I agree that the questioning about vehicles is odd. As to the serial number of the tire, the point is LE could have checked the serial number and it appears they decided it was old and didn't both to. Less sophisticated investigation indeed!
GUILTY Canada - Diane Werendowicz, 23, raped & murdered, Hamilton, Ont, June 1981
- Thread starter redheart
- Start date
I agree that the questioning about vehicles is odd. As to the serial number of the tire, the point is LE could have checked the serial number and it appears they decided it was old and didn't both to. Less sophisticated investigation indeed!
if not yesterday, the defence spelled it out in no uncertain terms today.
i'm not sure if there was also a 10pm news back in 1981? Both TH and her parents testified that he was there until then, and leaving in just enough time to get to his work shift. Also the time was verified by the victim herself when she said she saw the time on a clock on something/in something on the street at the time, and it was even later. (can't have your cake and eat it too in this case! - she states the time, but the time means RB couldn't have done it; she says he looks just like RB's photo from a yearbook, but at the time of the attack he didn't look like the yearbook pic; too bad they didn't at the time, look at mugshots for for criminals that currently looked like RB's old yearbook photo).
I saw that.
Yes and another time she tried hypnosis to see if she could remember the face or something of that nature. I even wondered if someone put the idea of it being him into her head?
her attacker very well could have looked something like his yearbook photo.. it seemed that many of the guys that age at the time may have looked somewhat similar.. even from just a few shots that we have seen.
A question, am I correct that in the DRG case there was no DNA found on her? If not, the only reason to collect RB's DNA was to connect him or rule him out of other crimes.
It's so random that she would have instigated all of that by pointing to RB.
It's so random that she would have instigated all of that by pointing to RB.
This pricked my thoughts, so I looked it up again today. Pay attention to how both witnesses remarked about how the man walked--like it was an important feature. Could this man have had a walking impediment?
This is from the DRG case http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/.../2008/01/11/r-v-badgerow-2008-715-on-sc.shtml :
bbm
Now, SC Nov 2 Tweets on witness JB:
bbm
This is from the DRG case http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/.../2008/01/11/r-v-badgerow-2008-715-on-sc.shtml :
bbm
Now, SC Nov 2 Tweets on witness JB:
bbm
intoxicated?
I don't know. RB had an ankle injury in April 1982 according to Dofasco medical dept. He took a week off too for it. Was it a new injury?
I guess I'm thinking someone who knew a bunch of connected people may know of someone with an impediment.
The drunk theory is what the woman JB assumed but is unproven.
I happened upon this as to position of DR during attack:
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2528196-unsolved-excerpt-the-lucky-one-/
Very helpful.
Helpful, except that now there is no indication of handedness of the attacker.
This is likely a stretch, but I got looking at the Dennis Melvin Howe again. He would have been 40. but below I snipped two descriptions of how he apparently walked. I couldn't find anything that suggested where he worked but one of his jobs is listed as "metal worker" which made me wonder if he ended up at Dofasco under one of his aliases?
and although most known for child abduction, in the past had picked up a woman and tied her up... From Regina where he might have worn cowboy boots.
in regard to the cowboy/motorcycle boots.. it would only make sense that CV would wear motorcycle boots if he drove a motorcycle. i was going to get into the 'who wears cowboy boots' debate (with myself), but i don't think it's necessary since the boots could have also been motorcycle boots. I would love to know how CV got himself discounted from the investigation, under all of the various circumstances, specifically his semen being found in her panties when he (supposedly) hadn't seen her for 5-8 days.
It is really *bugging* me how it seems that the prosecution can keep going back and going back to get permission to use the 'evidence' of the 911 call location, but yet it seems that once told they were not allowed to mention CV's semen being found in DW's panties and not being allowed to bring him up as a potential alternate suspect, the defence just dropped the issue and never bothered to keep pursuing it in subsequent trials. Just doesn't seem right. I want to know WHY.
Any guesses as to why the defence made the jury listen to the entire 911 tape (2 hours long) yesterday?
Looks like RB is up on the stand first thing this morning.
http://www.therecord.com/news-story...-robert-badgerow-to-take-the-stand-wednesday/
Looks like RB is up on the stand first thing this morning.
http://www.therecord.com/news-story...-robert-badgerow-to-take-the-stand-wednesday/