Canada - Lucas Fowler, Chynna Deese, and Leonard Dyck, all murdered, Alaska Hwy, BC, Jul 2019 #10

[gitana1]

Yes. And while LE apparently has been taught that keeping silent about facts is the way to go (to avoid jury pollution), there is no winning here. The defense will use the gap in time to their advantage. "You mean you still weren't certain, even X days later, that these two did the crime?" Power stuff, when juries hear it.

And then, there's the public's confidence in LE and whether they'll be forthcoming with tips in future. Just saying, "We still want your tips!" isn't the same as engaging the public in the task of hunting perps down. If everyone knew (for example) that there was evidence that K&B were once armed with a rifle and that they fired that rifle at or near the van or at the actual victims, they would engage more in helping LE.

I respectfully disagree. I have never ever seen a defense successfully use a delay in charges to win an acquittal.

The only thing that will be relevant is what the evidence shows. Not when the two were charged.

People get charged and convicted decades after a murder with no problems.

 

[Estrojane]

Did he not just graduate?

I believe only Kam graduated high school.

 

[1987]

I understand what you’re saying but they should just let these boys go. We have no actual evidence just a series of weird coincidences and no need to get military involved for two gamer eboys. The North serves justice on its own. There’s a reason they trusted bear patrol over rcmp, the cops don’t understand the reserves

just let them go? if it was your family member dead would you feel the same?

 

[Deleted member 248860]

They need probable cause to lay charges. As suspects, they can be brought in for questioning and kept for a long time. It is not a right to have a lawyer in the room during questioning prior to arrest. They can refuse to speak, but they can't refuse to listen, so officers can continue to talk and pose questions while the suspect chooses to remain silent.

A single murder charge is sufficient for arrest. After the arrest, more charges will be laid. They aren't necessary right now.

First, charges in BC, Québec and New Brunswick must be approved in advanced by prosecutors, and they use a test that is more rigorous than the Criminal Code test of reasonable and probable grounds. The BC charging process is explained in an official document that is easily searched on the internet.

Secondly, accused do have a right to a lawyer if they ask to contact one and police certainly can’t ignore that. If they do, the whole interview may be excluded - indeed, probably will be - at trial.

 

[10ofRods]

Because the type of people I believe these two to be - loner murderers- don't have the strength of mind or character to be actual soldiers.

Before they became murderers, would merely being loners disqualify them from being an "actual soldier"?

I'm not sure that becoming part of a socialized military is in and of itself evidence of "strength of mind" or "character." Strength of mind, to me, does imply some ability to be an independent thinker and actor, not a follower.

 

[dotr]

'A life we envied': Lucas Fowler's father pays tribute to murdered son
"During his eulogy, Stephen Fowler — a Chief Inspector for the NSW Police — said his son was known for his "beautiful" blond curls and big smile.

He said Lucas, who had three older siblings, loved the outdoors and spent much of his time camping, four wheel driving and dirt biking.

It was after finishing an apprenticeship as a motor mechanic that Lucas began travelling overseas.

"Lucas lived a life that many of us envied," said Mr Fowler.

It was during his travels in Croatia that he met and fell in love with Ms Deese.

"We never had the chance to meet Chynna in person but she became a part of our family," said Mr Fowler.

"We are so happy that Lucas and Chynna found each other and had such a great time travelling together, meeting new friends and just milking every last drop of fun out of life."

"They laughed and loved, and touched the hearts of everyone they met."

Mr Fowler said his son had been working at a ranch in remote British Columbia before his death, after obtaining a working visa in Canada.

He said the "iconic" photo of Lucas, with frozen hair and a beard full of ice, was taken after a day of hard work in freezing conditions.

"[Lucas'] message was 'this is what happens when you are out checking fences on a snowmobile in minus-36 degrees'," Mr Fowler told the congregation.

"I wrote back 'easy way to get a haircut — just snap it off'."

He then told his son that very few Australians got to experience what he had."

 

[LadyL]

well mossy oak looks like leaves. the digital camo is just painful to the eyes, not painful as In not attractive, it hurts if you look at it to much. it is designed for a different purpose. you can do a search and read about it. what I have been told by a military friend is the digital is hard for a shooter to properly aim at.

[bbm]

interesting

 

[otto]

It could be because the crown/prosecution feels there isn't enough evidence or the presented evidence isn't enough for conviction and that they directed RCMP not to charge them. I know they were working on the charges, but like you said, two weeks means that either they feel that later is fine or prosecution doesn't see it they way RCMP does. After all RCMP are just enforcers of the law, crown/prosecution would have to prove guilt/innocence

Maybe. Alternatively, the prosecutor might say that RCMP have enough to arrest the suspects and additional charges can be laid after the arrests, as there's bound to be a few more charges before they are captured.

 

[CanadianMade]

Yes. And while LE apparently has been taught that keeping silent about facts is the way to go (to avoid jury pollution), there is no winning here. The defense will use the gap in time to their advantage. "You mean you still weren't certain, even X days later, that these two did the crime?" Power stuff, when juries hear it.

And then, there's the public's confidence in LE and whether they'll be forthcoming with tips in future. Just saying, "We still want your tips!" isn't the same as engaging the public in the task of hunting perps down. If everyone knew (for example) that there was evidence that K&B were once armed with a rifle and that they fired that rifle at or near the van or at the actual victims, they would engage more in helping LE.

I agree, though more to the fact that people would be even more on the look out.
At this point, people don't even know what to believe so some may not even be looking for them.
If they have, in fact killed 3 people and are running around with a gun out there, if LE were to say that then people would be Far more inclined to be watching out for them IMO.
I understand Why they do not release information and I am generally in support of it. I do think, that because this case already has so much attention to it, they need to release something. I don't know what though because at this point it could just cause even more craze among the masses, so they are in a tough spot really.

 

[CaptainSanchez]

just let them go? if it was your family member dead would you feel the same?

It is natural for family to find closure at all costs. However from an outside observer I don’t have the emotional attachment and while I fully empathize for the loss of life I’m not ready to blame these kids, we have no hard evidence and lots of crazy rumours and speculation. If they are in the North they’ll be dealt with by the North, the chiefs are the best judge of characters

 

[Kubirai]

Maybe they robbed the van and folk were already dead, and they were driving by the dead body of Dyck and grabbed his truck.

If they didn't run and hide, their defense lawyers could have used those exact "may be they ..." arguments in court.

Now they also have to invent equally offensive reasons for their burning the red truck, not coming forward despite public pleas, running like guilty fugitives, burning the stolen grey SUV, hiding for weeks, etc.

 

[LadyL]

I don’t know what happened and will wait for more facts to come out before forming an opinion. The RCMP gets things wrong all the time and I don’t have much confidence in them. Maybe they robbed the van and folk were already dead, and they were driving by the dead body of Dyck and grabbed his truck. If you believe they made it from northern MB to ON in 2 days without a car then why can’t you believe my more realistic scenario?

right they just happened to come across three murdered people
they just have the worst luck those silly boys

 

[JuneBug67]

Until recently, the only people who spent life in prison were people designated dangerous offenders. That requires a special hearing.

In the past, the max for first degree murder was 25 years before parole eligibility even if there was more than one victim. Consecutive sentencing was recently introduced, so now people can be sentenced to 25 years x 2 before parole eligibility.

Typical sentence for second degree murder, especially domestic, is 10 years.

It all depends on the circumstances.

A few supplementary thoughts:

A life sentence is a life sentence, and a date of parole eligibility is just that - a date on which you MAY be eligible for parole. Many will never get out, and will serve their full life sentences. Clifford Olson was never getting out, Robert Pickton is never getting out, Paul Bernardo etc. Those people and many others less known will die in prison because their crimes were too heinous and they will never not be considered dangerous. So, we’ll continue to give them parole hearings as required, turn them down for parole ad infinitum, until their natural lives are over. Life sentence.

Dangerous Offenders are not automatically in jail for life, though an indeterminate sentence can and usually does have that result. It is difficult, but not impossible, to be granted parole as a dangerous offender. Many people are initially surprised by the fact that DO status cannot be applied to murder convictions (or treason for that matter) because who is more dangerous than a murderer? But it makes sense when you consider that a life sentence for first or second degree murder doesn’t require any additional mechanism to keep somebody behind bars for life - you just never grant them parole. DO status is for criminals whose crimes of violence/sexual assault may not qualify for a life sentence, but who are too dangerous or habitual to be let out.

As you noted, judges now have the discretion to stack periods of parole eligibility for multiple murder convictions. It’s not limited to two - we’ve already had at least three offenders who have 25 x 3 for 75 years before being eligible to apply for parole. Thus far, judges have not given out sentences that would be expected to far exceed the natural lives of the convicted. For example, Bruce McArthur was convicted of 8 murders but has parole eligibility after 25 years, because he’s already old. He will never be let out. Dellen Millard committed three murders, and can’t apply for parole for 75 years. His cases are under appeal, but its a good bet he will never be let out either. Judges have a lot of discretion here, and have used it. The law is so new that precedent is still fairly scant.

So, looong story short the answer to the OP’s question is there is no LWOP equivalent to the US, but there is effective LWOP:

-never grant parole to somebody with a life sentence
-never grant parole to somebody with Dangerous Offender status, even though their crimes may not carry a life sentence
-for people convicted of multiple murders, stack the periods of parole eligibility such that they will effectively be in jail for life without a chance at parole until they are very old, and then deny it if they make it that far

Sorry for the long post!

 

[10ofRods]

They need probable cause to lay charges. As suspects, they can be brought in for questioning and kept for a long time. It is not a right to have a lawyer in the room during questioning prior to arrest. They can refuse to speak, but they can't refuse to listen, so officers can continue to talk and pose questions while the suspect chooses to remain silent.

A single murder charge is sufficient for arrest. After the arrest, more charges will be laid. They aren't necessary right now.

That's in the US. What is Canada's version of the Miranda decision? Or do they have a law?

I respectfully disagree. I have never ever seen a defense successfully use a delay in charges to win an acquittal.

The only thing that will be relevant is what the evidence shows. Not when the two were charged.

People get charged and convicted decades after a murder with no problems.

Not "to win an acquittal." Yes, people get convicted late. But in this case and this case only, it could become a sticking point. Maybe I'm jaded by O.J., but minor issues involving police became major ones, due to the general attitude that "the public" developed during the trial. People can also develop attitudes during manhunts.

Reasonable doubt can be deposited in many ways. If there really is scant evidence (and there may be - there may be no DNA, there may be no traceable weapon, only the fact that the pair were on the same highway and later committed a crime - a crime with an apparently different MO) and then, on top of that, the RCMP has not shown that there's enough on them for charges, it will mean a more drawn out trial.

And at some point, drawn out trials can be an issue. BTW, I don't know anything about Canadian juries. Do they have to be unanimous?

 

[MistyWaters]

I understand what you’re saying but they should just let these boys go. We have no actual evidence just a series of weird coincidences and no need to get military involved for two gamer eboys. The North serves justice on its own. There’s a reason they trusted bear patrol over rcmp, the cops don’t understand the reserves

You can’t be serious.

 

[LadyL]

I'm thinking Otto might be being facetious!

Never!

 

[otto]

Yes. And while LE apparently has been taught that keeping silent about facts is the way to go (to avoid jury pollution), there is no winning here. The defense will use the gap in time to their advantage. "You mean you still weren't certain, even X days later, that these two did the crime?" Power stuff, when juries hear it.

And then, there's the public's confidence in LE and whether they'll be forthcoming with tips in future. Just saying, "We still want your tips!" isn't the same as engaging the public in the task of hunting perps down. If everyone knew (for example) that there was evidence that K&B were once armed with a rifle and that they fired that rifle at or near the van or at the actual victims, they would engage more in helping LE.

Canadian courts are not like USA courts. For example, NC courts can spend a week dragging a man's character through the mud before presenting evidence (e.g.: Jason Young, Brad Cooper).In Florida, all evidence is all over the news well before trial, and defence lawyers can act like Casey Anthony's lawyer. None of that is allowed in Canadian courts. Have faith.

 

[CanadianMade]

Canadian courts are not like USA courts. For example, NC courts can spend a week dragging a man's character through the mud before presenting evidence (e.g.: Jason Young, Brad Cooper).In Florida, all evidence is all over the news well before trial, and defence lawyers can act like Casey Anthony's lawyer. None of that is allowed in Canadian courts. Have faith.

Problem is, in this case it is probably going to be demanded by the public because there is so much attention to it. So if they don't release Something now, it could look really bad for them later.
Again, no idea what they Could release that would actually help at this point, but I do think they might be digging themselves a bit of a hole so to speak.

 

[Deleted member 248860]

That's in the US. What is Canada's version of the Miranda decision? Or do they have a law?


Not "to win an acquittal." Yes, people get convicted late. But in this case and this case only, it could become a sticking point. Maybe I'm jaded by O.J., but minor issues involving police became major ones, due to the general attitude that "the public" developed during the trial. People can also develop attitudes during manhunts.

Reasonable doubt can be deposited in many ways. If there really is scant evidence (and there may be - there may be no DNA, there may be no traceable weapon, only the fact that the pair were on the same highway and later committed a crime - a crime with an apparently different MO) and then, on top of that, the RCMP has not shown that there's enough on them for charges, it will mean a more drawn out trial.

And at some point, drawn out trials can be an issue. BTW, I don't know anything about Canadian juries. Do they have to be unanimous?

Yes, the law is similar to Miranda. See post 1761.

The jury would have to be unanimous in a verdict of guilty.

 

[Curious Me]

Because the type of people I believe these two to be - loner murderers- don't have the strength of mind or character to be actual soldiers.

Or work at Walmart for long either, IMO.