Search results

At the risk of looking dumb later, I'll say right now I'm nervous about the evidence in this case. The police chief was heavily emphasizing no smoking gun, no bodies, no one tip, no single lead, etc. Those are the hallmarks of an almost entirely circumstantial case. Before anyone reacts to...

There was a tweet to that effect.

Perhaps, but consider the different charges relative to each other in this theory. A subject decides they want to go to someone's house and murder them during the night. He makes plans to do this. He knows the person has a wife and expects this could well mean he's going to be murdering them...

Really? Was there a trial already? Seems strange that he's been convicted of murder before actually being charged for it.

I don't think we have solid confirmation he was actually at the acreage. Police Chief was pretty vague.

Can we infer anything from the overnight sequence of events? If the Crown agreed it was time to lay charges last night, LE would arrest POI on those charges. Except that isn't exactly what happened. They picked him up at 1:30am after an "opportunity" (Chief's wording) arose. My guess is this...

Thanks, just reviewed the press conference, indeed he said the charges weren't laid yet, maybe today or tomorrow.

Let's get rid of due process then and mobs can just string up suspects.

That's one interpretation. Just playing Devil's Advocate here: Sometimes LE needs a reason to grab someone, especially those released on conditions, and that in such situations they can get more than a bit jumpy. If a subject steps outside for a smoke, heads to the store for a Coke and the...

I don't get why they can't identify a person who was arrested.

I vote for out of context/misunderstood/etc. It seemed very clear to me the Chief was explaining their prior thought process, not offering *any* suggestion that this actually occurred.

Here's a strange bit, and the conclusion of the press conference: Chief: "Can't even confirm the identity of the person arrested." Person wasn't arrested at a hotel, but near an acreage in Airdrie. Reporter: "was the person arrested breaching their conditions" Chief: (shuts down press...

Reporter: "would the person accused help locate the bodies and provide closure" Chief: "Can't speculate on what a suspect or accused person might do"

1st degree charges on grandparents, 2nd degree on child

Chief on the 1st and 2nd degree charges: UPDATE: Chief says he can speak to 1st and 2nd degree generally: "First is when you can show pre-intent" "Second is when pre-intent, the intent to commit the act, may not be there"

Maybe you will wait for the actual trial, or does that even matter?

That's not *exactly* what he said, just mentioned as a possibility/rationalization of the Amber Alert

The most obvious inference is someone went to kill the parents (pre-meditation) and encountered the child (2nd degree)

Police Chief: Have arrested a man in what has been a challenging and heart-wrenching investigation 2 counts of 1st degree 1 count of 2nd degree Bodies of 3 victims not found Rural property owners please search Due to charges before the courts , I can't release the details...

It depends on what your definition of "sufficient" is: Family saying we don't like this guy, there's been friction, lives where a truck that resembles one seen on video... that could be someone's version of "sufficient".