t know how long he has sat as a judge. I don’t even know the laws our judicial practices in Canada, but I can say that this judge is probably more capable for discering the truth than you or I.
I also have a problem with what you say about the journalist Barbara Kay. So because she might have had brothers, a good father and smart choices in men in her life – she knows all? So, she can never be wrong and all men are awesome fathers, brothers and boyfriends? I don’t understand the logic.
If everyone just stuck with the truth and facts of a story – maybe the truth would shine through. But instead, there are all these words, assumptions and opinions that cloud it.
Just my two cents. As I said, I’m not sure if I should believe her allegations. But I am not going to come right out and say she is a liar.
LikeLike
It’s not the judge’s place to say such thing. The court has a verdict, and that the woman is guilty of murder. Yet the judge made a comment based on unproven story about the husband (the abusiveness was not proven).
So in a way, the husband was sentenced guilty by the judge outside the process of law.
LikeLike
Laura:
“I have only just heard of this story today and I am not willing to condem either parent, yet. I do not condone her actions, not one bit. There were plenty of choices she could have made. She made the most horrific one possible.”
So she made the most horrific choice, but you’re not willing to condemn her actions? Why?
“My problem with your story and your comments on what you believe is that you say the allegations she made towards her husband were not proven in court.”
Which is true. Why’s it a problem when WK says something that’s true?
“So, to you, that means they never happened?”
There is a very basic legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. The judge ought to apply that principle.
“Also, the judge made comments that you didn’t agree with because…..why?”
Because, as Anon has rightly pointed out, he had no business making a statement of guilt in a court of law without evidence.
“Because he is a man that truly believed the allegations against the father.”
What he personally believes is irrelevant. A court of law is concerned with facts and evidence. He should know better.
And note how he chose to ignore evidence on the other side. As Kay says:
“Why did it not occur to the judge to blame the CAS? The CAS was well aware of Elaine Campione’s quixotic and alarming history. They knew that Campione had exhibited many signs of psychosis, that she had been hospitalized in psychiatric wards, believed people were out to kill her and kidnap her children, and exhibiting such bizarre and/or negligent behaviours toward her girls that mother-substitutes, including her own mother, had to be constantly parachuted into her household if it was to function at all.”
So this judge made a comment indicating that the husband was guilty WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT and ignored evidence which indicated that this woman was highly unstable and that there were others who should have acted to prevent her doing what she did, but didn’t act.
“This is a judge. I don’t know anything about him, don’t know how long he has sat as a judge. I don’t even know the laws our judicial practices in Canada, but I can say that this judge is probably more capable for discering the truth than you or I.”
Why? There are plenty of activist judges in the system with their own prejudices and agendas. He *should* know better, but clearly doesn’t. Your appeal to authority is unconvincing.
“I also have a problem with what you say about the journalist Barbara Kay. So because she might have had brothers, a good father and smart choices in men in her life – she knows all? So, she can never be wrong and all men are awesome fathers, brothers and boyfriends? I don’t understand the logic.”
No, WK is saying that because she has a clear-headed way of looking at these things, untainted by feminist prejudices, that it is likely that she had good male examples in her life (such as her father, brothers, or boyfriends). I’m afraid it is *your* logic which is rather bizarre on this point.
“If everyone just stuck with the truth and facts of a story – maybe the truth would shine through. But instead, there are all these words, assumptions and opinions that cloud it.”
Well yes, it would be nice if the judge stuck with the facts, but he didn’t. That’s the whole point of WK’s article. :)
LikeLike
//I have only just heard of this story today and I am not willing to condem either parent, yet. I do not condone her actions, not one bit.//
Not willing to condemn either parent? The woman confessed to drowning two little girls and your not willing to condemn that? Seriously?
// There were plenty of choices she could have made. She made the most horrific one possible.//
Obviously the whole feminist pro-choice culture has permeated every ounce of society when even such a horrendous murder of two innocent children can cause people like Laura to have doubts about a murderer and be hesitant to condemn such an act.
//So, she can never be wrong and all men are awesome fathers, brothers and boyfriends? I don’t understand the logic.//
What’s truly bizarre is that we have a woman who freely confessed to drowning two small children and we’re talking about abusive men. I think I must have died and gone to hell.
LikeLike
Anon, If it wasn’t the judge’s place to say such things, he wouldn’t have….IMO.
Why is “my” logic “bizarre”, Mary? No one knows what happens behind anyone’s closed doors. I know and was around plenty of good men, but I’ve also been around and know plenty of bad ones. Please explain the reasons you feel my logic is “bizarre”.
To your other comments, all of it is mute because this father never made it to court for the allegations. You, nor I, can say they were true or false. And because it never made it to court, you can’t say there wasn’t evidence to prove it. Also, I am only assuming you weren’t at this trial, we don’t know what was placed before the judge as evidence of the alleged abuse. Plus, the trial was over, the verdict was read, I’m sure the judge has every right to say what ever he wishes. IMO only, he didn’t convict the father – he just told him what he believed. If he feels victimized, why is that? What is on his conscience?
It’s not my place to condemn anyone. If you believe in God, He is the only one that has the right to condemn. I said I do not condone what she did, I WISH she would have chosen a different path to follow. What she did choose makes me pause and ponder of what type of danger she truly BELIEVED her children were in.
Lastly, I do agree with the failure of the CAS – I have a problem with all government run “best intrest of the children” programs. They need to be held accountable for their failings.
LikeLike
The problem with your comments is that you are arguing by speculating about things that you don’t know in order to shift the blame from the unstable woman onto the man and to rationalize the woman’s violent actions against her husband and children. Meanwhile, Mary and WGButler are arguing from the known facts of the case!
Regarding the charges against her husband, these charges are often used to gain custody of the children in divorce settlements and the charges are dropped prior to going to trial once custody has been granted. I also find it interesting that you claim to believe in God, and yet you have difficulty condemning the murder of innocent children. You speculate about the dangers that a madwoman imagines from sane people, but you ignore the fact that she murdered her own children – that WAS the REAL danger.
Thank you for your comments. Please keep them coming, as they are enormously interesting.
LikeLike
“Anon, If it wasn’t the judge’s place to say such things, he wouldn’t have….IMO.”
So let me get this straight. What the judge said was okay because he’s a judge and he would never say things that are not okay for a judge to say?
That’s a really weird logic I must say.
“To your other comments, all of it is mute because this father never made it to court for the allegations. You, nor I, can say they were true or false.”
Well, and neither the judge! And that’s why the judge needs a good sacking for condemning the father outside the process of law.
LikeLike
“Also, I am only assuming you weren’t at this trial, we don’t know what was placed before the judge as evidence of the alleged abuse.”
That’s irrelevant, the judge shouldn’t have made that comment no matter how convinced he is that the father is abusive.
Everyone has a right to fair trial before the law.
LikeLike
Laura, here are some reasons why I find your logic problematic:
You don’t want to condemn this woman for her actions which have been proven in a court of law, but you think the judge is justified in condemning her ex-husband, even though his alleged actions have not been proven in a court of law. Can you not see the blatant inconsistency?
You imply that if a person feels victimized they are probably guilty of something. So if I accuse you of theft and you feel victimized, you must be guilty? Does it not occur to you that a person who is innocent would rightly feel victimized?
You call WK’s logic into question, but then get all offended when others imply that it is your logic which is faulty. Double standard perhaps?
I also think that you need to acquaint yourself with the concept of “presumption of innocence”, also expressed as “innocent until proven guilty”. This dates back to the Latin legal principle of “ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).
Moreover, in Canada, which is where this trial took place, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”.
When, in the absence of convincing evidence, the judge makes an official statement that this man is guilty, it flies in this face of the above principle.
LikeLike
Wintery Knight, I love the fact that you think you know what I am saying when my words are exact. There are no interpretations.
I have never placed blame on the father. I know the FACT that this woman murdered her children. WHEN did I ever “ignore” that fact? I don’t have “difficulty” in condeming her, I DON’T condemn her because it is not my right to. I was not put on this Earth to judge anyone. You say she “imagines” the danger. And you KNOW this as fact? How? Because it never went to trial? I do believe in God, and he knows all truth. And unless he has touched his little finger to your head, you don’t.
It’s pointless to keep commenting on this because you are all-knowing and I am “stupid”, even though you chose not to use that word – it’s what you are thinking. I came here yesterday while looking for the evidence or lack there of of the allegations of abuse this woman said she endured. I saw a comment that I didn’t agree with, but I am now “bizarre” because I don’t agree with the logic of the commenters AND the writer. Sorry. But not all people will think the way you do.
LikeLike
“I DON’T condemn her because it is not my right to. I was not put on this Earth to judge anyone.”
And the basis of your statement is … let me guess … “don’t judge lest ye be judged”?
LikeLike
Laura,
Just re-read your own words and note the inherent contradictions in what you say:
“I was not put on this Earth to judge anyone”
Translation: You don’t judge.
“I know and was around plenty of good men, but I’ve also been around and know plenty of bad ones”
Translation: You do judge.
“I love the fact that you think you know what I am saying when my words are exact.”
Translation: It is not OK to read into things.
“It’s pointless to keep commenting on this because you are all-knowing and I am “stupid”, even though you chose not to use that word – it’s what you are thinking.”
Translation: It is OK to read into things.
LikeLike
I am trying to keep quiet, but I think this comment is awesome. But if we are too mean to her, she’ll go away! And I don’t want her to go away!
LikeLike
Laura,
I’m guessing that you are probably done with this story, but in case you come back, here are some follow-up questions.
Let’s just suppose for the sake of argument that the husband was the most abusive, violent, and cruel man who ever walked on the face of the earth. In what universe would that in any way justify what the woman ended up doing (i.e. drowning two small children to spite an ex-husband)?
As the linked article states, she made a message for the ex-husband on a video tape and said:
“Are you happy now?” Campione spews at the camera in a message intended for her husband. “You can visit them in their caskets.”
Next question. If you are not willing to condemn this, is there anything or anyone that you would be willing to condemn? What about a child rapist? How about Hitler? Are you just as adamant about not judging them too?
Since you are so reluctant to criticize this evil woman, please allow me to pick up the slack.
In my opinion this woman should be water-boarded for 10 straight hours so she will get a small idea of what her children went through, before being sent (still soaking) to an electric chair. In addition, the judge in question should be tarred and feathered and immediately stripped of his position, disbarred from doing any additional legal work, and never allowed to hold any type of position of authority in society again.
How do you like them apples?
LikeLike
WG, that was a very good comment. Thanks for writing it.
LikeLike
Laura,
After WGs scathing comment, let me just add…
I understand that a terribly abused woman can be pressured and contorted to do terrible things.
But I have to agree with WG, not on the waterboard part, but on the part of, no matter how bad a man abuses a woman, it still does not justify a woman killing her children. (I’m not saying that you are saying that. But I do think you were calling on people to have a little bit of mercy and understanding on the truly abused.)
I’m on the side of the truly abused and wish that those who didn’t understand their plight would realize the hell they live in, the mind and reason destroying power of abuse, and understand that they do need a lot of support and far more protection than what is presently available by law.
I understand that there are bad women out there who use the laws that do exist against men which is utterly shameful.
But I also understand that the truly abused and terrorized, whatever their numbers are, are so downtrodden that they just about can’t escape and need more help that what they know to ask for.
And a truly abused woman who has escaped and has bitterness so deep she can’t see out, she needs help getting out of the bitterness. Her bitterness is real and a force to be reckoned with. But killing her own children is not, nor ever will be and acceptable way of getting back at a purely evil man.
LikeLike