CANADA Canada - Lindsay Buziak, 24, Victoria, BC, 2 Feb 2008

[Satchie]

Now maybe its possible someone in the drug world wrongly thought she was snitching and ordered a hit....
Bottom line is she was targeted well in advance for a semi professional hit at the very least and no clear motive that I can figure out

RSBM

I think the fact that the burner phone had been purchased in Vancouver in November, then only activated in late January, would mean either a) someone was plotting this specific murder months in advance, or b) someone had a regular need for burner phones and kept a supply on hand to activate for each purpose, as required, after they could be sure the video footage of the purchase couldn't be retrieved.

IMO, there really aren't such highly professional hitmen doing business in Vancouver, or if there was, an ordinary guy couldn't afford them. Instead, it's standard operating procedure for someone who's involved in the drug trade.

My other comment is, the drug bust in Calgary which police have pointed to as being possibly connected, was not "just" $10 million in actual cocaine seized. It was also probably the disruption or potential arrest of the people who were importing it from Mexico, which over time could amount to hundreds of millions.

If you remember all the violence in Mexico in those days, it was routine for gangs to brutally kill people and practically display their mutilated bodies. This wasn't so much done to hurt those specific people, but rather to serve as a warning to everyone else: Don't mess with us or this is what will happen to you.

IMO, killing Lindsay in this way wasn't just to punish her for possibly snitching, it might also have been done as a warning to everyone involved in this drug operation: those who had been arrested and those still outside, to say 'I told you this is what we will do to you or your loved ones if you snitch, we mean it'.

 

[jbirner]

Every time I think I believe I have this figured out, I go back to the fact that she told her dad she saw something she shouldn't have seen. She did not tell him what that was and only she and the person involved in that "something she shouldn't have seen" know what she actually saw. I believe that is the key to the motive in this case. What did she see that was so horrible?

 

[chrisinmd]

RSBM

I think the fact that the burner phone had been purchased in Vancouver in November, then only activated in late January, would mean either a) someone was plotting this specific murder months in advance, or b) someone had a regular need for burner phones and kept a supply on hand to activate for each purpose, as required, after they could be sure the video footage of the purchase couldn't be retrieved.

IMO, there really aren't such highly professional hitmen doing business in Vancouver, or if there was, an ordinary guy couldn't afford them. Instead, it's standard operating procedure for someone who's involved in the drug trade.

Good thoughts on the burner phone. Do you know if drug gangs operate that way normally? Just purchase a bunch of burner phones at once and have them in stock when they need it for a particular job?

Also on the professional hitman theory. Do they physical description of the killers match up with what a drug cartel would normally hire to do a deed like this? I would not think the description of a middle age man and woman would be what they would use. I would think a younger killer would be more likely. I don't know but a 30 to 40 year old man and woman does not seem to fit the demographic of what I would expect professional killers to look like. I picture a young black and Hispanic male as being more likely. Or if a white guy one who looks like he is in a motorcycle gang!. But maybe those are just sterotypes im thinking of and not reality. The best hitman would not look like hitmen!

Anyway thoughts?

 

[Satchie]

Good thoughts on the burner phone. Do you know if drug gangs operate that way normally? Just purchase a bunch of burner phones at once and have them in stock when they need it for a particular job?

Also on the professional hitman theory. Do they physical description of the killers match up with what a drug cartel would normally hire to do a deed like this? I would not think the description of a middle age man and woman would be what they would use. I would think a younger killer would be more likely. I don't know but a 30 to 40 year old man and woman does not seem to fit the demographic of what I would expect professional killers to look like. I picture a young black and Hispanic male as being more likely. Or if a white guy one who looks like he is in a motorcycle gang!. But maybe those are just sterotypes im thinking of and not reality. The best hitman would not look like hitmen!

Anyway thoughts?

I don't know specifics, these are just general outlines ETA outlines of what seems to me the most plausible explanation. If the intent was to lure Lindsay into a high-priced home, the buyers would need to look like people who could afford it, Possibly this wasn't a hired hitman per se, but a senior operator in the organization.

 

[jbirner]

I don't know specifics, these are just general outlines ETA outlines of what seems to me the most plausible explanation. If the intent was to lure Lindsay into a high-priced home, the buyers would need to look like people who could afford it, Possibly this wasn't a hired hitman per se, but a senior operator in the organization.

Agreed, the rich couple persona was a ruse to get her to the house and let them in. Make her feel at ease and trusting so she would let her guard down.

 

[JSolt1210]

Every time I think I believe I have this figured out, I go back to the fact that she told her dad she saw something she shouldn't have seen. She did not tell him what that was and only she and the person involved in that "something she shouldn't have seen" know what she actually saw. I believe that is the key to the motive in this case. What did she see that was so horrible?

Can we confirm that Lindsay actually said that though?

According to lindsaybuziakmurder.com: "Lindsay told her Dad in 2006 that 'she saw something she shouldn’t have.' She mentioned this again in 2007 while visiting her Father in Calgary." But there's no link to MSM, official statements, legal documents etc. to confirm this, so where is this information coming from?

That website seems to be selectively quoting the dad's statements on Dr. Phil on Friday, May 24, 2019: "'I think she saw something she shouldn't have seen. She was jeopardizing people's lifestyles. They executed her,' he said." (bold & underline by me).

If it happened the way it's reported, I feel like the dad would've been more specific and said something like, "On this occasion Lindsay said, 'Dad, I saw something I shouldn't have...'" He sounds more like he's speculating rather than reporting an actual incident.

Good thoughts on the burner phone. Do you know if drug gangs operate that way normally? Just purchase a bunch of burner phones at once and have them in stock when they need it for a particular job

According to the same website, "often burner phones are purchased in bulk and used at a later date." But again, no independent MSM or LE corroboration. I find this credible, though, because most people now know that stores usually delete surveillance about 30 days after recording. Paying cash for a phone you're going to use for criminal activity, and then waiting two months to use it, makes it harder for LE to trace it back to you

 

[chrisinmd]

If the intent was to lure Lindsay into a high-priced home, the buyers would need to look like people who could afford it, Possibly this wasn't a hired hitman per se, but a senior operator in the organization.

Do "senior operators" in a organization really perform hits themselves though? I would think they would want to stay as far away from the actual killings themselves so they are not the ones who get caught. That's why they assign the jobs to lower level thugs. John Gotti or Carlos Gambino for example were not out performing hits themselves when they were the boss. They assigned it out to lower level people. To Sammy the Bull Gravano for example in John Gotti's organization.

 

[chrisinmd]

According to the same website, "often burner phones are purchased in bulk and used at a later date." But again, no independent MSM or LE corroboration. I find this credible, though, because most people now know that stores usually delete surveillance about 30 days after recording. Paying cash for a phone you're going to use for criminal activity, and then waiting two months to use it, makes it harder for LE to trace it back to you

Yea the buying the phone and then waiting 30 days makes a lot of sense. Would make it very difficult to trace it back to the person who made the purchase.

I have a question about the timeline. The drug bust in Alberta was On January 22, 2008. The cell phone the couple used to contact Lindsay was purchased late November 2007 at a Vancouver convenience store. The phone was activated late January, 2008 in Vancouver.

So since the phone was purchased in Nov 2007 and the drug bust didn't happen until Jan 2008 the phone could not have been purchased with the intent to commit the murder with it. At least not for the drug bust to be the motive.

It says the phone was activated in late 2008. Was this after the Jan. 22 drug bust or before? If it was activated after the 22nd then it could be the point at which the plan to murder her was put in place in response to the drug bust. If before that date the drug bust could not be the motive because it had not occurred yet.

As far as how long this murder was premedited she received the first call for the buyers in late Jan. and the murder occurred on Feb. 2. So a little less than a couple weeks of planning if that is the beginning of the plot. If the plot began when the phone was purchased in Nov 2007 then it took about 2 months of planning and premeditation. And the drug bust could not be the motive because it had not occurred yet.

One other thought if we assume the boyfriend was not involved and actually showed up on time like he was supposed to do you think the killers would have murdered him as well? Or called it off and looked for another time and place to murder her. Calls for complete speculation but who knows.

Anyway thoughts?

 

[JSolt1210]

Yea the buying the phone and then waiting 30 days makes a lot of sense. Would make it very difficult to trace it back to the person who made the purchase.

I have a question about the timeline. The drug bust in Alberta was On January 22, 2008. The cell phone the couple used to contact Lindsay was purchased late November 2007 at a Vancouver convenience store. The phone was activated late January, 2008 in Vancouver.

So since the phone was purchased in Nov 2007 and the drug bust didn't happen until Jan 2008 the phone could not have been purchased with the intent to commit the murder with it. At least not for the drug bust to be the motive.

It says the phone was activated in late 2008. Was this after the Jan. 22 drug bust or before? If it was activated after the 22nd then it could be the point at which the plan to murder her was put in place in response to the drug bust. If before that date the drug bust could not be the motive because it had not occurred yet.

As far as how long this murder was premedited she received the first call for the buyers in late Jan. and the murder occurred on Feb. 2. So a little less than a couple weeks of planning if that is the beginning of the plot. If the plot began when the phone was purchased in Nov 2007 then it took about 2 months of planning and premeditation. And the drug bust could not be the motive because it had not occurred yet.

One other thought if we assume the boyfriend was not involved and actually showed up on time like he was supposed to do you think the killers would have murdered him as well? Or called it off and looked for another time and place to murder her. Calls for complete speculation but who knows.

Anyway thoughts?

According to the timeline on lindsaybuziakmurder.com, "Operation High Noon," which would result in the drug bust, began in November 2007, precisely the month in which the burner phone was purchased.

The website adds that "The cell phone the couple used to contact Lindsay was purchased late November 2007 at a Vancouver convenience store. The phone was activated late January, 2008 in Vancouver. The phone traveled to the Island 24 hours prior to Lindsay’s murder."

This MSM article states that: "The phone was activated in January 2008 and travelled from the Vancouver area to Greater Victoria sometime in the 24 hours before Buziak's murder. The phone was used Feb. 2, 2008, when Buziak received a phone call from a woman with a foreign accent asking her to show the house at 5:30 p.m... [and] was deactivated shortly after the murder."

However, thetruecrimefiles.com has a picture of Lindsay's planner in which she clearly recorded the call on February 1st.

From all of this, I conclude that the phone was probably activated—turned on but not used—on January 31st ("late January") in Vancouver. It pinged off towers there as it traveled to Victoria. It was used the following day, February 1st, to call Lindsay and arrange the meeting.

I believe the phone was purchased with the intent to commit a crime, but not necessarily this crime. Organized crime probably purchases burner phones in bulk, but keeps them stored and off for 30 or 60 days—the time it takes for video records of the purchase to be deleted. Afterwards they're activated as needed for one-time use in whatever crime or transaction may be happening in the moment, and then they're discarded.

Now since the purchase of this phone in Nov 2007 coincided with the beginning of Operation High Noon, maybe the drug cartel got wind of the investigation and decided to prepare?

 

[chrisinmd]

Agree with your theory that the phone was purchased with the intent to commit a crime, but not necessarily this crime.

If Operation High Noon began is Nov. is that when arrests where made or when the operation started? If it was still a uncover operation in Nov. and no arrest had been made at that time then its highly unlikely the cartel would have know about it in Nov. They likely first found out when arrests started being made at the conclusion of the operation.

One other thought on the burner phone. The person who purchased it gave a fake name. I believe it was a fake name. Paulo Hernandez or something to that effect. A Hispanic name. So I think it is safe to assume the man who bought the phone was Hispanic. A blue eyed , blond guy is not going to give a fake Hispanic name. Was this drug cartel that was the target of Operation High Noon a Latin American Gang? Or African American?

 

[JSolt1210]

Agree with your theory that the phone was purchased with the intent to commit a crime, but not necessarily this crime.

If Operation High Noon began is Nov. is that when arrests where made or when the operation started? If it was still a uncover operation in Nov. and no arrest had been made at that time then its highly unlikely the cartel would have know about it in Nov. They likely first found out when arrests started being made at the conclusion of the operation.

One other thought on the burner phone. The person who purchased it gave a fake name. I believe it was a fake name. Paulo Hernandez or something to that effect. A Hispanic name. So I think it is safe to assume the man who bought the phone was Hispanic. A blue eyed , blond guy is not going to give a fake Hispanic name. Was this drug cartel that was the target of Operation High Noon a Latin American Gang? Or African American?

I don't know if the beginning of Operation High Noon actually involved arrests. Even if it didn't though, I feel like word always gets out—maybe not specifics or scale, but something more like a "Heads up! They're watching us!"

As for the burner phone, the person who bought it probably was Hispanic because of the fake name. But I definitely don't think he was the same man that was last seen with Lindsay. And that was most likely intended that way. It's my understanding that organized crime prefers to divide any one criminal act into separate tasks committed by separate individuals. If and when someone is caught, that person can only be charged with only one part of the crime and not the whole.

In this case "Paulo" bought a phone that was connected to a later murder. But he doesn't look like the suspect, the purchase happened two months ago, and surely it's not a crime to buy a phone and give it as a gift to someone, which is probably what "Paulo" would say if he were ever caught.

 

[jbirner]

So I understand about the purchasing of the phone but I do not understand the process of activating and deactivating. Is that done anonymously? Do you have to call someone? I'm just not 100% clear on how these phones work.

 

[chrisinmd]

The purchase of the phone can be done with cash at the store. No ID required. The activation of the phone may require a credit card / debit card to pay the monthly bill or add minutes to the phone. But that can be done in a way where it isn't traceable back to you.

 

[chrisinmd]

In this case "Paulo" bought a phone that was connected to a later murder. But he doesn't look like the suspect, the purchase happened two months ago, and surely it's not a crime to buy a phone and give it as a gift to someone, which is probably what "Paulo" would say if he were ever caught.

Agree "Paulo" not likely the suspect but you cant rule that out completely. Im sure the clerk who sold the phone would not remember and give a description of the guy he sold a phone to a couple months ago. Would be nice to know though if he matched the physical description of the male suspect at the murder scene.

Im wondering if the victim had any other ties to the city where the phone was purchased? We seem to be assuming the drug cartel is the motive but perhaps it something other than that. Some other person with a personal motive to kill her. Ex boyfriend / business rival etc. Not a vast conspicary like a drug hit to eliminate someone just someone who target who for a more personal reason. Although since there were 2 suspects at the scene I guess that cuts against that idea.

Confusing case. Appears to be a professional hit by an organization like a drug cartel but her history dosent seem to support she would be a target of this type hit. Either we care completely missing the right motive of her seeing something she should not of or she was a whole lot more involved in the drug trade then we know about to warrant this type of murder

 

[Satchie]

Agree "Paulo" not likely the suspect but you cant rule that out completely. Im sure the clerk who sold the phone would not remember and give a description of the guy he sold a phone to a couple months ago. Would be nice to know though if he matched the physical description of the male suspect at the murder scene.

Im wondering if the victim had any other ties to the city where the phone was purchased? We seem to be assuming the drug cartel is the motive but perhaps it something other than that. Some other person with a personal motive to kill her. Ex boyfriend / business rival etc. Not a vast conspicary like a drug hit to eliminate someone just someone who target who for a more personal reason. Although since there were 2 suspects at the scene I guess that cuts against that idea.

Confusing case. Appears to be a professional hit by an organization like a drug cartel but her history dosent seem to support she would be a target of this type hit. Either we care completely missing the right motive of her seeing something she should not of or she was a whole lot more involved in the drug trade then we know about to warrant this type of murder

It's just that the drug trade is the only type of violent organized crime in the Vancouver/Victoria area. There's just not the corruption, protection rackets, or other illegal activities that escalate to violence, or that involve hitmen.

Vancouver is the major point of entry for drugs into the West Coast of Canada. It has the major and very busy port, aiport, and transport truck route from the US, it's not possible to search all the imports.

The theory is not that she was involved in the drug trade, but that she had old friends who'd gotten involved. It's been such a burgeoning business on the west coast, where the population has boomed at the same time as the huge increase in drug use. There used to be only the Hell's Angels, but in the past few decades many small, low level gangs have sprung up, wherever they see an opportunity.

I think the number of references to Mexicans: her friends, and Mexican real estate buyers, isn't coincidental. There's almost no Hispanic community here. This article from a few years later discusses how the Mexican cartels began sending scouts to do business in Canada.

Cartel connection: How Mexico’s drug gangs set up shop in Vancouver

 

[chrisinmd]

Thanks for the information about Vancouver and the crime and drug situation there. Never been there myself so good things to know.

I would agree all the Hispanics that seem to be involved seems to much of a coincidence to be random chance.

But it seems to me to be one hell of a leap from some of her old friends being involved in the drug trade to this somehow leading to her being the target of the hit. Why not kill her friends would make a lot more sense? Unless she knew something through her old friends. I don't see the motive as very strong but who knows.

 

[Satchie]

Thanks for the information about Vancouver and the crime and drug situation there. Never been there myself so good things to know.

I would agree all the Hispanics that seem to be involved seems to much of a coincidence to be random chance.

But it seems to me to be one hell of a leap from some of her old friends being involved in the drug trade to this somehow leading to her being the target of the hit. Why not kill her friends would make a lot more sense? Unless she knew something through her old friends. I don't see the motive as very strong but who knows.

I agree it's a leap, and I usually dismiss efforts to connect the deaths of ordinary people to drug gangs.

What is different in this case IMO is:

1. Police statements imply this is a wide-spread conspiracy, and to me that means drugs.
"As with other pre-planned and targeted murders, the perpetrators and/or conspirators have taken steps to avoid apprehension by police. We believe multiple persons have personal and first-hand knowledge regarding the murder of Lindsay Buziak and have withheld this information from police."
10 Year Remembrance of Lindsay Buziak Murder

2. The possibility that Lindsay's killing wasn't really about killing Lindsay, per se, but about sending a message to others to show power and create fear. This is how Mexican drug gangs were operating, using terrorist techniques of murdering innocent , easily ambushed victims, in order to inspire fear and cooperation in other people. They don't murder those other people because they need their knowledge, contacts and assistance.

 

[chrisinmd]

I agree it's a leap, and I usually dismiss efforts to connect the deaths of ordinary people to drug gang

Its the theory that best fits the facts. Seems a bit farfetched to me but no other explanation makes any more sense to me either

 

[chrisinmd]

Best chance to solve this is if they arrest someone in this drug gang and they decide they want to provide some information in exchange for a lighter sentence and witness protection.

 

[penelopemcswain]

I just heard about this case on True Crime Garage and as a Realtor I have so many questions!!!


I think it's very strange that they chose this particular house for the hit. Most homes in this price range would have some type of camera or security system. Or at least it's far more likely that they will.
How would the murderers know for sure there weren't any there without having some kind of connection to the builder or more likely the listing agent, or someone else who knew the house thoroughly?

I also think it's really, really strange if the notion that Lindsay was a little uneasy, and told her boyfriend about it who was a Realtor (at the same firm!) - it's almost unconscionable to me that the obvious plan would not have been for him to just come along for the showing. I don't see any reason why he wouldn't have, especially if he didn't have any other pressing plans. I don't get this at all and it raises so many red flags to me even though he's supposedly been "cleared"

Because, I mean, come on! We ask other agents from our brokerage to accompany us all the time when we feel uneasy about things. It not only is not a big deal, it is also not up to, nor is it any business of the buyer client, who shows up at a showing from our office, or from the other side's office. The listing agent may be there, another agent-in-training, our broker (manager)...we normally don't even give buyers a heads up about who all will be there.
And if one ever objected it would raise a GIANT red flag like possibly time to contact the authorities red flag.

And the murderers would have had to know somehow that not only was this place vacant but that showings were unaccompanied, which is typically NOT in any of the info consumers would see. That is in the agent-to-agent info we get as licensed realtors in our database and is hidden from public view.

i'm sensing a definite real estate industry connection somewhere here, whether it was the boyfriend and / or his mom, or someone else in real estate who had access to this info and possibly someone who had shown the house previously and knew the ins and outs.