Canada - Lucas Fowler, Chynna Deese, and Leonard Dyck, all murdered, Alaska Hwy, BC, Jul 2019 #21

[Jan424]

I think all evidence of pre-planning or motive was lost in the burning wreckage of their computers. Maybe that's why they bought them with them. I always thought the two having their computers on them meant they actually did leave to find work up north, but I do doubt that now. It seems they were planning to commit crimes the day they left. JMO

I have always thought the reason they took their computers was so the police didn’t get to them and discover God only knows what was on there.

 

[Seattle1]

something's been bugging me since last night

they shaved themselves in preparation for their own deaths yet their last will & testament was to be cremated so why did shaving matter?

I think there's some conflicting accounts about "shaving." It's reported KM's corpse was recognized from the shoreline by his beard.

Did they perhaps shave their heads?

 

[Jan424]

I think there's some conflicting accounts about "shaving." It's reported KM's corpse was recognized from the shoreline by his beard.

Did they perhaps shave their heads?

Good question.... I wondered about their heads too.

 

[Seattle1]

I believe the shaving was mentioned in the same video as a plan to go back and kill more people. Possibly they believed that being clean-shaven would make them look less like two murderers who'd been hiding out in the bush, and therefore more successful in their "mission".

To be honest, I was taken by surprise how in all the surveillance videos, they both appeared so well groomed.

I know camping hair and they did not look like campers to me!

Perhaps it was both personal hygiene, vanity, and not wanting to stand out when going out again on their kill mission.

 

[SovereignSnake]

I think there's some conflicting accounts about "shaving." It's reported KM's corpse was recognized from the shoreline by his beard.

Did they perhaps shave their heads?

I wondered about this as well. From what I've read, you only have to shave your body hair; i.e. your arms, pubic, legs, chest, etc. From what I understand you can leave the hair on your head and your beard.

 

[sandbar]

Why would that information be important to the general public? Why would revealing it be worth the risk of triggering copycat killers?

RCMP are saying they didn't find evidence of a motive. I'd like to hear RCMP address the search and retrieval of info on the computers found in the burning ruins of a camper owned by fleeing suspects.

If those were computers in the pictures that we debated on pages and pages of this forum, K&B brought them with them on their spree. They are important and I'd like to hear what RCMP has to say about them. RCMP could describe, like they did with the videos, what was on the computers to dissuade copycats.

 

[LadyL]

Here is what I am referring, is how odd the videos were moved from cellphones to a camera

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-...efore-taking-their-lives-20190820-p52isy.html

"...left a "last will and testament" video message. Kam McLeod, 19, and Bryer Schmegelsky, 18, recorded the video message on their mobile phones before taking their own lives in remote bushland in northern Manitoba, the Toronto Star reported on Monday."

I think that article is not accurate
nowhere else has mentioned that

 

[1987]

RCMP are saying they didn't find evidence of a motive. I'd like to hear RCMP address the search and retrieval of info on the computers found in the burning ruins of a camper owned by fleeing suspects.

If those were computers in the pictures that we debated on pages and pages of this forum, K&B brought them with them on their spree. They are important and I'd like to hear what RCMP has to say about them. RCMP could describe, like they did with the videos, what was on the computers to dissuade copycats.

well if the fire was hot enough to warp the truck like it looks like happened I doubt there was much of anything on a hard drive left. I know some amazing things can be done to recover data, but this fire looks like there just wouldn't be anything left to work with. moo

 

[Jan424]

Possibly one of the schoolmates who reported Schmegelsky's remarks at school of wanting to kill others and himself. If so, they were brave to report that.

Former classmates of northern B.C. murder suspect say he would describe killing himself, others

Very brave. And it makes me wonder if there really weren’t more red flags out there (maybe K&B’s behaviors or comments), that no one has come forward to say. I can’t imagine only this one person could put 2&2 together.

 

[sandbar]

Warning: I am popping in at random to ramble here

Websleuths is a crime discussion group, not a court room. Most WSers are quite capable of being fair and changing their minds if/when additional information becomes available to them. Most cases that result in guilty verdicts are based on circumstantial evidence. Experience tells us that with the circumstantial evidence before them, WSers are rarely wrong with their initial perceptions but are certainly willing to admit if they are. Most jurors, when confronted with all the evidence, can form an impartial opinion and render a proper verdict in conjunction with their peers. At a stage when knowing a person's life can be hinging on their decision, jurors take their responsibility very seriously and are capable of setting aside any preconceived ideas or biases they may have had.

Certainly not directed at you or anyone in particular, but the problem we have with some "devil's advocate" type of posters is them presenting an unbridled defence of the accused at all costs without known facts to substantiate such a position, or even disregarding or refuting those available facts with nonsensical suggestions. One case that springs to mind is the Bosma case where no matter the known facts, certain members had blinders on when it came to Millard's possible guilt. Frequently the wild speculation that screams innocence is not necessarily based on any known fact/evidence available to us at that point in time. As we have to say so often, the presumption of innocence is a judicial principle that applies throughout the judicial process but it does not apply to the general public who are entitled to form their opinions based on the knowledge that is available to them.

Example in this case: How would someone reasonably explain KM and BS running across country in LD's vehicle after he was found murdered nearby their own burned out vehicle. How does one see innocence in that or what is a reasonable doubt explanation for it? Can anyone conjure up a really great explanation for that?

As for any WSers here as potential jurors and their ability to uphold justice, they would then have the whole enchilada in front of them on which to base their decision and I am confident any jury, with the instruction from a learned judge, would render a verdict that was "true and just" regardless of what they thought they knew beforehand.

I guess you have greater faith in humanity than I do. I tend to trust that when a poster posts something that makes them sound like a raging lunatic, that that is how they are comfortable being perceived. I tend to take people at their word.

"Most cases that result in guilty verdicts are based on circumstantial evidence."

I don't believe this, do you have a link? For sure some evidence in a lot of cases is circumstantial.

I am not a lawyer or a legal scholar, I have never been selected for a jury or gone through the selection process. However, I would gladly bet my lunch that at any jury selection process in any court in Canada, if a juror candidate said that they believed someone was guilty of murder because they were driving away from police in a murder-victim's stolen car, that person would be excused from jury selection. 100%

 

[Jan424]

Cold blooded killers. I know we wondered here if Kam was not really "into" this whole killing spree and/or that he wasn't the one that really wanted to commit suicide. We thought he looked stressed, upset, ready to give up in the hardware store video.
Good gracious, none of that was even close to the truth.

Nope, it was actually the furthest from the truth.

 

[sandbar]

well if the fire was hot enough to warp the truck like it looks like happened I doubt there was much of anything on a hard drive left. I know some amazing things can be done to recover data, but this fire looks like there just wouldn't be anything left to work with. moo

I would just like RCMP or a reporter to address those computers.

 

[CinNC]

RCMP hinted at some problems with the videos. They don't need to nor should they be asked to say or do more. JMO

I don't disagree with you, but in this case - the horse has left the barn. If copycats were going to mimic KM and BS, just the public knowledge of what has transpired would already provide a lot to copy.

 

[CinNC]

100% agree.

I would like to hear RCMP speak specifically about the recovery efforts made to gather info on the hard drives and other computer equipment from the burning/burnt camper and that specifically there was no evidence on those drives of internet searches related to anti-social, para-military, neo/n**i or hate groups.

I know that technology forensics can perform miracles these days, but is it even possible to mine data from a computer so damaged by fire? I'm not questioning your query; I respectfully and honestly don't know it is is possible?

 

[cartman]

One piece of information that I thought would be answered that, to my knowledge, wasn't. Who was the mysterious bearded man that the road worker saw arguing with Lucas and Chynna? In the end, I guess his identity doesn't matter. All of the evidence, especially the ammo matching the gun, pointed to Bryer and Kam. Without that evidence, I thought the bearded man may have been involved.

It is in the report that the RCMP have still not identified the bearded man.

I think there's some conflicting accounts about "shaving." It's reported KM's corpse was recognized from the shoreline by his beard.

Did they perhaps shave their heads?

A news article I read (sorry can't remember which one) stated they both shaved their heads. The Globe and Mail article stated that when they found KM he still had the beard.

Which leads me to speculate that if the hair salon visits were true (I never believed they were) then they were a complete waste of time and money.

 

[CinNC]

I think there's some conflicting accounts about "shaving." It's reported KM's corpse was recognized from the shoreline by his beard.

Did they perhaps shave their heads?

I wondered about this, too. I don't remember anyone saying what they specifically were going to shave. To me, "shaving" just means facial hair. If my husband tells me he is going to shave, I presume he means his face.

 

[Solaris420]

I know that technology forensics can perform miracles these days, but is it even possible to mine data from a computer so damaged by fire? I'm not questioning your query; I respectfully and honestly don't know it is is possible?

Hard drives, where data is stored on the computer acts almost like a record player. Inside there are disks and a needle reads/writes information to the disks. The computers looked severely warped from the fire, even if they managed to recover fragments of the hard drive I suspect they would be too warped and scorched to recover any data from.

 

[sandbar]

I know that technology forensics can perform miracles these days, but is it even possible to mine data from a computer so damaged by fire? I'm not questioning your query; I respectfully and honestly don't know it is is possible?

I know, right? But for sure RCMP knows, and even if they said that they couldn't recover, or couldn't recover to date...

 

[FactFinder3000]

I guess you have greater faith in humanity than I do. I tend to trust that when a poster posts something that makes them sound like a raging lunatic, that that is how they are comfortable being perceived. I tend to take people at their word.

"Most cases that result in guilty verdicts are based on circumstantial evidence."

I don't believe this, do you have a link? For sure some evidence in a lot of cases is circumstantial.

I am not a lawyer or a legal scholar, I have never been selected for a jury or gone through the selection process. However, I would gladly bet my lunch that at any jury selection process in any court in Canada, if a juror candidate said that they believed someone was guilty of murder because they were driving away from police in a murder-victim's stolen car, that person would be excused from jury selection. 100%

But this forum is not a court of law. A court of law is about proving someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This forum is about proving which is more probable, them being innocent, or them being guilty. It's a completely different thing.

Given that they were named as suspects, and were on the run in a murdered man's vehicle, and had apparently torched their own vehicle, the odds of them actually turning out to be innocent were extremely remote. Possible, but very, very unlikely. It is difficult for me to see how someone can look at those facts and say, "yeah, I think they're innocent."

I almost feel like there is some kind of disconnect here in terms of terminology. When folks here are talking about whether or not they feel somebody is guilty or innocent, we are not talking about whether they would be found innocent or guilty in a court of law. We are talking about whether or not they are actually guilty. OJ was not found guilty. Does that mean he's not guilty? Well, nobody seems to think so. The general consensus is that he got away with murder.

 

[drama_farmer]

I've never heard of a digital camera/video recorder that has no datestamp, that part puzzles me. It seems such a essential part of any camera to show you when something was recorded.

That was my initial reaction too. It is possible that the date/time were never "set" or, set to an incorrect date?