palisadesk
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 55
My question was, though I highly respect the work of LE and the great thorough job they've done, I'm still wondering how they came to the conclusion so quickly about there not being a 3rd person? Every time we bring it up we're told there is no evidence so don't even talk about it.
It would only be much later, and that only if those involved in the investigation write their memoirs or whatever, that we will find out why some possibilities were excluded.After all, the possibilities that the Crown and police have excluded do not figure in the evidence presented at all. Your query, could the accused have told them there was no third party, is certainly valid -- maybe they did, but we aren't likely to find out.
The saying goes, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," i.e. the fact that there's no evidence for a third party doesn't mean there could not have been one. But if LE have ruled it out, they probably have very good reasons.
Consider all the evidence they had:
- phone data of the key players. If there were a third person, there would likely have been phone and text records between them. No such evidence has been forthcoming.
- forensic evidence. Fingerprints, DNA. If evidence of a third party (such as CN -- her DNA was on one of those gloves IIRC) was found in the vehicles and items related to the crime, the "owners" of the prints/DNA would have been checked out for their possible involvement. Presumably CN had an alibi for the night of May 6, besides her phone data. So she was excluded, but we don't necessarily know all the details why. If there were prints or DNA of other parties, that would have been investigated and those people eliminated.
I'm sure in the early days of the investigation, a lot of theories and hypotheses were bandied about, but gradually eliminated as the data came in. We just don't hear much of that process. We do if a major player writes a memoir (a recent example is OPP profiler Kate Lines' Crime Seen, where she discusses some of her more famous cases and shares some behind-the-scenes details).
If there was no 3rd why did the lawyers go into all the arguments about if TB was shot from the front seat or back?
They may not have known whether evidence introduced (as it was by MS) would establish whether both accused were in the truck when the shot was fired. If the jury believed that to be the case, each defense lawyer would be trying to get the suggestion on the record that the other guy's client fired the shot. I still think DM's lawyer will come back to the Plaxton evidence that suggests the RAM drove around for about 10 minutes before going back to the Yukon. That is not consistent with MS's story but would possibly benefit DM.
The entire "my friend is on the side of the road lost" is dumb to me. The entire "follow us" is dumb. Test driving you don't have someone follow you. IMO, If friends drop you off and go fetch coffee, they wouldn't plan to return until you were done.
The whole thing is dumb, to me. But as for the coffee, MS said DM's line was that their "friend" couldn't find the Tim Horton's, so he hadn't actually gone to get a coffee, so they were going to "rescue" him by getting him to follow. Pretty lame story, I agree, but if TB was as anxious to sell that truck as we are led to believe, it might have passed.
Saying no 3rd driver is giving MS a defense.
It's not the absence of a 3rd driver, it's the evidence (so far, only MS's evidence) that the three guys were not in the truck together except for the first for hundred metres, until MS hopped out and took the Yukon. Look for Pillay to challenge that scenario.