(Just had an image. Some sexual predators ejaculate into a towel or hand, whatever. Maybe he looked in her purse for a tissue or after strangling her picked up her panties to wipe himself off.)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GUILTY Canada - Diane Werendowicz, 23, raped & murdered, Hamilton, Ont, June 1981
- Thread starter redheart
- Start date
(Just had an image. Some sexual predators ejaculate into a towel or hand, whatever. Maybe he looked in her purse for a tissue or after strangling her picked up her panties to wipe himself off.)
(Just had an image. Some sexual predators ejaculate into a towel or hand, whatever. Maybe he looked in her purse for a tissue or after strangling her picked up her panties to wipe himself off.)
Such a disgusting thought. Would have been helpful for that evidence of panties found with CV's semen in them to have been disclosed first of all, and secondly.. if that semen was fresh, as opposed to older, surely that could have been determined at the time when they were found? They didn't have the ability to check DNA, but they would have known whether it had been deposited within 12-19 hours after locating the panties? Was that even mentioned in the examination of the evidence found at the scene? Or was it neglected because LE would have assumed at the time that the panties would have contained the same semen as was found inside the victim? Sure makes one wonder how much could potentially have been neglected due to beliefs held at that time? Who would ever have imagined that semen would be found in two places from two diff men?
Such a disgusting thought. Would have been helpful for that evidence of panties found with CV's semen in them to have been disclosed first of all, and secondly.. if that semen was fresh, as opposed to older, surely that could have been determined at the time when they were found? They didn't have the ability to check DNA, but they would have known whether it had been deposited within 12-19 hours after locating the panties? Was that even mentioned in the examination of the evidence found at the scene? Or was it neglected because LE would have assumed at the time that the panties would have contained the same semen as was found inside the victim? Sure makes one wonder how much could potentially have been neglected due to beliefs held at that time? Who would ever have imagined that semen would be found in two places from two diff men?
But when i think about it... if the killer WAS her (ex?) bf at the time, i personally doubt if it was a sexually motivated attack (unless that can have different meanings to include jealousy/revenge, and not becoming sexually aroused during the strangling?). I believe CV's semen found in her panties was not from the time of the attack, but it needed to be investigated as to when exactly it WAS from, if the two hadn't seen one another for dayyyyyyssssss. I wouldn't believe that the victim would be wearing the same panties that semen had gone into 4-8 days earlier. i also wouldn't believe she kept them in her purse for 4-8 days. I think that is one huge clue that seems to have been completely disregarded as not relevant. jmo
Say she had a bf, or a bf whom she was on the outs with at that particular moment/day.. and he met up with her later, maybe just a spontaneous decision on his part, maybe a planned 'surprise' that he didn't share with her (or anyone else), met up with her either while on her way home, or even AT home after she returned from her 'interlude' with RB (it's possible that the two could have been in her apt, had an argument, she got scared, ran out to the back of her building?), and the guy happened to be outraged by this interlude that the victim may have told him about (to make him jealous for whatever reason), then it is possible that this person could have made her murder 'appear' to be a rape crime..
Undid her zipper, ripped open her shirt, took off her sweater, removed wallet from purse (maybe he wanted to ensure police would think either sexually motivated or theft motivated which turned into a sexual assault too, removed shoes, found panties perhaps in her purse or pocket (not ever imagining that his own DNA was in them, or even if it was, that it would/could ever be linked to HIM, rather than the guy who had an interlude with her just a bit earlier), thinking all the while that he was actually killing two birds with one stone.. i)getting vengeance against his gf who he thought should be faithful to him (whether they were on or off again on that particular day), and ii)putting the blame for her murder on the anonymous man who he knew had had consensual sex with her. Perfect crime?
It would be interesting to know how interviews went with her ex's, and if they may have brought up possibilities to lead police to be sidetracked away from themselves. I am wondering if that *one* ex who lived elsewhere and had JUST gotten out from prison FOR a sexual assault on someone else, was even ever interviewed? Or did police just believe it couldn't have been him since there was no evidence of transportation, and they had apparent evidence that that person hadn't left his town? So many questions still unanswered in this 35 year old case.
Random thoughts:
I was thinking about DW walking home after. That she wasn't driven home is not indicative of anything as it was characteristic for her to walk home. CV testified she did often and he even let her do that Monday after she met him and someone else at Malarkeys.
I think she might not have wanted RB to know where she lived perhaps.
As for the fly and blouse, I can see her being careless as she was under the influence of a high level of alcohol. My fly often slips open just normally. Interestingly, DR in her case testified her own fly was held with a pin because it kept opening.
I was thinking about DW walking home after. That she wasn't driven home is not indicative of anything as it was characteristic for her to walk home. CV testified she did often and he even let her do that Monday after she met him and someone else at Malarkeys.
I think she might not have wanted RB to know where she lived perhaps.
As for the fly and blouse, I can see her being careless as she was under the influence of a high level of alcohol. My fly often slips open just normally. Interestingly, DR in her case testified her own fly was held with a pin because it kept opening.
Verdict is in!
Thanks juka13. Hope I can let it go after I hear it.
I think it should say "He is found guilty of first degree." Some of us don't think he is guilty.
just copying SC tweets
I think it should say "He is found guilty of first degree." Some of us don't think he is guilty.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...row-guilty-diane-werendowicz-murder-1.3876636
[h=2]Police identified 10 victims[/h]
"I can't even describe how I feel now," Werendowicz's nephew, Karl Werendowicz, said outside the courthouse after the guilty verdict.
Karl was there with his mother, Lorraine. His father Steve, Diane's brother, was not in court.
"My dad is very happy," Karl said.
He said he feels better now than he did after Badgerow was first convicted of the crime in 2001.
"I feel much happier already. Why? Because it's all over," he said, becoming emotional. "She'll always be with us, but this time I won't be as upset as I have been, so, we look forward to tomorrow."
[h=2]Police identified 10 victims[/h]
For Det. Steve Hrab, it was a relief after so many years to see the case come to a close.
"After 18 years, from the day we made the arrest, to finally have resolution is a good feeling," he said outside the Kitchener courthouse.
"When we started this back in 1997, we identified 10 victims, Diane being one of them. And nine others. I hope they have some peace," Hrab added.
"At the end of the day, common sense and the facts prevail, and that's what I'm happy about."
[h=2]Jury deliberated for 4 days[/h] The jury deliberated four days, sifting through the testimony given by about 60 witnesses and more than 120 pieces of evidence, including a 911 call made at a phone booth at the Dofasco steel plant where Badgerow worked in the 1980s.
The jury never asked any questions of Justice Patrick Flynn during the deliberations.
A TV show I was watching (didn't follow completely close but...) a guy had been imprisoned 10 yrs. He had met with a troubled student who then disappeared. He had put his coat around her as she was cold and apparently her blood was found on his coat. That and having been ID'd as being in the cafe with her were the only incriminating things. She was eventually found having been locked up in a basement, and they discovered she'd been a cutter and had been so upset that night, she'd been cutting and that is how her blood got on his coat. Apparently, it was someone else who kidnapped her. So he was convicted based on the blood alone which LE had erroneously made conclusions about. Just a story, but could happen.
Still, if CV's semen was in the panties found at the scene of the crime, that should not have been overlooked.
Note how SC is the expert and *knows* that the panties had been laundered since CV's semen had gone into them? Wow. Must be nice to be psychic.
Your example above.. that is the thing. Everyone can scream 'guilty, yay, finally!', all they want, and look good, until such time as the truth somehow comes out, if it ever does. Imagine if your example girl above, had never been found, and the truth had never been discovered? Sometimes that's what it takes for the real truth to come out. It's pretty scary, if one can bring themselves to put the shoe on the accused's foot to imagine actually being in a position of being accused and not able to prove things one way or the other.
Random thoughts:
I was thinking about DW walking home after. That she wasn't driven home is not indicative of anything as it was characteristic for her to walk home. CV testified she did often and he even let her do that Monday after she met him and someone else at Malarkeys.
I think she might not have wanted RB to know where she lived perhaps.
As for the fly and blouse, I can see her being careless as she was under the influence of a high level of alcohol. My fly often slips open just normally. Interestingly, DR in her case testified her own fly was held with a pin because it kept opening.
Oh. i had thought that DR's jeans were held together at the waist for some reason, like perhaps a broken button thingy. i hadn't realized it was there to hold the zipper up. But yes, you're right, the zipper could have inched itself undone on its own. Depends on the jeans. And how they fit, etc. And yes, Claro, you are really on the ball for thinking things through.. that is a perfect explanation for why she wouldn't have accepted a ride home.
Well good thing I was not on the jury. Hope they come and read the sleuthing.
You and me both. I would have been that one, I guess, that would have made a third hung jury.
Not to mention the narrow-minded male chauvinism of the time. Jumping to conclusions.
I guess the jury thought he dragged her off the road and did it. But wait she was dressed. That doesn't fit.
Okay so he made out with her and followed her after she dressed herself. I guess the jury decided he had a mind for murder. How does one determine that?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I hope if he's innocent that the phone caller and real murderer come forward!
I guess the jury thought he dragged her off the road and did it. But wait she was dressed. That doesn't fit.
Okay so he made out with her and followed her after she dressed herself. I guess the jury decided he had a mind for murder. How does one determine that?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I hope if he's innocent that the phone caller and real murderer come forward!
Oh. i had thought that DR's jeans were held together at the waist for some reason, like perhaps a broken button thingy. i hadn't realized it was there to hold the zipper up. But yes, you're right, the zipper could have inched itself undone on its own. Depends on the jeans. And how they fit, etc. And yes, Claro, you are really on the ball for thinking things through.. that is a perfect explanation for why she wouldn't have accepted a ride home.
shed used a safety pin to fasten the fly, which had a tendency to unzip.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2528196-unsolved-excerpt-the-lucky-one-/
Not to mention the narrow-minded male chauvinism of the time. Jumping to conclusions.
I guess the jury thought he dragged her off the road and did it. But wait she was dressed. That doesn't fit.
Okay so he made out with her and followed her after she dressed herself. I guess the jury decided he had a mind for murder. How does one determine that?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I hope if he's innocent that the phone caller and real murderer come forward!
i think it is so horrible that he is being openly accused, in public, on television, by police, of not only being DR's attacker, even though a judge ordered the crown to discontinue its prosecution (nevermind that he didn't even match the description given by the victim of her attacker at the time of her attack, and that he didn't have time to both do the attack and clock in at work at the time that he did), but also of being the 'ravine rapist', who apparently committed 10 rapes in total, two of those being DW and DR, even though he was never charged with the 8 others, and has never had the chance to defend that accusation. How do our laws allow public servants to publicly broadcast accusations like that without laying charges and giving the accused the opportunity to defend himself, and yet not suffer any consequences for doing so?
People in this 35 year old case are getting older... who knows, perhaps someone on their deathbed at some point with spill what they actually know about someone/something in this case, like making the call, and how they knew the info, etc.
Another thing that seems unfair is that 'reporters' are saying that RB's insistence on his innocence even after the guilty verdict was received, will bode negatively for him, come time to apply for parole in 14 years from now. I guess he should have just said that he's guilty and that he's sorry, even if he's not guilty, so that he can have a hope of getting out in 14 more years.
The Crown's version of events seems to have a lot of holes. My guess is that if all of the evidence were to be re-examined (by the defence, if they even had access to *all* of it), there would be in amongst it somewhere, or in a few places, evidence of it actually being someone different.
Does the defence get to look at the evidence that was never presented as evidence? ie say there was a camera at that Dofasco phone booth area somewhere, but it didn't show RB, but rather, someone else.. I'm assuming police/prosecution wouldn't therefore have included it in their bag of evidence, but would they have had to disclose its existence? And if so, does that mean they for sure would have disclosed it, or is it possible they would have just ignored it because it didn't fit, and therefore the defence would never even know of its existence? (Nevermind that there was no proof that that phone booth was even the phone booth in question).
i was surprised to read on my quest for info, that Miller's voice was compared to the 911 recording by someone at Centre of Forensic Sciences, and was concluded that it was possible that it matched. i don't recall hearing any such evidence of matching in regard to Robert Badgerow?
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc934/2010onsc934.html
I'm reading your points, but I refuse to read the news reports on this Robert Badgerow case because in my heart of hearts I feel this was a witch-hunt. A bunch of egos that want credit for closing a cold case.
Of course he is saying he's innocent because he probably is. Too many people jumped on the DNA, and the allusions that he at one time lived there, (not when she was murdered btw), and jumped on the idea he worked near where the call was made.
Yes there was a murder, but there is nothing directly linking him to it.
Sounds to me like a lot of crazies roamed the streets that time of night. Could very well have been someone else, unlike in a homocide in a house.
There was evidence of drinking parties in that area. They had at least two witnesses that said they regularly heard drunk people making noises around that time of night on their way home from the bars in the area.
I hope and pray anyone who is really to blame comes forward.
Of course he is saying he's innocent because he probably is. Too many people jumped on the DNA, and the allusions that he at one time lived there, (not when she was murdered btw), and jumped on the idea he worked near where the call was made.
Yes there was a murder, but there is nothing directly linking him to it.
Sounds to me like a lot of crazies roamed the streets that time of night. Could very well have been someone else, unlike in a homocide in a house.
There was evidence of drinking parties in that area. They had at least two witnesses that said they regularly heard drunk people making noises around that time of night on their way home from the bars in the area.
I hope and pray anyone who is really to blame comes forward.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/7000304-clairmont-my-conversation-with-the-killer/
[h=1]CLAIRMONT: My conversation with the killer[/h]
[h=1]CLAIRMONT: My conversation with the killer[/h]
[h=2]The man just convicted of murdering Diane Werendowicz spends two hours telling The Spectator’s Susan Clairmont about his life, his loves, and his regrets[/h]
Random thoughts are interspersed throughout the conversation. He was once a choirboy at his family's church. He likes to "pun." He loves the Beach Boys and old country music.
Eventually, the talk winds down. He reminds me to phone him, he says goodbye, and leaves.
Two nights later, he stands in the prisoners' box, moments after the guilty verdict, and chooses to speak.
He says he is not guilty. He did not murder Diane Werendowicz. He has never "needed" to force himself on a woman. He is sorry for hurting the women in his life. He thanks his family and his legal team. Then this:
"I have also spoken to Ms. Clairmont a few times and I also have respect for her, regardless of the articles in the paper."
I'm sure, as always, Badgerow will read every word I have just written.
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 90
- Guests online
- 407
- Total visitors
- 497
Totals may include hidden visitors.