Inquest Into Amanda Simpson Death Winds Up Today

Thursday, June 14, 2007 03:59 AM

School Youth Worker, Michelle Olexyn, told a Coroner's Jury in Prince George yesterday that one of the students in her school, a younger sister of 4 year old Amanda Jean Simpson, would on occasion following the death of Amanda, sit around with other children talking about how her sister died. Olexyn testified the child would take a teddy bear and demonstrate to other children, ‘This is how my Daddy killed my sister”.

Amanda died of injuries a Pathologist described as a severe beating. The mother and Step father said the injuries came as a result of a fall down some stairs.

Earlier, two social workers who spent time with the young girl said it was difficult to say whether the sister was making up the stories or if they really happened. They testified that she was " just off the wall when you asked her questions".

Michelle Olexyn told the jury that the oldest sister, 8 year old Ashley at the time, “was the mother at the time and still is of her other sisters’.

"I believed when the girls were talking to me as a School Youth worker that there was truth in what the girls where saying. "

The Ministry of Social services has said that while the family came to its attention many times, they were always just under the radar in serious complaints about any abuse.

The final witness to be heard is Robert Watts, Director, Child Protection, of the Ministry Of Children and Families.

Following his testimony today, the jury is expected to begin its deliberations.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 03:59 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Chadermando on June 14 2007 9:34 AM

Is the word 'inquest' short for getting away with murder? What happened to the court of law system?

Posted by: heidi1555 on June 14 2007 3:13 PM

or an extra slap in the face. When it comes to a death I don't see why there are inquests. I think inquests would be better useful for injuries on the job and that sort of thing and how to prevent those types of injuries again in the future. When it comes to deaths at the hands of another person it should go straight to trial (so we can find blame)for a guilty or non guilty verdict and leave the inquest out of the equation. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on June 14 2007 6:09 PM

In this case the Crown did not approve charges on Polson, hence no trial.For the other two inquests that I think you are referring to the peace officer was found to be justified in using force as he felt that his life was in danger. Putting an officer on trial when he was found to be acting within his scope of authority is assinine to say the least. Thank god for the Criminal code which allows police officers to protect themselves from these attacks. Thankfully the folks that investigate these things don't use the mob mentality as some of the posters on this site.

Posted by: heidi1555 on June 14 2007 6:20 PM

actually troll for once I wasnt' referring to Kevin or Ian's cases. Just inquests in general.

Posted by: thereasonableman on June 14 2007 9:00 PM

trollunderthedesk...your comments would mean more if you weren't such a "mark" for the cops. Sorry, but the sex shop does not yet sell blow up cop dolls, but if you go see Don M, I'm sure he has an extra "Love a cop" badge for you to wear.

Funny how several officers have gone their entire career without drawing their service weapon in the line of duty, but still managed to "protect themselves".

Just because you have the authority to use deadly force doesn't mean you have to use it.

These cases went to inquest for a reason.
Cops have had to shoot people before and those cases didn't go to inquest.

If you're going to debate the issue, at least have an intelligent, valid argument.

Nobody wants to debate a mindless "faithful believer".

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on June 14 2007 10:19 PM

Reasonableman, your remarks show how little you know about the use of force in relation to the criminal code. I don't know what shows you watched or what security guard outfit you worked for but you certainly lack any insight into these affairs. Maybe you should start by having a look at the coroner's act and once you have brushed up on the reasons behind an inquest move on to the criminal code. You've been tripped up before with your silly comments and if resorting to name calling makes you feel better about your lack of practical knowledge then fire away.
PS. Heidi, my apologies on my previous post.

Posted by: heidi1555 on June 15 2007 8:30 AM

Thanks troll but i've come to learn that words mean nothing to me....you can apologize all you want for "my mob mentality" comment...lol...lol...lol...aahhh too funny (i'm the one as a little girl would stop my bike just to pick up a catterpillar and place it in the ditch so it wouldn't get ran over until of course the road was covered in them then i'd just close my eyes and peddle as fast as I could then go home and wash my bike :) ) but actions would mean more to me. You must have a lack of practical knowledge also as you name called???? I could be wrong and you can twist your words just like they all do to get out of it and look better. I think the coroners act and the criminal code are being abused by the ones that went to school to study it. P.S. Father's Day is in a couple of days and i'd like to say to my dad Thanks for being one of the best inspirations in my life. Wish poor little Amanda could've said the same thing to hers.

Posted by: heidi1555 on June 15 2007 2:38 PM

speaking of lack of practical knowledge I could've at least spelled pedal right when i'm trying to burn you troll....I suck at insults I guess. Also would like to say us parents have a duty in not only making sure our children are safe but also the child that walks behind ours in the parking lot of the school after the bell rings to go home.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on June 15 2007 9:29 PM

"Twisting my words"? How is having an opinion on a matter a "Twisting of words"? If I go against the popular theme that most of you folks spout on this website then too bad.

Posted by: heidi1555 on June 15 2007 10:40 PM

exactly "having an opinion" even us popular themers have those. ;) some are right and some are wrong and only time will tell me i'm ...er uh um cough cough.... who's right. C'mon trolly loosen up a little.

Posted by: ChrisAnnB on June 15 2007 11:02 PM

Just curious as to why anybody would use the name 'Troll' as part of their username? Kind of makes me suspicious of their intentions and makes me question their credibility.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on June 15 2007 11:27 PM

ChrisAnnB, you must be joking , right. That post of yours is a keeper. Must be sad to be suspicious of everything you see or hear. Actually the username refers to that old fairytale about, you guessed it, the troll under the bridge. Now that you mention it, the username ChrisAnnB seems to have a sinister tinge about it.Too funny, keep em coming.

Posted by: heidi1555 on June 16 2007 1:09 AM

you know what really gets me about this article is where it says that this family was just under the radar for serious complaints about abuse. How serious does a complaint have to be? A string of little complaints leads to someone unstable to snap as obviously proven. One complaint isn't normal. Good to see you on again ChrisAnnB :) Don't listen to troll....he hasn't been able to catch any goat lately....i'd be grumpy too. Honestly though i sure hope this radar that this system uses gets looked at more closely. Take care all.

Posted by: ChrisAnnB on June 16 2007 1:38 AM

Actually, no, Troll ... I wasn't joking but glad you see the humour in it and I'm happy to know you consider my post a 'keeper'. Not sure how my name brings sinister to mind, but , well, we all have our little idiosyncracies. And I'm not suspicious of alot of things, just the things that jump out and bite me in the butt. Be well and have a good night. :)