Caught in a spiral of domestic violence, Véronique Barbe, one of the two victims of the murderer Ugo Fredette anticipated a tragic end to their relationship, seven years before his death. “Everyone you see on the newspaper is just normal, who did not want to hurt their children or their ex-spouse […] Then at one point, they freaked out, “she told Fredette, according to a police statement from 2010.
Reports filed in evidence during observations on the murderer’s sentence cast a troubling light on a relationship in which episodes of spousal violence occurred quickly.
After nine months of relationship, punctuated by six ruptures and an abortion, Véronique Barbe, filed a complaint against Ugo Fredette, on August 29, 2010. The victim reported numerous crises and quarrels due to the possessive nature of the man. Her testimony reveals the grip under which she quickly found herself. “I wondered if it would ever change,” she said to the police.
She said she knew her attacker in sixth grade while in the same class and found him on Facebook. However, he was in a relationship when they reconnected. “I was disappointed,” she says. Seeing that they share common interests, she nevertheless agrees to have dinner with him. “I decided it wouldn’t go any further because he had a girlfriend,” she said to the police. The same week, Mr. Fredette shows up at her house to tell her that he has separated. “I think he was waiting to meet someone else, because he doesn’t want to be alone,” she said.
He was crying, begging me to go back with him. He knelt before me in front of the store.
The relationship quickly became stormy, notably because Mr. Fredette kept in touch with his former girlfriend, with whom he had a house. “She was trying to confuse us. She wrote me a rather hateful text message by email, “she said to the police.
What is more, six months after their meeting, she confides that she became pregnant, but decided to have an abortion. She realized that Fredette may be too selfish and immature to become a father. “I couldn’t plan to have a child with a man like that.” She says the abortion made her “rusher” and after receiving new messages from Fredette’s ex-wife about infidelities, she decided to break up. However, Fredette does not accept their separation. “Like a naive, I took it back,” she laments.
” Second chance “
Despite the many “second chances”, the relationship is not improving. She describes their most recent breakup, which Mr. Fredette also did not accept. Ms. Barbe had planned to have dinner with friends, an outing that would cost her about $ 50. Since she complained about running out of money, he tried to make her feel guilty. “He didn’t take the fact that I went to see my friends and then I was to spend,” she said. “He said to me, ‘You don’t spend on activities with me, then you will spend on going to a restaurant,'” she continued.
Mr. Fredette also accuses her of going to spend the same amount as the cost of a pair of boots that he had just given her as a gift because she could not afford them. The man refuses to understand that he wants to end their story. The victim said he felt “in prison” with him, even though he even forbade him to smoke. “It doesn’t make sense, I’m at home, and there is nothing I can do about it,” she said to the police.
At the insistence of Mr. Fredette, she threatens to call the police. He will eventually leave after letting him know “he doesn’t deserve this”. The next day, he sent her around fifty texts and called her at work, so that she had to tell the receptionist not to transfer the calls to her any more. At dinner time, he shows up at his workplace with a dozen roses. “He was crying, he was begging me to go back with him. He got on his knees in front of me in front of the store, “she said, noting that a colleague attended the scene. He will come back to knock on her door at 1 am, with $ 500 cash. “I said you won’t buy me, I said look, I told you it’s over, my decision is final,” she said.
The following week, he remains insistent and she agrees to see him again to clarify things. Before leaving, he went to the bathroom and she witnessed a suicide attempt, but the man prevented her from calling for help. That evening, the man confessed to him that he had made another attempt by hitting a pole with his work vehicle, but that he had feigned theft to explain the damage. The next day, he initiated a sexual relationship to which Mrs. Barbe said he had “given in” to act “normally” out of fear.
While Mr. Fredette is in the bathroom, she takes the opportunity to flee. When he realizes it, he runs behind her, naked, in the street. “When I saw that he was there naked and then trying to climb on my tank, I said to myself:” My God, there is someone who will call the police, there is someone one who will come and help me ”. Pantoute, nobody stopped, “she said.
Mr. Fredette was then charged with assault and harassment. A contact ban order, also known as “an 810” in court jargon, is also on his record. The charges will be dropped after the couple reconnects.
Seven years later, the 44-year-old man was convicted last October of the murders of his ex-spouse, Véronique Barbe, and of a motorist who happened to come across, Yvon Lacasse.
Justice Myriam Lachance will have to determine the period of incarceration that Ugo Fredette will have to serve before being eligible for parole. The defense is asking for 25 years, while the prosecution is asking for a cumulative sentence of 50 years.
The revelations in Ms. Barbe’s statement demonstrate the importance of providing security and providing support, according to the Alliance of 2nd Stage Shelters for Women and Children Victims of Spousal Abuse. They welcome women who, after staying in a 1st stage shelter, are at the highest risk of being murdered.
“It takes teams of diverse specialists to surround these women once they come to the station to prevent such situations from happening again,” said Sabrina Lemeltier, vice-president of the Alliance.
Already in 2010, Ms. Barbe’s testimony shows that she has experienced all forms of physical and psychological violence. She was also harassed both at her workplace and on the street. “Even today, that people plug their ears and hide their eyes because they do not want to witness this, it is still something that can be perceived as falling within the private sphere, but on the contrary”, insists Mrs. Lemeltier. “Right now, in the context of confinement, it is important to intervene if we hear or see things,” she recalls.