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

[Esprite]

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.

Without a doubt, Kam was a full-blown, cold-blooded psychopath. Bryer probably lower on the spectrum, but still definitely psychotic, and under Kam's control.

I have encountered single killers at this level a few times over the years, but never two who worked together, nor any so young. These encounters involved allowing their children's visitation with spousal approval, because in the Canadian justice system, they have the right to appeal, despite the odds against them.

They will smile at you all teeth, and soft soothing voice, but their eyes are completely dead, as they look you directly in the eye. I was always completely aware that if not for the handcuffs, shackles and armed guard beside them that silencing me, and my questions, would give them the greatest pleasure.

 

[cartman]

Taken from the RCMP report:

Police checks revealed McLeod and Schmegelsky had limited police interactions [nothing of note] and no criminal records. Based on the known facts at the time, both males were considered missing and possibly further victims. Police Dog Services, Search and Rescue, Tactical Troop and Air Services were utilized in efforts to locate the missing men in the Dease Lake area and further evidence.


Anyone else wondering what 'limited police interactions [nothing of note]' could mean?

 

[Sillybilly]

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%

Don't really need links to support because ...

Unless there is direct evidence (an eye witness account) all other evidence is circumstantial, so yes ... most cases that result in guilty verdicts are a result of the "totality of the evidence" which is primarily circumstantial, unless of course there is an eye witness.

In Canada, a judge pre-screens potential jurors for partiality, so sure, if someone answered that question in the affirmative they might not make it out the starting gate to the next round of the jury selection process.

When considering circumstantial evidence, it has to be taken into account with "totality of the evidence" and one has to consider reasonable inference compared to speculation.

In considering "reasonable doubt", driving away in a murder victim's car, which is more "reasonable"? Is it more reasonable to infer guilt or is it more reasonable to speculate on an unknown reason? (See last paragraph of the snippet below.)

Unless there is direct evidence (an eye witness account) all other evidence is circumstantial, so yes ... most cases that result in guilty verdicts are a result of the totality of the evidence which is primarily circumstantial, unless of course there is an eye witness.

Here's a good explanation of circumstantial vs direct evidence:

The Difference Between Circumstantial and Direct Evidence

In Villaroman, the Supreme Court of Canada made the clearest pronouncement of the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

• Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves a fact or resolves a matter in issue. The only inference involved in direct evidence is that the testimony is true.
• Circumstantial evidence on the other hand finds its probative value in the inferences to be drawn from the facts. In other words, circumstantial evidence, if believed, allows a fact to be inferred. However, a jury must be cautioned about "jumping to conclusions" or "filling in the blanks" with circumstantial evidence.

Example:

The example given during the Appeal was looking out the window, seeing the road is wet, seeing its raining and/or assuming it had been raining (i.e. direct evidence). However, taking a closer look might reveal that the sidewalks are dry, or a sound that could be coming from a street-cleaning truck can be heard in the distance (i.e. circumstantial evidence).

Distinguish Between Inference and Speculation

Traditionally, inferences had to be taken from direct evidence of facts. Villaroman has changed this thought process; the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it is now acceptable to pull inferences from circumstantial evidence.

• Inference is something that is reasonable.
• Speculation can lead to erroneous, flawed and faulty inferences.

The Supreme Court of Canada indicated that when it comes to circumstantial evidence, any inferences based on circumstantial evidence must be reasonable, and not speculative. The danger is that speculative inferences can cause a trier of fact to make a leap of logic, unsupported by the evidence.

I would add that in this particular case, there will never be a trial, so IMO all we can do with the information we have been given is form opinions based on what is reasonable to conclude rather than speculate on unknowns that may or may not have been.

 

[sandbar]

Hunh, this is kinda interesting: the only pre-noon sighting. So, they were sleeping during the day? I wonder where?

2019/07/19 11:38 Kitwanga, BC

From RCMP in British Columbia - Overview of Fort Nelson and Dease Lake Homicide Investigation

 

[Schmoosh]

Without a doubt, Kam was a full-blown, cold-blooded psychopath. Bryer probably lower on the spectrum, but still definitely psychotic, and under Kam's control.

I have encountered single killers at this level a few times over the years, but never two who worked together, nor any so young. These encounters involved allowing their children's visitation with spousal approval, because in the Canadian justice system, they have the right to appeal, despite the odds against them.

They will smile at you all teeth, and soft soothing voice, but their eyes are completely dead, as they look you directly in the eye. I was always completely aware that if not for the handcuffs, shackles and armed guard beside them that silencing me, and my questions, would give them the greatest pleasure.

"Police said it appeared the pair decided to kill themselves after getting trapped in an area of the woods they couldn’t escape from. RCMP also said they couldn’t determine if the killings were planned or not, but there was no clear leader of the two. Police described the pair in a “partnership.”"

Port Alberni suspects confessed to northern B.C. murders in recorded videos but showed no remorse: police

 

[ldlager]

That would be absolutely terrifying. I don't even want to imagine what Lucas, Chyna and Mr.Dyck went through in their last moments.

This makes me wonder if one of them did more of the shooting than the other. I also wonder why it was decided that Kam would be the one to shoot Bryer and then himself. Why Bryer first? Why didn't Bryer shoot Kam first? Why not do it at the same time if they had two guns? So many questions. I'd really like to know how it was even determined that Kam shot Bryer first. Even though they discussed the suicide in their videos, how could it be proven that Bryer was willing/prepared to be shot when he was? Just speculating...

Dbm

 

[sandbar]

Don't really need links to support because ...

Unless there is direct evidence (an eye witness account) all other evidence is circumstantial, so yes ... most cases that result in guilty verdicts are a result of the "totality of the evidence" which is primarily circumstantial, unless of course there is an eye witness.

In Canada, a judge pre-screens potential jurors for partiality, so sure, if someone answered that question in the affirmative they might not make it out the starting gate to the next round of the jury selection process.

When considering circumstantial evidence, it has to be taken into account with "totality of the evidence" and one has to consider reasonable inference compared to speculation.

In considering "reasonable doubt", driving away in a murder victim's car, which is more "reasonable"? Is it more reasonable to infer guilt or is it more reasonable to speculate on an unknown reason? (See last paragraph of the snippet below.)

Unless there is direct evidence (an eye witness account) all other evidence is circumstantial, so yes ... most cases that result in guilty verdicts are a result of the totality of the evidence which is primarily circumstantial, unless of course there is an eye witness.

Here's a good explanation of circumstantial vs direct evidence:

The Difference Between Circumstantial and Direct Evidence

In Villaroman, the Supreme Court of Canada made the clearest pronouncement of the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

• Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves a fact or resolves a matter in issue. The only inference involved in direct evidence is that the testimony is true.
• Circumstantial evidence on the other hand finds its probative value in the inferences to be drawn from the facts. In other words, circumstantial evidence, if believed, allows a fact to be inferred. However, a jury must be cautioned about "jumping to conclusions" or "filling in the blanks" with circumstantial evidence.

Example:

The example given during the Appeal was looking out the window, seeing the road is wet, seeing its raining and/or assuming it had been raining (i.e. direct evidence). However, taking a closer look might reveal that the sidewalks are dry, or a sound that could be coming from a street-cleaning truck can be heard in the distance (i.e. circumstantial evidence).

Distinguish Between Inference and Speculation

Traditionally, inferences had to be taken from direct evidence of facts. Villaroman has changed this thought process; the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it is now acceptable to pull inferences from circumstantial evidence.

• Inference is something that is reasonable.
• Speculation can lead to erroneous, flawed and faulty inferences.

The Supreme Court of Canada indicated that when it comes to circumstantial evidence, any inferences based on circumstantial evidence must be reasonable, and not speculative. The danger is that speculative inferences can cause a trier of fact to make a leap of logic, unsupported by the evidence.

I would add that in this particular case, there will never be a trial, so IMO all we can do with the information we have been given is form opinions based on what is reasonable to conclude rather than speculate on unknowns that may or may not have been.

Point taken.

But I still get to keep my lunch.

 

[Schmoosh]

Hunh, this is kinda interesting: the only pre-noon sighting. So, they were sleeping during the day? I wonder where?

2019/07/19 11:38 Kitwanga, BC

From RCMP in British Columbia - Overview of Fort Nelson and Dease Lake Homicide Investigation

Maybe the cowards were afraid of ...oh, I don't know ... maybe being murdered in cold blood if they slept at night?

 

[Blue Amethyst]

What I found interesting was the police report totally acknowledges Mr. Beardy's help while during that time period there was that other tour boat operator who was taking credit. Clearly from the RCMP it was all Beardy's help, not the tour boat guy (sry I forget his name...)

I think in cases like this it would have been nice if Billy Beardy had also been supplied with a bullet proof vest. How sad it would have been if he had been shot while doing the search. MOO

 

[Esprite]

"Police said it appeared the pair decided to kill themselves after getting trapped in an area of the woods they couldn’t escape from. RCMP also said they couldn’t determine if the killings were planned or not, but there was no clear leader of the two. Police described the pair in a “partnership.”"

If Kam killed Bryer, and then himself, he was definitely the more psychopathic, and therefore in control of Bryer. Full-blown psychopathic killers demand complete control in all situations.

Port Alberni suspects confessed to northern B.C. murders in recorded videos but showed no remorse: police

 

[Sillybilly]

Point taken.

But I still get to keep my lunch.

Oh c'mon ... deal is a deal. Cough up with the lunch

jk

 

[CinNC]

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.

I guess they won't know if any data can be recovered unless they try. Perhaps they already have but aren't sharing that info.

Everything we know and have learned is a balm to those following this case. Everything we don't know continues to nag at us.

 

[LoisLane]

Sorry, I only joined this discussion a short time ago. What was LD's connection to Port Alberni?

“His PhD thesis, dated 2003, was on demographic patterns and processes of Mazzaella splendens – a type of seaweed – at Bamfield on Barkley Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

“Len loved field work, and the research he chose required long hours, year-round, working in often adverse conditions at night, to catch the winter low tides,” Robert DeWreede, a retired botany professor and long-time colleague said in a statement.
Manhunt for two B.C. murder suspects focuses on Manitoba wilderness

Transportation to Bamfield typically departs from PA via bus, car, boat service. He most likely spent some of his time in the PA community.

That is all I can really find from MSM sources. I think the Star point this out as well.

 

[Blue Amethyst]

Yes, he pretty much got it sorted! I was sad to hear how he was afraid of being shot, and the police he was taking around in the boat all had protective vests and equipment, but did not offer him any! It was amazing that he saw the bird fly out and realised this could mean something, where other people may/would not have taken notice!

Sorry, I just mentioned this but hadn’t caught up to your post yet. Yes, he saw the sign of the Raven.

 

[CinNC]

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

Data recorders used in aircraft are encased in an "everything proof" container, correct? I'm just trying to form some context in my head regarding the feasibility of recovering information from their computers after a fire.

 

[sandbar]

I think in cases like this it would have been nice if Billy Beardy had also been supplied with a bullet proof vest. How sad it would have been if he had been shot while doing the search. MOO

Ya, that RCMP didn't give Beardy a vest is REALLY REALLY sh!tty.

I'm glad he took that risk, but IMO he should not have been put in that position.

 

[Schmoosh]

I guess they won't know if any data can be recovered unless they try. Perhaps they already have but aren't sharing that info.

Everything we know and have learned is a balm to those following this case. Everything we don't know continues to nag at us.

Assuming that the computer tower that was left behind to burn still had the hard drive left in it.

 

[sandbar]

Oh c'mon ... deal is a deal. Cough up with the lunch

jk

✌

 

[Jan424]

Not preplanned and crimes of opportunity ... I'm not convinced it wasn't somewhat preplanned.. I'm sure they knew what they were going to do when they left with those guns. Why buy an extra gun to go on a trip looking for work? I think they planned on killing, but didn't plan on who it would be. They just found their victims as they went, victims that were easy targets. I think they always knew how their trip was going to end.

I wonder how they know that Mcleod shot Bryer first, and that it was a definite suicide pact. Guess it was mentioned in one of their videos.

Agree with all of this... and it’s possible they mentioned details about the suicide pact on the video, but also possible Kam shot Bryer from behind (in the head, etc), which would obviously tell the story as well.

 

[CinNC]

Sorry, I just mentioned this but hadn’t caught up to your post yet. Yes, he saw the sign of the Raven.

Ravens are scavengers. As a seasoned hunter, Mr. Beardy knew that a raven would likely be present as an opportunistic omnivore who feeds on carrion. Not a pretty picture, but Mr. Beardy put two and two together.