Canada - Lucas Fowler, Chynna Deese, and Leonard Dyck, all murdered, Alaska Hwy, BC, Jul 2019 #22

[NJSleuth91]

Another reason why I wish the report was a little more precise.

Would the RCMP jump into overdrive from a witness report that came from a person who just “observed” them? Certainly they could become suspects, but I think the RCMP would require more concrete information... a random stranger with some sneaking suspicion is not enough to immediately label two teenagers as so dangerous they must not be approached.

Unless the witness was a stranger who was actively threatened by them — and this is something I believe they would include in the report if that were the case — it’s not just a random observer who came forward.

It really sounds like it was someone who knew them and had a history with them. JMO.

ETA: I think RCMP would actually take it very, very seriously if a friend came forward and said “they told me they were going to shoot people.” I don’t see how a statement like that from a known associate would be held less trustworthy than a random stranger coming forward.

Well at that point (2:30-ish PM on the 22nd) they had three tips, not one:

a) The tip from whoever it was who knew them.

b) The surveillance footage showing them driving a RAV4, which one could inductively reason to say "well, they most likely weren't victims themselves, and they must have gotten the car from somewhere, and chances are it was probably stolen from the murder victim, and therefore chances are they killed him."

c) The account -- which was actually reported on the 21st, the day before -- of two people matching their description attempting to hunt and presumably murder the guy who escaped.

I agree. We did have “friends” who came forward to share threats that BS made. I’m saying that whatever the account it would fit within the timeline, not years or months prior even. As for a random stranger being able to come forward I mean that they could be loosely described as “knowing” them because this person could have strong evidence to validate their identities and had an interaction of sorts that would suggest they are capable of murder. So for example.. sold them ammo, or weaponry, liquor, was threatened in some form by them, confirmed identity by photo ID, and possibly a full out confession to a random stranger for kicks. Whatever it was I think it was more substantial than what could be classified as rumour or gossip.

My guesses are:

a) They made a vague confession to one of their friends in between the murders, before they stopped all phone contact on the 17th. For example, something like "we did something really messed up" and when pressed for more detail "don't worry, you'll hear about it soon." Or maybe their friend was like "so what are you guys up to?" and they were like "oh, you know, just killing people" but played it off as a dark joke, or something. In fact, even before the report came out, I speculated that they may have done something like this.

b) Some weird, creepy talk about forming a militia, playing out a video game in real life, what it would be like to kill someone, mass shootings, or something, from the two of them, maybe a recurring thing over the years. We already knew Bryer said stuff like this, but maybe Kam did too among people he knew better. If it was this one, I'm going to guess the person who reported it was one of their friends who played Airsoft with them. Either way, I think the person who reported it was likely one of their three other close friends (Bryer's dad mentioned he had a group of four close friends including Kam).

 

[poupetty77]

Another reason why I wish the report was a little more precise.

Would the RCMP jump into overdrive from a witness report that came from a person who just “observed” them? Certainly they could become suspects, but I think the RCMP would require more concrete information... a random stranger with some sneaking suspicion is not enough to immediately label two teenagers as so dangerous they must not be approached.

Unless the witness was a stranger who was actively threatened by them — and this is something I believe they would include in the report if that were the case — it’s not just a random observer who came forward.

It really sounds like it was someone who knew them and had a history with them. JMO.

ETA: I think RCMP would actually take it very, very seriously if a friend came forward and said “they told me they were going to shoot people.” I don’t see how a statement like that from a known associate would be held less trustworthy than a random stranger coming forward.

I SO want to know who that person is. Not their name but how they knew them, what made them think they were capable of killing people (they seem to be the only person thinking that) and why they waited 3 days to come forward. Did they know them enough to know they could kill but not enough to know they went missing near the scene of a murder? It seems like RCMP had questioned Kam and Bryer's families and close friends already (the associates), so who is it?

I am so curious about it.

 

[poupetty77]

I agree. We did have “friends” who came forward to share threats that BS made. I’m saying that whatever the account it would fit within the timeline, not years or months prior even. As for a random stranger being able to come forward I mean that they could be loosely described as “knowing” them because this person could have strong evidence to validate their identities and had an interaction of sorts that would suggest they are capable of murder. So for example.. sold them ammo, or weaponry, liquor, was threatened in some form by them, confirmed identity by photo ID, and possibly a full out confession to a random stranger for kicks. Whatever it was I think it was more substantial than what could be classified as rumour or gossip.

I think that is a reach. You can't say you know someone you saw once. They could recognise them, but knowing someone means a certain degree of relation, during a certain time, including discussion, going further than acquaintance. So definitely not someone who saw them once (or twice or three times). JMO

Also if they had threatened someone or confessed to them, RCMP would have included it in the report?

 

[NJSleuth91]

Also if they had threatened someone or confessed to them, RCMP would have included it in the report?

If it was a direct confession, but maybe not if it was a vague one, like the examples I mentioned.

I want to know why the police specifically left out what they said from the report. Could it be that maybe the person who reported it was a minor (under age 19) and there might be laws about that? Anyone know if that is a thing?

 

[poupetty77]

If it was a direct confession, but maybe not if it was a vague one, like the examples I mentioned.

I want to know why the police specifically left out what they said from the report. Could it be that maybe the person who reported it was a minor (under age 19) and there might be laws about that? Anyone know if that is a thing?

I was answering to that

sold them ammo, or weaponry, liquor, was threatened in some form by them, confirmed identity by photo ID, and possibly a full out confession to a random stranger for kicks

I have no idea why the didn't say more about the tip. I understand why they wouldn't say the name or relation, but they could have given a vague idea of what was the tip about. At this point, I don't believe the report was to inform us of everything they found. It was a "look, they are guilty, here is the proof, leave us alone". Which is their right obviously. JMO

 

[NJSleuth91]

At this point, I don't believe the report was to inform us of everything they found. It was a "look, they are guilty, here is the proof, leave us alone". Which is their right obviously. JMO

I got trashed for saying the police probably know approximately when they died and haven't released it. But, yeah, I agree, the police most likely have a lot more information in general than what was in the report, and the report was basically, as you said, "here's the proof they did it, go away."

 

[LoisLane]

I think that is a reach. You can't say you know someone you saw once. They could recognise them, but knowing someone means a certain degree of relation, during a certain time, including discussion, going further than acquaintance. So definitely not someone who saw them once (or twice or three times). JMO

Also if they had threatened someone or confessed to them, RCMP would have included it in the report?

I guess I am reaching. I suggested this witness would “know” them if there was conclusive proof such as proof of ID. Not “knew” them as in a relationship.

This person is considered a witness as per the report. A confession doesn’t make sense if the witness did nothing wrong except come in contact with them. The report left out the Cold Lake sighting so I can’t rationalize why they entered some witness testimony and not others.

Based on detail in the report the witness who “knew” them is vague. They didn’t even specify which RCMP detachment they reported this to whether it was Port Alberni or a Saskatchewan detachment for example. That would have been a simple detail but they chose “a RCMP detachment”.

“At approximately 2:00 p.m., primary investigators became aware of a witness who came forward to a RCMP detachment and provided a statement.”

Another point in the timeline that stands out to me is the early morning hours of the information provided on July 22. (Not even 24 hours after KM and BS were declared missing -not suspects). Was it the missing persons report that prompted the review of cam footage and call into ML RCMP or was it a complaint report of an incident? Again, do the RCMP have to explain the specifics or can they just leave everything after the murders as observations?

“On July 22, 2019, at approximately 07:30 a.m., the Meadow Lake RCMP responded to information that McLeod and Schmegelsky had been at a gas station in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan.”

For all we know the person who “knew” them and what they were capable of was AS. His first interview “blaze of glory” was referenced July 23 but could have been verified to police the day prior.

 

[poupetty77]

I guess I am reaching. I suggested this witness would “know” them if there was conclusive proof such as proof of ID. Not “knew” them as in a relationship.

This person is considered a witness as per the report. A confession doesn’t make sense if the witness did nothing wrong except come in contact with them. The report left out the Cold Lake sighting so I can’t rationalize why they entered some witness testimony and not others.

Based on detail in the report the witness who “knew” them is vague. They didn’t even specify which RCMP detachment they reported this to whether it was Port Alberni or a Saskatchewan detachment for example. That would have been a simple detail but they chose “a RCMP detachment”.

“At approximately 2:00 p.m., primary investigators became aware of a witness who came forward to a RCMP detachment and provided a statement.”

Another point in the timeline that stands out to me is the early morning hours of the information provided on July 22. (Not even 24 hours after KM and BS were declared missing -not suspects). Was it the missing persons report that prompted the review of cam footage and call into ML RCMP or was it a complaint report of an incident? Again, do the RCMP have to explain the specifics or can they just leave everything after the murders as observations?

“On July 22, 2019, at approximately 07:30 a.m., the Meadow Lake RCMP responded to information that McLeod and Schmegelsky had been at a gas station in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan.”

For all we know the person who “knew” them and what they were capable of was AS. His first interview “blaze of glory” was referenced July 23 but could have been verified to police the day prior.

I think it would be someone who knew about them, not knew them, if they could just say they saw their ID.

AS didn't know Kam and I can't see him go to the police about his son? Why would he suddenly realise Bryer and Kam could kill several days after they went missing. It doesn't make sense that it would be him. JMO

 

[LoisLane]

I think it would be someone who knew about them, not knew them, if they could just say they saw their ID.

AS didn't know Kam and I can't see him go to the police about his son, I don't think he like LE much? Why would he suddenly realise Bryer and Kam could kill several days after they went missing. It doesn't make sense that it would be him. JMO

AS did know Kam. IIRC there is a reference of conversations he had with both of them. The problem, as it came across early on was that AS was not contacted by RCMP when the boys truck was discovered, and he learned of it through the media. His interviews highlighted a lot of the “problems” with BS so I wouldn’t dismiss him as holding back his concerns that his child could murder.

ETA.. interview with AS was on Monday, July 22
Extended video from Monday: Father of Port Alberni suspect in northern B.C. murder case speaks to CHEK News

“This interview was a day prior to RCMP announcing Bryer and Kam McLeod are suspects in the deaths of Australian Lucas Fowler, his American girlfriend Chynna Deese and an unidentified man found a few kilometres from the teens’ burned-out vehicle.”

 

[poupetty77]

In this interview from when Bryer was missing, AS mentionned talking to a RMCP officer on the 22nd at 5 in the morning. I don't know if it was their first contact, but what could have happened between 5 AM and 2 PM for him to change his mind?

 

[LoisLane]

In this interview from when Bryer was missing, AS mentionned talking to a RMCP officer on the 22nd at 5 in the morning. I don't know if it was their first contact, but what could have happened between 5 AM and 2 PM for him to change his mind?

It could be as simple as AS revealing the texts that BS says they are going to Alberta which wasn’t in line with the family saying they were off to the Yukon. AS making a statement to RCMP at 5:51 am and then the report saying they received info at 2:00 pm could be where the witness testimony can be tied into coming from AS. 2:00 pm could be just the set time of updates between detachments.

ETA. Clarity

 

[poupetty77]

It could be as simple as AS revealing the texts that BS says they are going to Alberta which wasn’t in line with the family saying they were off to the Yukon. AS making a statement to RCMP at 5:51 am and then the report saying they received info at 2:00 pm could be where the witness testimony can be tied into coming from AS. 2:00 pm could be just the set time of updates between detachments.

ETA. Clarity

I don't believe that that text indicated that Kam and Bryer were believed to be potentially the killer by the tip, which is what the report says. It launched a pretty intense manhunt. So it had to be serious. It made the RMCP say that they were armed and dangerous. Somebody came out with a strong suspicion

 

[LoisLane]

I don't believe that that text indicated that Kam and Bryer were believed to be potentially the killer by the tip, which is what the report says. It launched a pretty intense manhunt. So it had to be serious. It made the RMCP say that they were armed and dangerous. Somebody came out with a strong suspicion

No but it did demonstrate the dishonesty of their trip plans between the reports they received from other family members. It was a good start. There is also the reference by AS of Airsoft so they were potentially armed and an average citizen may not be aware of whether it was a lethal weapon or not if confronted with it.

Plus the level of violence with LD demonstrates they can inflict other forms besides gunshot.

The Cabella’s purchase disclosure was not clarified as to when police become aware of that report so we don’t know if RCMP had that intel by the end of day July 22.

 

[poupetty77]

No but it did demonstrate the dishonesty of their trip plans between the reports they received from other family members. It was a good start. There is also the reference by AS of Airsoft so they were potentially armed and an average citizen may not be aware of whether it was a lethal weapon or not if confronted with it.

Plus the level of violence with LD demonstrates they can inflict other forms besides gunshot.

The Cabella’s purchase disclosure was not clarified as to when police become aware of that report so we don’t know if RCMP had that intel by the end of day July 22.

I don't believe at all that the tip comes from AS but it's JMO I could be wrong

 

[Runningforthewind]

No but it did demonstrate the dishonesty of their trip plans between the reports they received from other family members. It was a good start. There is also the reference by AS of Airsoft so they were potentially armed and an average citizen may not be aware of whether it was a lethal weapon or not if confronted with it.

Plus the level of violence with LD demonstrates they can inflict other forms besides gunshot.

The Cabella’s purchase disclosure was not clarified as to when police become aware of that report so we don’t know if RCMP had that intel by the end of day July 22.

I don't believe for one second AS wold sell out his son.

 

[LoisLane]

I don't believe at all that the tip comes from AS but it's JMO I could be wrong

I’m not committed to anything based on the lack of info (for the specific observations). We just can’t draw a conclusion of what each item presented represents/means/knows with the vagueness of the single piece-by-piece detail or lack thereof. I am just too stubborn to be expected to trust that what we see is what we get. I’m not saying these guys were innocent. I just expected the limited info to be presented simply and clearly and IMO it isn’t.

It’s clear we can’t come to any more insight here carrying on the way we do. I was hopeful that by now a reporter would dissect this a bit more but that isn’t happening.

 

[LoisLane]

I don't believe for one second AS wold sell out his son.

He didn’t have to. The police compare what they are told with what they know. He didn’t have to sell him out and he most likely wouldn’t have had any evidence to do so but he most likely did have enough to share that painted a different picture than that of the other families.

He clearly rallied for his sons safe recovery and loved him dearly. If what he knew could have helped I’m sure he would have disclosed it as best he could.

 

[DarkSkink]

Yeah it's one thing to say "I think they shoplifted" (I personally disagree since there's no evidence to support it and the police don't seem to think they did...but hey, it's your opinion)...quite another to refer to it as a "shoplifting video" as in "that video definitely 100% shows them shoplifting."

I feel like I want to make a joke where Clippy from Microsoft Office is like "It looks like you're trying to make an assertion without evidence. Would you like help with that?" but my requisite 5mg melatonin has kicked in so I'm too tired to think of a punchline LOL.

lol... the mention of the shoplifting video was in response to someone saying they didn't think that the two had committed any thefts previously.

I pointed out how well they worked together in the store.

Sure, BS could have been doing up his jacket because he was cold, and yes, the back of the jacket could have flared out awkwardly because he had a spinal condition we weren't aware of.

Of course, KM might have walked ahead, not as a lookout or a blocking distraction, but because he simply liked to walk ahead. When someone walks into the picture ahead, KM maybe turns around not to give a heads up to BS, but to sneeze.

They also walk out of the store with nothing in their hands, but maybe they bought something.

Maybe the store also doesn't know anything is missing until they do an inventory.

Call the video what you want, they sure are demonstrating that they know how to do something suspicious in a store together, that they can automatically assume advantageous physical positions without communicating, and when the need to communicate arises, they can do so inconspicuously.

 

[Runningforthewind]

Pretty small store and town so maybe not but they do have the ceiling cams in place.

Meadowlake is considered a city. Not that it matters I guess.

 

[LoisLane]

Meadowlake is considered a city. Not that it matters I guess.

Just over 5000 people so I guess it is a city. A very very small city. I am not sure what else I had said in relation to this partial snip but I doubt it changes where I was going with it.